.
No, 1
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
Betiate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, February 3, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 3, 1958
Speech from the Throne, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor 3
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 6
Passing of Mr. F. S. Thomas and Mr. T. Pryde, expressions of regret,
Mr. Frost, Mr. Oliver, Mr. MacDonald 6
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost 9
3
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 3, 1958, being the first day of the Fourth Session of the Twenty-fifth
Legislature of the Province of Ontario for the despatch of business pursuant to a proclamation
of the Honourable J. Keiller Mackay, Lieutenant-Governor of the province.
Monday, February 3, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met,
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
of the province then entered the House and,
being seated on the Throne, was pleased to
open the session by the following gracious
speech.
Hon. J. K. Mackay (Lieutenant-Governor):
Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario:
It gives me much pleasure to welcome you
today as you take up your duties at this fourth
session of the Twenty-fifth Legislature.
Since last session, our country has been
honoured by a visit from Her Gracious
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal
Highness, The Prince Philip. This visit has
cemented more closely in our hearts the spe-
cial ties that bind us to our sovereign who is
both the Queen of Canada and the Head of
the Commonwealth.
At this session, consideration will be given
to matters of great importance. This year has
its problems and challenges as well as its op-
portunities. Adjustments have occurred in
some lines of activity, involving considerable
unemployment.
Nevertheless, the past year has been one of
impressive achievement. Despite economic
adjustments, more people were employed and
more goods were produced and purchased last
year than ever before in our history. Private
and public investment reached a level nearly
3 times as great as 10 years ago. In many
branches of industry new records of produc-
tion were established.
Although the rise in unemployment does
not warrant complacency, there are many
strong elements in our economy. The capital
expenditures of our provincial and municipal
governments will be appreciably higher this
year than a year ago, reaching an unprece-
dented level. Capital investment in residential
housing and in the service industries will also
increase.
Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Water Resources
Commission, and the other service sectors of
our economy that are engaged in reinforcing
our power and energy resources and our
water, sewage and transportation facilities are
projecting even greater programmes in the
future. Two new electric power plants will
be erected on the Mississagi and Abitibi rivers.
These times require the confidence and
determination of all of us to take advantage
and make the best of Canadian opportunities.
In this regard, too, the relaxation of credit
restrictions will assist both private and public
investment, while our rapid population growth
will continue to give impetus to consumer
spending.
With the knowledge that comes from the
opportunities before us, we can face the
future confident that we shall be able to meet
the problems of dislocation as they arise. Our
goal is the maintenance of high and stable
levels of employment and income. We can
best achieve it by the co-operation of all
levels of government with business, industry
and labour.
In times of peace, the provinces and their
municipalities form the right arm of develop-
ment. That has been our historic pattern. It
is therefore a source of gratification to us that,
in recent months, there has been a trend in
federal-provincial relations favourable to the
provinces.
It will be recalled that at the conference
on fiscal arrangements in 1955-56 there was
little understanding or tangible recognition
given to the problems of the provinces. In the
light of Ontario's rapid industrial and popula-
tion growth, the arrangements that emerged
were unrealistic and unjust to our people.
On November 25 last, the Government of
Canada convened a new conference from
which, although only the preliminary meeting
has been held, much has been achieved.
The federal attitude of refusing to contrib-
ute to the cost of relief for any case load
below .45 per cent, of the population has been
reversed. Because of the insertion of this
"threshold", Ontario had refrained from sign-
ing an agreement. Happily, this provision has
now been removed and Ontario has entered
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
into an agreement which eliminates the
arbitrary and invidious distinction between
unemployables and employables.
A further advantage of the new arrange-
ment is that the province has reduced the
municipal share of relief costs from 40 per
cent, to 20 per cent.
Another achievement of the conference to
date concerns hospital insurance. The totally
unrealistic condition requiring the participa-
tion of 6 provinces before the plan came into
effect has been eliminated. Thus, one of the
most notable advances in human betterment
in all of our history has become a certainty.
The Ontario hospital insurance programme
will come into operation on January 1, 1959.
This great plan will offer advantages to our
people in every walk of life. Everyone in
Ontario who subscribes to it, irrespective of
age, pre-existing or existing condition of
health, disability or occupation, may join the
plan and share its benefits. It will provide
protection for short-stay illnesses in hospital
as well as prolonged illnesses and its coverage
will be available to patients in mental
hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria.
Another notable advance in the field of
hospital service is the greatly increased
schedule of capital grants to hospitals. The
upward revision in both the federal and
Ontario grants will stimulate the construction
of all classes of hospitals, make it easier to
meet the requirements of the Ontario hospital
insurance programme and open up new em-
ployment opportunities.
The federal government has also taken a
very important step in recognizing the prov-
ince's need for additional revenue. The pro-
vincial share of personal income tax has been
raised from 10 to 13 per cent, as an interim
measure until the federal-provincial confer-
ence has another opportunity of assessing
the fundamental problems of provincial and
municipal requirements. It augurs well for
the success of this important conference that
so much has been accomplished in so short
a time.
Legislation will be submitted to you giv-
ing effect to the matters to which I have
referred.
The past year has been an important one
in the development of orderly farm market-
ing. This year there will again be improve-
ments. The success of marketing plans will
contribute greatly to extending a measure
of social justice to our agricultural people.
Measures will be introduced to strengthen
the activities which are being carried on
for the benefit of the farmers of this province.
Extension services will be broadened. The
agricultural and veterinary colleges will be
expanded to facilitate more teaching and
research work. Other legislation will en-
hance the professional status of veterinarians
and the graduates of our agricultural col-
leges. There will be enactments to provide
greater security for our producers who have
grains and seeds stored in elevators. Among
other measures to be presented will be an
extension of the powers of the milk in-
dustry board, enabling it to arbitrate in
matters relating to cheese or milk manu-
factured into concentrated milk products.
During the past year, the programme of
extending electric power in the rural areas
of Ontario was carried forward vigorously.
To facilitate greater progress, Ontario Hydro
has this year assumed the cost of extending
an electric power line to any soundly estab-
lished farm for two-thirds of a mile against
the former maximum of one-third of a mile.
A large number of farmers will benefit from
this revision.
In furtherance of the notable advances in
our province in the matter of human rights,
a programme of publicity and education de-
signed to aid in overcoming discrimination
will be undertaken. Legislation will be in-
troduced to set up a commission to integrate
the administration of the several Acts now
in force and to carry out a programme of
education. Amendments will be made to
The Workmen's Compensation Act to broaden
its application.
Health and welfare services will be ex-
panded to keep pace with the needs of our
growing society. The demands for increased
mental hospital accommodation and full-
time health services are being met by ac-
celerated construction and the training of
qualified personnel. The construction pro-
gramme for mental hospitals is a very large
one. A new hospital was recently opened
in North Bay. New hospitals are planned
for Kent and Huron counties.
In addition, large extensions are currently
under way at 12 existing hospitals, and work
on several others will be started immediately.
To keep our province in the forefront of
medical advances, new techniques and mod-
ern methods will be introduced for the
treatment of the mentally ill. You will be
asked to approve funds for this large pro-
gramme.
Changes, too, will be sought in a number
of Acts relating to the betterment of the
health of our people. These will include
new legislation to enable additional safe-
guards to be taken against air pollution.
Since the last session, and coincidental
with the increase of old age pensions to $55
FEBRUARY 3, 1958
per month, like increases have been made
in old-age assistance, disability pension al-
lowances and blind persons' allowances. You
will be asked to vote funds to provide for
these increased benefits, and also for a bet-
terment in mothers' allowances and unem-
ployment relief. A new Act— The General
Welfare Assistance Act— will be introduced
to replace and modernize The Unemploy-
ment Relief Act.
Amendments to The Charitable Institu-
tions Act and The Homes for the Aged Act
will increase the province's share of the cost
of these services, thus easing municipal finan-
cial burdens as well as assisting the worthy
charitable organizations engaged in this
work. In the case of the charitable institu-
tions, the province's contribution will be
raised to 75 per cent.
You will also be asked to provide for a
new system of homemakers' and nursing
services that will help to preserve normal
family life and reduce hospital and institu-
tional care requirements and costs.
Significant and far-reaching reforms will
be made to our school grant system. Some
will benefit higher education. In this year,
1958, we shall witness the institution of
measures never before attempted in this
province.
This is the second year— and a most im-
portant one— in the 3-year plan commenced
last session.
Education is at once our greatest problem
and our greatest opportunity. One of the
outstanding turning points in education oc-
curred in 1945 with the vastly increased
grants of that year. Since then many im-
provements have been made. In the last
13 years, grants have been increased 12-fold.
This year you will be asked to consider a
further increase that will be much the
largest in our history.
Based on a new approach aimed at pro-
viding more equitable distribution, a for-
mula has been devised that includes pro-
vincially equalized assessment, pupil attend-
ance and a growth-need factor for all of our
schools, rural and urban.
The problem of education is now a mat-
ter of concern for the western world. For-
tunately this was recognized in Ontario
nearly 15 years ago, with the result that,
from our elementary schools through to our
universities, which have grown from 3 to 8
in that period, Ontario has kept ahead in
education.
To assist students through university, the
amount being made available for bursaries
will be increased and in addition a new
system of students' aid loans will be ini-
tiated. It is by such improvements to edu-
cation that our social and economic progress
is furthered.
Increased grants for education, of course,
decrease the burden on the municipal tax-
payers. But in addition, other steps will be
taken and services introduced of benefit to
the municipalities. The Assessment Branch
of The Department of Municipal Affairs is
opening 8 regional offices. Numerous amend-
ments to The Municipal Act, The Assess-
ment Act and other Acts will be introduced
in order to accelerate progress and ensure
the strengthening of local authority.
Ontario's highways and public works con-
struction programme was higher in 1957 for
the third successive year, and 1958 will be
no exception. At this session you will be
asked to approve a record volume of work,
designed both to meet the needs of our
fast-growing province and to stimulate busi-
ness and employment. Similarly a programme
to bolster the construction of housing and
conservation projects will be recommended
for your approval.
The Department of Transport, together
with The Department of the Attorney-
General have initiated major steps to
improve Ontario's traffic situation. Legisla-
tion will be submitted on a wide variety
of subjects dealing with the administration
of justice.
One of the amendments will permit the
appointment, without restriction, of any per-
son as a third member of a police commis-
sion.
Amendments to several Acts for the de-
velopment, conservation and protection of
our natural heritage of forests and mines
will be introduced. A programme of forest
and access road development will be sub-
mitted which will not only improve our
forest protection services but promote forest
and mining production. The Department
of Mines, in conjunction with other depart-
ments, is conducting a complete re-examina-
tion of the problem of silicosis.
Further immediate expansion in the prov-
ince's growing parks system will be carried
out. Among the projects to which close
attention is being given is the St. Lawrence
parks system which will be extended into
Frontenac and Addington counties and, em-
bracing the fine Fort Henry project, will
stretch from the Quebec boundary to the
Bay of Quinte.
A number of significant matters will be
submitted to the committees of the House
for detailed study.
6
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In addition to the new legislation pre-
viously mentioned, amendments will be in-
troduced to the following Acts:
The Vital Statistics Act, The Brucellosis
Act, The Corporations Act, The Corpora-
tions Information Act, The Child Welfare
Act, The Mental Hospitals Act, The Public
Health Act, The Department of Education
Act, The Public Schools Act, The Highway
Traffic Act, The Insurance Act, The Mech-
anics' Lien Act, The Mining Act, The Min-
ing Tax Act, The Power Commission Act,
The Liquor Licence Act and The Liquor
Control Act.
In addition, a complete revision of The
Surveys Act will be introduced.
The welfare of the province's civil ser-
vice has made favourable progress. A re-
vision in salary rates which has not only
improved the position of individual mem-
bers of the service, but raised the general
standing of the provincial service itself, has
been undertaken. The membership of the
commission has been extended to include a
woman.
The public accounts for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1957, as well as the
treasurer's budget statement will be pre-
sented. The latter will contain a review of the
financial policies for this fiscal year and the
contemplated programme of expenditures and
revenues for the fiscal year beginning next
April 1. It will also provide a report in detail
of the outstanding progress made this year in
federal-provincial relations.
The importance of this subject and of the
submissions made by your province at the
3 conferences, including the one at present
in progress, cannot be over-emphasized.
Ontario is, and will be, confronted with the
problems arising from growth and develop-
ment to which progressive taxes are directly
related. Ontario has stressed, and will con-
tinue to stress, at federal-provincial meetings
the need for a just sharing of these tax
fields.
May Divine Providence guide your de-
liberations.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was then pleased to retire from the chamber.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that to prevent mistakes, I have obtained a
copy of His Honour's speech which I will
now read.
(Reading dispensed).
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
HOSPITAL SERVICES COMMISSION
ACT, 1957
Hon. M. Phillips moves first reading of Bill
No. 45, intituled, "An Act to amend The
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by hon.
G. H. Dunbar, that the speech of the Honour-
able, the Lieutenant-Governor to this House
(Mr. Mackay), be taken into consideration
tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that I have received, during the recess of the
House, notification of vacancies which have
occurred in the membership of the House, by
reason of the deaths of Fletcher S. Thomas,
member for the electoral district of Elgin and
Thomas Pryde, member for the electoral dis-
trict of Huron, and by reason of the resigna-
tions of George H. Doucett, member for the
electoral district of Lanark; Osie F. Ville-
neuve, member for the electoral district of
Glengarry; Philip T. Kelly, member for the
electoral district of Cochrane North; and
Dana Porter, member for the electoral district
of St. George.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, you have
referred to vacancies which have occurred in
the assembly. I should like to refer to two of
these. These were occasioned by the 'deaths
of the hon. members representing the con-
stituencies of Elgin and Huron.
Fletcher Stewart Thomas, the member for
Elgin, was elected in 1945 and continued to
represent that fine riding until his death last
November. Mr. Thomas was long in the serv-
ice of this province, as a matter of fact, his
services to his country commenced in 1916
with his enlistment as a gunner in the field
artillery.
On his return to Canada, he graduated
from the Ontario Agricultural College and
then served in the newly organized agricul-
tural representatives' organization in both
northern and southern Ontario until 1945. His
outstanding service, of course, was in the
county of Elgin, nevertheless, he brought with
him at that time a very wide experience in
both eastern and western Ontario where he
served in junior capacities and as well at the
Lakehead where he acquired a knowledge
of the problems of our great north country.
Subsequently in the Legislature, he served
as the Minister of Public Works and latterly
as the Minister of Agriculture.
"Tommy" Thomas, as he was known to us,
FEBRUARY 3, 1958
was a very fine personality. Human personal-
ity is something which it is impossible for us
to describe or assess. As a matter of fact,
human personality is of divine origin and
therefore beyond our powers to appraise. But
we can say this, that Mr. Thomas was essenti-
ally an advanced and an independent thinker.
He possessed a mind which was intensively
active. It was difficult, in fact impossible, for
him to ever let down or relax. To an extent,
his objectives, ideas and enthusiasm consumed
him and his strength.
Those of us who were close to him in his
courageous battle against ill health knew
these things. We can assess him as a man of
courage who was faced with the adversities of
health, a great kindly soul who was a fine
friend, and who felt and suffered within him-
self for the causes which he espoused. In ad-
dition to all of these things, Mr. Speaker, he
was a great friend and a great adviser.
On all sides of the House, the hon. members
miss him and express our sympathy to his wife
and to his family.
The late Mr. Thomas Pryde was the mem-
ber for Huron. He was born in Fifeshire,
Scotland, in the riding represented by Mr.
Asquith in his day. Proud of his race, to use
the words of a great Canadian in another
connection, a Scotsman he was born and a
Scotsman he died.
It was only natural in his coming to this
country, that he gravitated to the county of
Huron, where it was a community essentially
Scottish in its background. From that county,
Mr. Pryde served the people. He served in
the armed forces of this country as a member
of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in
World War I and as a member of the Royal
Canadian Air Force in World War II, also
he long served his municipality in municipal
affairs.
As might be expected, Mr. Pryde was a
Presbyterian, and an elder in the Calvin
Presbyterian Church.
Elected to the Legislature in 1948, he gave
distinguished service in this assembly. We
shall miss the late Tom Pryde and his Scot-
tish accent, and the kindly good sense he
brought to the administration of the affairs
of this assembly. He will be greatly missed
in his own community as well as here in this
assembly. We all join in expressing our
deepest sympathy to Mrs. Pryde and the
family.
Mr. Speaker, it has probably not been the
custom to refer here to the services of our
Lieutenant-Governors. I use that plural, and
I assert that I am right because I have con-
sulted the highest authorities around here
when I say Lieutenant-Governors. But in
these times protocol changes, and I would like
to refer— as I know would the hon. Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver) to this and the
other matters to which I have referred— to
the services of the Honourable Louis O.
Breithaupt and his wife.
I think it is proper at this time that we
should make an expression of our thanks to
these two very fine citizens for their excellent
services to their province and to their country.
I have now served under 5 Lieutenant-
Governors. Naturally, as the head of the gov-
ernment, my relations with two of them have
been more intimate than with the others.
Regarding the third one — the present Lieu-
tenant-Governor — my friendship and rela-
tionship with him go back to the days of
World War I.
But the two to whom I particularly refer
are the Honourable Ray Lawson and the
Honourable Louis Breithaupt. I regard them,
as we all do, with feelings of high esteem and
respect, and with very warm personal feelings.
They have both been great servants of the
people and it is a pleasure to acknowledge
this fact. The present incumbent, who has
in one of his first official acts just opened
this Legislature, is the 32nd incumbent of that
office since the days of the first occupant,
Colonel John Graves Simcoe.
In acknowledging the services of Mrs.
Breithaupt and the former Lieutenant-
Governor, we not only pay well deserved
tribute to them as representatives of our-
selves in a position of great responsibility,
but also to those who, over the years, have
contributed greatly to the development of
our province and its traditions.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that there are
one or two other matters of tradition I
might refer to at this time. One of them
is the fact that the hon. members are today
seated in new chairs.
I may say that the other chairs were very
ancient, but I must admit that I agreed to
the change only with reluctance, out of
my respect for your Parliamentary authority,
Mr. Speaker, because you advised me that
the chairs were outmoded. But I would
say that I would rather have our hon.
members sit in rickety chairs, despite the
value I place on their personal comfort, than
do away with any of the possible traditions
of our great province in that regard.
May I also refer to the ancient mace
which is on the table today. It seemed to
me that it was fitting to refer to something
going back to Ontario's beginning, on this
occasion when we are welcoming the thirty-
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
second in succession of the Lieutenant-
Governors of this province.
The mace, Mr. Speaker, that is on the
table today is the mace which was asso-
ciated with the beginnings of this province.
It was captured by the Americans in one
of their few victories, or perhaps their only
victory in the war of 1812, and was taken
to Washington. Some years ago that great
American, that great citizen of the world,
the late Franklin D. Roosevelt, returned it
to the province of Ontario. We keep it
here as one of our treasures.
That matter of tradition and history is
something that took place during the days
of Simcoe and those ensuing Lieutenant-
Governors and in the days of 1812, which
were associated with the possibility of
elimination of our country as an entity. That
mace is on the table today.
I am very glad in paying tribute to the
Lieutenant-Governors of this province whom
I have named to refer to these things.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Speaker, in these days and amidst
an ever-increasing tempo of change both
sensational and unusual, it is a privilege to
come back again to the opening of another
session of the Legislature. There is an oppor-
tunity here for all of us to renew friendships
and acquaintanceships that we have formed
over the years.
Our pleasure on this occasion is marred
only by the fact that in the interim between
the last session and this one we have lost,
as the hon. Prime Minister has so well said,
two members of the Legislature, the mem-
ber for Huron and the member for Elgin.
Their seats in this assembly are properly
noted today as a mark of our reverence and
our respect.
Personally, I had the highest regard for
these two members. I knew the member
for Elgin exceptionally well and I think
in his life there is a lesson for all of us. As
we all know, during his Parliamentary car-
eer he was not in the best of health, in
fact he was continually fighting against the
hand of ill-health. In spite of that he kept
on and made, I suggest, to this province a
great contribution.
In fact, I have often thought and I think
I should say this, that had it not been for
the marks of ill-health in the life of
"Tommy" Thomas he would have been one
of the outstanding Ministers of the day. He
had a keen intellect, a sense of fairness, and
possessed a debating ability that not many
hon. members have. His loss to this province
and to this assembly is easily stated and
thoroughly regretted by all of us.
The member for Huron was a sincere,
conscientious representative who had at all
times the interest of his constituents at
heart, and he never failed on any occasion
to give voice to what he considered were
the best interests of the people back home.
These two members will be remembered
by the hon. members who remain and the
work they did will be an inspiration for us
to carry on and do even better in the days
that are ahead.
The hon. Prime Minister has said that
perhaps he has broken custom this after-
noon in referring to the work of the Lieuten-
ant-Governors who have given over and who
have worked out their tenure of office. Well,
if that is breaking custom, Mr. Speaker, I
think it is a custom that we should con-
tinue to break. I think those hon. members
in this House who have a particular knowl-
edge of the work that these great men did
—these great men and women did— for On-
tario in their various capacities, will agree
that it is only right that we should recall
and remember from time to time, because it
seems to me that in Mr. Breithaupt and in
Mr. Lawson we had two great public ser-
vants.
We honoured and respected them, and
they in turn gave of their best for the
people of this province. Today, as we hon-
our with respect the new Lieutenant-Gover-
nor, we will remember as well the quali-
fications of those who have held that office
in the past.
I say to the hon. Prime Minister, and
with him, that all of us in this House are
deeply conscious of the great contribution
that these men and women have made to
the public life in this province.
I have just this one other word to say,
and it has reference to the hon. Prime
Minister's well-known resistance to change.
This resistance has been broken in one small
degree in that he has allowed himself and
the treasury to be "looted" to the extent
of an amount of money sufficiently to supply
new chairs in this assembly.
Now, having made the first dent upon the
otherwise impenetrable armour of my hon-
ourable friend, I hope that in this session
we may urge him, and we may succeed in
convincing him, that sometimes it is well
to change. Perhaps we won't get him to
change any faster in other things than we
did in getting these chairs in the assembly.
But I have hope, Mr. Speaker, I have hope,
even though it be within me alone, that the
FEBRUARY 3, 1958
hon Prime Minister, having made this move
in the right direction, will be open to other
reasonable suggestions along the same line.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to associate myself brief-
ly with the remarks of the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. leader of the Opposition in
their words of regret and sympathy in the
passing of two of our colleagues in this House.
As a relative newcomer to this House, above
everything else in recalling these two gentle-
men I recall their warm friendship. I know
that with "Tommy" Thomas, although I was
a newcomer to the House, he was willing to
sit and talk with me in detail of problems
in a fashion that was always very encouraging.
As for "Tom" Pryde, this House will never
be quite the same without that rich Scottish
burr.
The hon. Prime Minister has a great sense
of history, that is one thing we can never
be critical of at all, and certainly I would
never be, and I think it was also very appro-
priate and apt that he should have reached
back into the richness of our past as we all
try to move forward to the richness of the
future.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In the spirit of the admoni-
tions of the hon. leader of the Opposition, I
do now move the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 2
ONTARIO
Hegfelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, February 4, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
February 4, 1958
Communications re vacancies and by-elections 13
Motion for provision for printing reports, Mr. Frost, agreed to 15
Motion to appoint standing committees, Mr. Frost, agreed to 16
Motion to appoint select committee re standing committees, Mr. Frost, agreed to 16
Motion to appoint Mr. Allen as chairman of the committee of the whole House,
Mr. Frost, agreed to 16
Presenting of accounts and auditor's report, Mr. Dunbar 18
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 18
IS
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
February 4, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
The clerk read the following communica-
tions relative to the vacancies announced by
Mr. Speaker on Monday, February 3:
Maxville, Ontario.
May 25, 1957.
The Honourable A. W. Downer,
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
of the Province of Ontario.
Dear Sir:
I, Osie F. Villeneuve, hereby tender my resignation
as a member of the legislative assembly of the Prov-
ince of Ontario for the electoral district of Glengarry.
Yours very truly,
Witnesses:
(signed)
D. P. Dupuis
J. D. MacRae
}
(signed)
Osie F. Villeneuve
Box 485,
Carleton Place, Ontario,
August 14, 1957.
The Honourable the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings, Toronto.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Conforming to procedure laid down in The Legis-
lative Assembly Act of the Province of Ontario, and
in amendments to that measure made subsequent to
its original enactment, I have the honour, Sir, to
submit herewith my resignation as member for the
provincial riding of Lanark county to which I was
first elected in 1937, and have since served
continuously.
This declaration was written in the presence of two
subscribing witnesses whose signatures appear below
with my own. I am attaching a letter giving the
reason for my resignation which I hope you may see
fit to file with this declaration as a matter of record.
Permit me, Sir, in conclusion to express deep
appreciation for many courtesies shown to me in the
course of your high office's duties and in your private
capacity. Believe me,
Yours faithfully,
Witnesses:
(signed)
D. A. Switzer
J. A. Johnston,,
m.d.
(signed)
George H. Doucett
Box 485,
Carleton Place, Ontario,
August 14, 1957.
The Honourable and Reverend A. W. Downer,
m.p.p.,
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings, Toronto.
Dear Mr. Downer:
I feel that my formal resignation as member of
the legislative assembly of Ontario for the provincial
riding of Lanark county should be accompanied by a
few words of explanation to its presiding officer. I
will greatly appreciate its being made, as you see
fit, a part of the record.
My reason for resigning my seat in the assembly
is that I intend to seek nomination by the Progressive-
Conservative Association of Lanark county to contest
the federal by-election which is scheduled to be held
on Monday, September 9, 1957. This special poll was
necessitated by the sudden death of Dr. W. G. Blair,
M.P., of Perth, Ontario a few days after he had been
re-elected on June 10 of this year.
My decision was influenced by the advice of Lanark
Riding Association leaders and encouragement given
to me by many of my personal friends in the con-
stituency. However I felt that I should not go before
the convention as one seeking a new honour at their
hands while retaining the one which they had enabled
me to win in various provincial elections held since
I first contested the riding in 1937.
During my 20 years as a member of the legisla-
lative assembly, I was given many special opportuni-
ties of association with honourable members serving
with me under various provincial governments. I
cherish the friendships formed and am proud to
acknowledge able counsel given by so many which
helped me in carrying out my own tasks. No matter
their alignment in the assembly, I felt it an honour
to be associated with men striving so earnestly for
the best good of this great province and all its people.
I am also greatly indebted to colleagues of various
governments in which I had the privilege of serving
in the capacity of a Minister.
Further, I wish to acknowledge my personal ob-
ligation to the officials and members of Ontario's
efficient and devoted public service.
I am, of course, deeply sensitive of the fact that
all I did or endeavoured to do as a member of the
legislative assembly of Ontario was due to the con-
fidence given me by the people of Lanark county
riding, which is my home. Serving them and the
people of Ontario in general, in any effective measure,
is an honour for which I am deeply and humbly
grateful. Believe me,
Yours faithfully,
(signed)
George H. Doucett
Toronto,
December 5, 1957.
To the Honourable the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly
of the Province of Ontario.
We, the undersigned, Leslie M. Frost, member for
the said legislative assembly for the electoral district
of Victoria, and Dana Porter, member for the said
legislative assembly for the electoral district of St.
George, do hereby notify you that a vacancy has
occurred in the representation in the said legislative
assembly for the electoral district of Elgin by reason
of the death of Fletcher S. Thomas, Esquire, member
for the said electoral district of Elgin.
14
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our
hands and seals on this fifth day of December in the
year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
fifty-seven.
Signed and sealed in ^
the presence of: I (signed)
(signed) ( Leslds M. Frost
W. M. McIntyre J Dana Porter
Toronto, January 10, 1958.
To the Honourable the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly
of the Province of Ontario:
We, the undersigned, Leslie M. Frost, member
for the said legislative assembly for the electoral
district of Victoria, and George H. Dunbar, member
for the said legislative assembly for the electoral
district of Ottawa South, do hereby notify you that
a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the
said legislative assembly for the electoral district of
Huron by reason of the death of Thomas Pryde,
Esquire, member for the said electoral district of
Huron.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our
hands and seals on this tenth day of January in the
year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
fifty-eight.
Signed and sealed in
igned)
the presence of:
(signed)
Roderick Lewis
I (si
Leslds M. Frost
George H. Dunbar
Toronto, January 22, 1958.
The Honourable the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly
of the Province of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings, Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I hereby submit my resignation as the member
of the legislative assembly of Ontario for the electoral
district of Cochrane North.
It is with regret that I take this step, but I feel
that it is my proper course at this time as I intend
to stand for the Progressive Conservative Nomination
Convention for the Parliament of Canada, which
convention takes place one month from today.
May I express to you, Sir, my appreciation for
your kindness and many services to me during my
membership in the House.
Yours very truly,
Witnesses:
(signed)
Hattie Finn l (signed)
Roderick Lewis J P. T. Kelly
}
The Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer,
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I hereby declare that I resign the seat in the
legislative assembly for the electoral district of St.
George, Toronto.
Delivered this 30th day of
January, 1958.
Witnesses:
(signed)
Eunice C. Murphy f (signed)
Anne Bate J Dana Porter
}
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the last
session of the House:
Electoral district of Glengarry: Fernand
Guindon.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the twenty-second day of July, 1957,
issued by the Honourable Lieutenant-Governor of the
Province of Ontario, and addressed to Donald Duncan
MacKinnon, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral
district of Glengarry, for the election of a member
to represent the said electoral district of Glengarry
in the legislative assembly of this province, in the
room of Osie F. Villeneuve, Esquire, who, since his
election as representative of the said electoral district
of Glengarry, duly resigned his seat in the said legis-
lative assembly, Fernand Guindon, Esquire, has been
returned as duly elected as appears by the return of
the said writ of election, dated the twenty-third day
of September, 1957, which is now lodged of record
in my office.
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, February 4, 1958.
Fernand Guindon, Esquire, member for the
electoral district of Glengarry, having taken
the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his
seat.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the last
session of the House:
Electoral district of Middlesex North:
William A. Stewart.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the twenty-second day of July, 1957,
issued by the Honourable Lieutenant-Governor of the
Province of Ontario, and addressed to Harold R.
Lucas, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral
district of Middlesex North for the election of a mem-
ber to represent the said electoral district of Middle-
sex North in the legislative assembly of this province,
in the room of Thomas L. Patrick, Esquire, who, since
his election as representative of the said electoral
district of Middlesex North, hath departed this life,
William A. Stewart, Esquire, has been returned as
duly elected as appears by the return of the writ of
election, dated the twenty-third day of September,
1957, which is now lodged of record in my office.
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, February 4, 1958.
William A. Stewart, Esquire, member for
the electoral district of Middlesex North, hav-
ing taken the oaths and subscribed the roll,
took his seat.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the last
session of the House:
Electoral district of Lanark: John Arthur
McCue.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the fourth day of September, 1957,
FEBRUARY 4, 1958
15
issued by the Honourable Lieutenant-Governor of the
Province of Ontario, and addressed to Edwin M.
James, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral
district of Lanark, for the election of a member to
represent the said electoral district of Lanark in the
legislative assembly of this province, in the room of
George H. Doucett, Esquire, who, since his election
as representative of the said electoral district of Lan-
ark, duly resigned his seat in the said legislative
assembly, John Arthur McCue, Esquire, has been
returned as duly elected as appears by the return of
the said writ of election, dated the twentieth day of
November, 1957, which is now lodged of record in
my office.
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, February 4, 1958.
John Arthur McCue, Esquire, member for
the electoral district of Lanark, having taken
the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his
seat.
Hon. L. M. Frost moves, seconded by hon.
G. H. Dunbar, that during the present ses-
sion of the legislative assembly provision be
made for the taking and printing of reports
of debates and speeches, and to that end
that Mr. Speaker be authorized to employ
an editor of debates and speeches and the
necessary stenographers at such rates of com-
pensation as may be agreed to by him; also
that Mr. Speaker be authorized to arrange
for the printing of the reports in the amount
of 1,200 copies daily, copies of such printed
reports to be supplied to the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor, to Mr. Speaker, to the
clerk of the legislative assembly, to the legis-
lative library, to each member of the assem-
bly, to the reference libraries of the province,
to the press gallery, to the newspapers of
the province as approved by Mr. Speaker,
and the balance to be distributed by the
clerk of the assembly as directed by Mr.
Speaker.
Hon L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): In
presenting this motion to the House, might
I just give this very brief explanation and
say that the absence of the table and the
reporters here today is not due to any anti-
pathy I may have to the matter of Hansard
which I have expressed here on various
occasions. It is due to the fact that we live
in the age of the splitting of the atom, of
intercontinental missiles, and of automation.
I understand that your honour is going to
make a statement to the House relative to
the new arrangements of which, sir, I am
entirely innocent.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, may I state that this
motion, of course, is always good for some
debate at each session of the Legislature.
I want to particularly direct the hon. Prime
Minister's attention to the last part of the
motion which suggests that 1,200 copies be
printed and that these copies be distributed
according to the schedule. Then, if there are
any left over, they are to be distributed on
the direction of the hon. Speaker of the
Legislature.
Now I want to make a point, Mr. Speaker,
and to me it is a serious one.
What are we printing Hansard for? Is
Hansard to be a medium whereby and
through which the people of the province
can learn of the deliberations of this assem-
bly and either be entertained or educated
by what they read therein? Or are we to
have simply a closed shop sort of business
where only a few selected people have the
privilege of reading this publication?
I had the experience last year of people
in my riding writing to me asking how they
could obtain copies of Hansard. They ex-
plained that they had written to the proper
authorities and were told that the number
of printed copies had run out, and that fur-
ther copies were not available.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is
the wrong way of going at this problem.
Either we are printing this Hansard so that
the people may read it, or we are not. If
we intend that people should know what
is said in the assembly, then surely we should
print more than 1,200 copies. Surely we
keep the subscription price down where it
is comparable with the federal Hansard and
make it available to the people of the prov-
ince.
Now, to have 1,200 copies distributed as
has been suggested in the motion will leave
very few indeed for public subscription.
Surely we have got to the place where the
public should be allowed to read what has
gone on in the Legislature; we should not
restrain them from reading it as we have
been doing this last number of years.
Mr. Speaker: May I say we. had no short-
age last year, but there was a shortage the
year before. We raised the quantity last
year from 800 to 1,200 and were able to
supply all the needs in 1957. There was a
shortage in 1956. Then the price was low-
ered from $6 or $7 to the present rate of
$3 per session.
Mr. Oliver: Can you enlighten me, Mr.
Speaker, if I am not transgressing any rule,
as to how many copies would be left over
after the procedure of distribution is carried
out as outlined in the motion?
Mr. Speaker: At the present moment
there would be about 600 or 700 copies left
over.
16
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Oliver: About half?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, a little more than half.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if I might ask how many subscriptions were
there last year from the general public in
addition to this?
Mr. Speaker: I would say approximately
125 subscribers.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, perhaps
you would care to say something about this,
because this is a matter which you yourself
have really been responsible for. The reason
for having the new recording system in
Hansard reporting is that the proceedings
and remarks of the hon. members are tape-
recorded, thus enabling us to receive a more
accurate Hansard than we previously had.
I think that it was installed on the recom-
mendation of yourself and the persons in
charge of Hansard arrangements. Perhaps,
Mr. Speaker, you feel that it is desirable to
say something about that to the hon. mem-
bers of the House at this time?
Mr. Speaker: I would just like to say
that there were quite a number of copies
left over in 1957, so that there is no shortage
at the present moment. I would go further
and say we would be very glad to fill all
orders, and if more than 1,200 are needed,
I am sure that the hon. Prime Minister will
go along with this and see that the number
is increased, since the matter has been left
to my discretion.
I would like to make this further state-
ment about the new system. As the hon.
members of the House are no doubt aware,
the public address system installed in this
chamber last year includes an automatic
record on tape, of the proceedings in the
House, as picked up by the microphones.
Comparison of these tapes with the steno-
graphic reports of last year, and experiments
conducted in the interval between sessions,
has clearly indicated that the transcription
from tape recordings is more accurate.
It is therefore my intention to have re-
ports of debates and speeches for this ses-
sion transcribed by the stenographers direct
from the tape records.
It is hoped that accuracy will be sub-
stantially increased and that the ever-rising
costs of these reports will be reduced.
In order to insure that the record will be
as accurate as possible, it is my intention
when a debate is in progress to give the
floor to each succeeding hon. member or
speaker and to designate him orally. I ask
you to remember that no hon. member's
microphone is turned on until he rises. Con-
sequently, if an hon. member begins to
speak while he is seated, as has sometimes
been done, his words will not be recorded
until his microphone has been turned on.
Will the hon. members please therefore
bear in mind that if they wait until they
have been granted the floor orally this dif-
ficulty will be obviated and the accuracy of
the report will be substantially assisted and
improved.
Also, I would just like to say this further,
that if there are any doubts as to what is
said, we ask hon. members to come to the
Hansard room where they can hear their
own voices and the remarks made.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I may say
after your explanation that I am in favour
of the motion, but with certain reservations.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves, seconded by hon.
Mr. Dunbar, that standing committees of
this House for the present session be ap-
pointed for the following purposes:
1, on agriculture; 2, on conservation; 3,
on education; 4, on game and fish; 5, on
government commissions; 6, on health; 7, on
highway safety; 8, on labour; 9, on lands
and forests; 10, on legal bills; 11, on mining;
12, on municipal law; 13, on printing; 14,
on private bills; 15, on privileges and elec-
tions; 16, on public accounts; 17, on stand-
ing orders; 18, on travel and publicity.
Which said committees shall severally be
empowered to examine and enquire into all
such matters and things as shall be referred
to them by the House, and to report from
time to time their observations and opinions
thereon, with power to send for persons,
papers and records.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves, seconded by hon.
Mr. Dunbar, that a select committee of 13
members be appointed to prepare and re-
port with all convenient despatch lists of
the members to compose the standing com-
mittees ordered by the House, such com-
mittee to be composed as follows:
Messrs. Chaput, Child, Elliott, Fishleigh,
Gordon, Johnston (Carleton), Jolley, Mac-
Donald, MacKenzie, Morrow, Murdoch,
Price and Sutton.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 4 members.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, it is with
very great pleasure I move this motion,
FEBRUARY 4, 1958
17
seconded by Mr. Oliver, that Mr. Allen, the
hon. member for the electoral district of
Middlesex South, be appointed as chairman
of the committee of the whole House for
the present session.
Mr. Speaker, might I just say in support
of this motion that the hon. member for
Middlesex South was elected to represent
that riding in 1945. The hon. leader of the
Opposition will have a longer recollection
of that riding as will the hon. member for
Brant (Mr. Nixon) than I have and that is
also true of the hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy).
But I have recollections of that riding in
other days when it was represented by Mr.
MacFie, who was a very fine gentleman,
and my recollection of him was that he was
deeply interested in the problems of educa-
tion. I think Mr. MacFie was, as a matter
of fact, the originator of the committee on
education. There was no committee on edu-
cation at that time. Mr. MacFie really
fathered the committee on education which
is now one of the standing committees of
this House.
Afterwards for a brief interlude from 1943
to 1945, the riding was represented by a
person who had a very great personality
and character, but I do not think he enjoyed
the life in this House. I refer to Mr. Dan
Mclntyre, whom some of you will of course
remember.
Subsequently, Mr. Allen became member
in 1945 and has since been a member of this
House and I feel sure that the hon. members
are very glad to honour him with the ap-
pointment as chairman of the committee of
the whole House which to an extent, as a
matter of fact, is the office of deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Allen has been well known for the
moderate nature of his views, for the rather
non-partisan attitude that he takes to the
questions of the day, for the tolerance and
understanding with which he approaches the
problems he has to meet in this House. I
would say that it is a very great pleasure to
make this motion, and I feel sure that the
hon. leader of the Opposition concurs with
me.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I am very
choosy about the nominations that I second,
and I would not be prepared to second the
nomination of many of the hon. members
on the other side of the House. But I am
pleased, nevertheless, to second the nomina-
tion of the hon. member for Middlesex
South to that position. As the hon. Prime
Minister has stated, he has had a very fine
record in this House, and I know that he
will preside over the deliberations of the
committee stage in a dignified and careful
manner. My only hope and expectation, I
might say, is that he will not cry "Carried!"
with quite such a clear voice as some of his
predecessors have done.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move
that you now leave the chair and that the
House resolve itself into committee of the
whole.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Allen: I want to thank the hon
Prime Minister, the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition, and all hon. members for the honour
they have bestowed on me today and the
confidence they have placed in me. I hope
I will always merit it. I intend to be im-
partial in my decisions, and I ask all hon.
members for their co-operation, so that we
may preserve the dignity of this Legislature.
Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the committee rise and report progress.
The Chairman: The committee of the
whole House begs to report progress and
asks leave to sit again.
Report adopted.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
members of the House know, the first days
of the session are of necessity devoted to
the organization of the House. May I ex-
press the wish that the striking committee,
which deals with the personnel of the com-
mittees, will do its work as soon as possible
so that next week we may get down to the
consideration, by the committees, of the
large number of important subjects.
The hon. members of the House and the
hon. leader of the Opposition will want to
know the business for tomorrow and Thurs-
day. Tomorrow the clerk of the House will
read and receive petitions tabled today. I
understand that tomorrow there will be ap-
proximately 40 petitions and the clerk will
give a synopsis of these at the time.
There will also be a motion relating to
the meeting at 2.00 o'clock on Friday, which
I think we found a very acceptable pro-
cedure in other days. And then there will
be the introduction of a very large number
of bills.
I may point out to the hon. members of
18
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Opposition that perhaps in some other
Legislatures or Parliaments the introduction
of bills could take place today. But I would
say that we are a grass roots party. All of
the bills are very carefully considered and
processed by the hon. members before in-
troduction and therefore, that means that
the introduction, instead of being today, will
be tomorrow.
There will also be the tabling of the
reports by the hon. Provincial Secretary
(Mr. Dunbar).
The motion for an address in reply to the
speech from the Throne will take place on
Thursday, as I have advised the hon. leader
of the Opposition. That motion will be
moved by one whom I have referred to be-
fore as the most experienced, or at least one
of the most experienced, hon. members of
the House, and yet one of the youngest—
the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy).
The hon. member for Peel entered this
House in 1919 with the hon. member from
Brant (Mr. Nixon). These are very remark-
able records indeed. I suppose there are
few Parliaments or Legislatures anywhere
that in 1958 have members elected who are
still members of the assemblies to which
they were elected 39 years ago. The ex-
periences in this House of my good friend
from Peel are many and varied, including
a membership for a very fine county, the
county which he would express as the "ban-
ner county" of this province. Also, Mr.
Speaker, he has been Minister of Agriculture
and Prime Minister of this province, and he
has served with distinction in many other
capacities. But I do not think that the hon.
member for Peel has ever moved the address
to the speech from the Throne, so this will
be a new experience for him, one which
comes after some 39 years of service in this
House.
I would be very glad to accord the hon.
member for Brant that honour if he would
agree to it, but I am afraid that he might
say something in that speech which I would
not want recorded on these microphones.
The motion will be seconded by the newly
elected hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon).
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. Prime Minis-
ter a question with regard to the future
business of the House? It has been sug-
gested in the press that this session might
be an abbreviated one, or might have an
adjournment because of great preoccupation
with an election in another place. Will the
hon. Prime Minister indicate whether or not
this is likely to happen?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would advise my
honourable friend from York South that we
have no intention of abbreviating the ses-
sion, nor do we have any intention of ad-
journing the session. I think our business
is the business of the people of Ontario and
we will carry on, with of course due regard
to our duties as citizens of Canada. But at
the same time we intend to carry out our
work as representatives of the people of
Ontario, and we hope nothing will come
about to abbreviate this session or will cause
us to, in any way, limit our concern or
deliberations for the very important business
that is before us.
I think that this session will be very fully
occupied, and would think it will take all
of our diligence to reach prorogation by the
same time we did last year— I mean in the
same period of time as we sat last year.
I think it will take all of our efforts and
labours to do that.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to present to the House the following:
1. Pay accounts of the province of On-
tario for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1957;
2. The report of the provincial auditor,
1956 and 1957.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to ask the hon. Minister of Re-
form Institutions a question regarding an
article which appeared in the Globe and
Mail this morning in regard to the disarming
of the reformatory guards. I would like to
know, Mr. Speaker, if this is to be govern-
ment policy, and if the hon. Minister thinks
that this is a step in the right direction.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
first half of the hon. member's question, I
would simply say, "yes". Answering the
second half, I think that our answer has
already been made perfectly clear in that
we have done this, fully believing that it is
a step in the right direction.
Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I regret
that the hon. leader of the Opposition was
outside during the explanation I made con-
cerning the business tomorrow, but no doubt
the matters referred to will be communicated
to him. I move the adjournment of the
House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 3
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, February 5, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 5, 1958
Presenting and receiving petitions 21
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 22
Schools Administration Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 22
Ontario School Trustees Council Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 23
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 23
Farm Products Marketing Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 23
Anatomy Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 23
Beaches and River Beds Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Roberts, first reading 23
Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 23
County Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 23
General Sessions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 23
Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Interpretation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Magistrates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Public Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 24
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 25
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 25
Certification of Lands, bill to provide for, Mr. Roberts, first reading 25
Road Allowance Between Lots 15 and 16 in Concession 8 in the Township of Tay,
bill respecting, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading 25
Provincial Land Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading 25
Fair Accommodation Practices Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Gisborn, first reading 25
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 26
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 26
Corporations Information Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 26
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 27
21
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, February 5, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following peti-
tions have been received:
Of the corporation of Windsor Jewish
Communal Projects praying that an Act may
pass exempting the Windsor Jewish Com-
munity Centre from taxation except for local
improvements.
Of the board of trustees of the Roman
Catholic separate schools of the town of
Lindsay praying that an Act may pass pro-
viding for the election of the trustees by
means of the regular municipal election
machinery.
Of St. Peter's Church, Brockville, praying
that an Act may pass authorizing the sale
of the rectory.
Of the corporation of Huron College pray-
ing that an Act may pass constituting "Hu-
ron College corporation", "academic coun-
cil" and "executive body" and defining their
powers.
Of the Stratford Shakespearean Festival
Foundation of Canada praying that an Act
may pass exempting its lands from municipal
taxes except for local improvements.
Of the corporation of the township of
Grantham praying that an Act may pass
providing for the constitution and election
of the council of the corporation.
Of the corporation of the city of Waterloo
praying that an Act may pass enlarging the
representation of the ratepayers on the civic
auditorium commission.
Of the corporation of the township of
London praying that an Act may pass auth-
orizing a pension plan for employees.
Of the corporation of the city of Chatham
praying that an Act may pass authorizing
the corporation to subsidize the bus system
in the city; and for other purposes.
Praying that an Act may pass to incor-
porate Sudbury Young Women's Christian
Association.
Of the corporation of the village of Port
Perry praying that an Act may pass authoriz-
ing the issue of debentures for the construc-
tion of a water supply system.
Of the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie
praying that an Act may pass enabling muni-
cipalities served by the hospital to pass by-
laws for grants in aid of the hospital.
Of the corporation of the village of West
Lome praying that an Act may pass authoriz-
ing debentures to pay for the construction
of drainage works.
Of the corporation of the township of
Chinguacousy praying that an Act may pass
authorizing the sale of the municipal tele-
phone system to the Bell Telephone Com-
pany of Canada.
Of Canadian Pacific Railway Company
praying that an Act may pass vesting the
assets of certain subsidiary companies in the
company and dissolving the said companies.
Of Waterloo College associate faculties
praying that an Act may pass granting
power to expropriate lands required for the
college.
Of Queen's University praying that an
Act may pass granting certain powers of
expropriation to the university.
Of the corporation of the town of Thorold
praying that an Act may pass defining the
existing boundaries of the town; and for
other purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of London
praying that an Act may pass empowering
the corporation to acquire land outside its
corporate limits for the purpose of parking
motor vehicles; and for other purposes.
Of the dietetic association praying that
an Act may pass granting to the association
the right to regulate the standards of prac-
tice of its members and securing to the
association the designation "registered pro-
fessional dietitian."
Of the corporation of the township of Teck
praying that an Act may pass validating an
agreement between the corporation and cer-
tain mining companies for the supply of water
to the companies.
Of the corporation of the city of Windsor
praying that an Act may pass enlarging the
borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Gen-
eral Hospital board; and for other purposes.
Of the Lakeshore district board of educa-
22
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion praying that an Act may pass recon-
stituting the board.
Of the board of education for the township
of North York praying that an Act may pass
enlarging the powers of the board with re-
gard to pensions for non- teaching employees.
Of St. Michael's College praying that an
Act may pass continuing the college in feder-
ation with the University of Toronto as the
University of St. Michael's College and mak-
ing other provisions in relation to this pur-
pose.
Of the corporation of the city of Toronto
praying that an Act may pass authorizing
a simplified expropriation procedure for
street and lane openings in the city; and for
other purposes.
Of the Canadian National Exhibition As-
sociation praying that an Act may pass em-
powering the Minister of Agriculture to
delegate another member of his department
who is a member of the association to act
in his place on the board of directors.
Praying that an Act may pass incorporat-
ing the Chartered Institute as Secretaries of
Joint Stock Companies and other Public
Bodies in Ontario.
Praying for an Act to incorporate the
Society of Professional Directors of Muni-
cipal Recreation in Ontario.
Of the corporation of the city of Belleville
praying that an Act may pass authorizing
the appointment of a city manager; and for
other purposes.
Of the board of education of the city of
Sault Ste. Marie praying that an Act may
pass providing for a two-year term for mem-
bers of the board.
Of the synod of Toronto and Kingston of
the Presbyterian Church in Canada Limited
praying that an Act may pass enlarging its
powers and deleting the word "limited" from
its corporate name.
Of the corporation of the town of Fort
Frances praying that an Act may pass author-
izing a pension plan for employees of the
corporation, or any board thereof, and their
families.
Of the corporation of the township of
Sunnidale praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a debenture issue to pay the cost
of construction of a community hall at the
village of Lowell.
Of the corporation of the town of Almonte
praying that an Act may pass authorizing a
debenture issue for sewer and water works
construction.
Of the corporation of the village of Long
Branch praying that an Act may pass con-
firming a by-law equalizing special assess-
ments for road construction in the village.
Of the corporation of the city of Fort
William praying that an Act may pass auth-
orizing a pension plan for employees of the
city, of boards thereof, and their families.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by hon. G. H.
Dunbar, that commencing on Friday night,
February 7, and thereafter on each Friday of
the present session of the assembly, this House
shall meet at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and
that provisions of Rule No. 2 of the assembly
be suspended so far as they may apply to this
motion.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the follow-
ing:
1. Twelfth annual report of The Depart-
ment of Travel and Publicity for the calendar
year 1957.
2. Report of the hon. Minister of Public
Works of Ontario for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1954
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Schools
Administration Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: May I say, first of all, that every
one of these bills which I propose to introduce
goes to the committee on education for con-
sideration in due course. This particular bill
defines an itinerant teacher and explains how
an itinerant teacher participates in the super-
annuation fund.
It also has a number of amendments regard-
ing the appointment of supervisory officers,
allowing any ratepayer to inspect the books
of a board at reasonable hours, to provide for
the biennial election of trustees if the council
concerned is elected by ballot, finding a school
site and stating what buildings may be con-
structed on such a site, providing for payment
of school taxes by inhabitants of trailers, and
fixing payment for arbitrators in the case
of boards of reference.
FEBRUARY 5, 1958
23
THE ONTARIO SCHOOL TRUSTEES
COUNCIL ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Dunlop moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Ontario
School Trustees Council Act, 1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduced
at the request of the Ontario school trustees
council provides that, when a representative
from a member association is vice-chairman
or past-chairman of the council in any year,
such association may appoint a third represen-
tative to council for that year and shall
designate the two representatives who shall
have the right to vote at meetings of council.
That, of course, goes to the committee on
education as well.
THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION ACT, 1954
Hon. Mr. Dunlop moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Department
of Education Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides the
mechanics for operating a provincial student
aid fund.
THE FARM PRODUCTS
MARKETING ACT
Mr. D. C. MacDonald moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Farm
Products Marketing Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by way of explana-
tion, I might say that the present Act
stipulates that any affirmative vote in estab-
lishing a marketing scheme must represent 51
per cent, of those eligible to vote. This would
amend the Act so that whatever be the pre-
scribed percentage in a specific marketing
vote, it will be calculated on the basis of those
voting rather than those eligible to vote, so as
to remove that undemocratic feature.
THE ANATOMY ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Anatomy
Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in explanation of this
bill— and I might say that I believe the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips) will have a
complementary bill in due course to introduce
—perhaps I should, for the benefit of the
House, just explain the principle of this bill.
It would delete subsection 4 of section 3 of
of The Anatomy Act and by doing that it
would provide more anatomical material for
the 4 medical schools in Ontario, namely
Toronto, Queens, Western and Ottawa.
THE BEACHES AND RIVER BEDS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to repeal The Beaches and
River Beds Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Act has been
used only once in the 46 years since it was
passed, and the removal of sand and gravel
from beaches and river beds is regulated by
another Act, The Beaches Protection Act, so
it would seem advisable to repeal this Act.
THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Conditional
Sales Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the present section
14 of The Conditional Sales Act limits the
persons who may make a verifying affidavit or
sign a renewal statement for a corporation to
certain named officers such as president, vice-
president, manager; this is changed to delete
the named persons and insert any officer,
employee or agent.
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The County
Courts Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the county of
Waterloo, it seemed desirable to enable the
sittings there of the county court in the
autumn to commence a week later than at
present and that is the effect of this amend-
ment.
THE GENERAL SESSIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The General
Sessions Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the same type
of amendment to deal with the general ses-
sions in the county of Waterloo.
24
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE DESERTED WIVES' AND
CHILDREN'S MAINTENANCE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Deserted
Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will
make available garnishee proceedings as a
further method of collecting monies due under
orders that are made under this Act that are
filed in the division court.
THE INTERPRETATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Interpreta-
tion Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the present Act de-
fines Her Majesty as the Sovereign of Great
Britain, Ireland, the British Dominions beyond
the seas for the time being. This amendment
will bring the definition in line with the pres-
ent-day wording for Her Majesty's titles.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Judicature
Act-
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this change means
that local registrars of the supreme court ap-
pointed after April 1, 1953, on salary as full-
time employees, do not retain fees in respect
to examinations or records. That is the prac-
tice, and the amendment clarifies the law in
that respect.
THE MAGISTRATES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Magistrates
Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the change contem-
plated by this amendment will enable regu-
lations to be made, in addition to other things
such as safekeeping inspection and so forth,
to effect the destruction of obsolete papers
of magistrates.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The County
Judges Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the present
section, the oath of office of a county court
judge must be taken before a person ap-
pointed for the purpose by the Lieutenant-
Governor, and this requires an order-in-
council. The change allows the senior judge
in point of time in the district where the new
judge will be sitting to administer the oath of
office. A similar change is being made in the
swearing in of a surrogate court judge by a
similar amendment which I will introduce in
a moment.
THE SURROGATE COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Surrogate
Courts Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE MORTGAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Mort-
gages Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this change provides
that where a judgment has been obtained in
a foreclosure action, any person having a sub-
sequent lien or encumbrance must receive 10
days' notice of the judgment. He will then
be able to stay proceedings by paying costs
in arrears if he so wishes, which is the pre-
rogative of the mortgagor at the present time,
but not as the law now stands extended to
an encumbrance of that sort.
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Trustee Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment pro-
vides for a second deputy public trustee.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Summary
Convictions Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this change permits
bails be granted by the police officer of any
police station for people locked up with
respect to offences under any Ontario statute.
At present, bail can be granted only by police
officers in stations in cities and towns.
FEBRUARY 5, 1958
25
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Mechanics'
Lien Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say that all
of these bills will probably go to the commit-
tee on legal bills, and this one certainly will.
A subcommittee, composed of experts in
mechanics' lien work of the administration
of justice committee, recommended these
changes. They are all aimed at smoothing out
the procedure and bringing The Mechanics'
Lien Act up to date.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Land Titles
Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment
clears up a number of minor amendments to
tidy up the legislation, but it also deals with
one major amendment made necessary by a
decision rendered by the court of appeal in a
case known as Gates vs. Kiziw, given on May
3, 1957.
Up until that time, a possessory title, it was
thought, could not be obtained no matter
how long one might be in adverse possession
of land under The Land Titles Act. However,
by reason of a distinction in the wording of
two different sections and of the Statute of
Limitations, the court of appeal has arrived
at the decision which indicates that that basic
principle of The Land Titles Act is not en-
tirely secure as the legislation now stands.
The amendment will make certain that for
the future it is so secure.
THE CERTIFICATION OF LANDS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to Provide for the Certifica-
tion of Lands."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will go to
the committee on legal bills, too. This House
will recall that last year a bill intituled, "The
Certification of Plans of Subdivision Act,
1957" was enacted with a provision that it
would not become effective until it was pro-
claimed. The purpose at that time was to
give ample time for study of this bill, partic-
ularly by people who would be using the
provisions of the bill or the Act in day-to-day
transactions.
Now, since the adjournment of the House
last year, there have been sittings of a sub-
committee studying this, assisted by our own
registrars and other officials, and it is as a
result of a considerable amount of work done
in that respect that the Certification of Titles
Act, 1958, is produced to replace the earlier
Act.
In general, however, it is similar to the Act
of 1957, except for two changes.
First, the scope of the Act is broader in that
it extends the right to any person who is the
owner of land in fee simple to apply to have
his title investigated and certified. This pro-
vision extends to any owner and is permissive
only.
Secondly, the administration of this Act will
be under the director of titles appointed under
The Land Titles Act. This will make use of
present buildings, personnel, and make the
administration of it more pleasant and more
economic.
ROAD ALLOWANCE IN TAY TOWNSHIP
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, "An Act respecting the
Road Allowance Between Lots 15 and 16
in Concession 8 in the Township of Tay."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This bill is to establish the road
allowance between lots 15 and 16 in con-
cession 8 in the township of Tay.
THE PROVINCIAL LAND TAX ACT
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Provincial Land Tax Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to improve the administration prac-
tices under the Act by dividing the province
into 3 areas and assessing the land in each
area every 3 years.
FAIR ACCOMMODATION PRACTICES
ACT, 1954
Mr. R. Gisborn moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Fair Accom-
modation Practices Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed
to bring apartment houses under The Fair
Accommodation Practices Act. We find that
surveys in Toronto and Hamilton, which were
conducted regarding this situation, brought
26
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
out the fact that great difficulties were ex-
perienced, particularly in the case of coloured
people looking for, and attempting to find,
good rental accommodations.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
Mr. G. H. Dunbar moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading. of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are 3 sections
to this bill. The first section permits the
Registrar-General to allow the larger munici-
palities to appoint one or more officials out-
side the clerk. According to the Act at the
present time, only the city clerk can sign
all documents such as marriage, death, and
birth certificates. We want to make it pos-
sible that the Registrar-General may appoint
one or more to assist the clerk.
Section 2 concerns a change of name.
It has never been possible in the province of
Ontario, although it has been in some other
provinces, that the person leaving Ontario
and going to New York state or any place
else, and had his name legally changed
there, could have the change noted on the
birth certificate in the province of Ontario.
Now we want to make that possible if sound,
but I want this to go to the legal bills com-
mittee so that the lawyers who have had
the experience will decide on this when it
comes under The Change of Name Act.
The third section is merely giving our
department— the Registrar-General's depart-
ment—the power to appoint persons other
than the assistant Registrar-General, two or
more, to sign the documents. The number
of marriages totalled more than 45,000 last
year, which meant there were a lot of cer-
tificates for one man to sign. Therefore we
want to enlarge on that.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT, 1953
Mr. Dunbar moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act, 1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to
this, only a little tidying up. Last year, when
we made amendments to this Act, when we
were changing the wording concerning "de-
liver to" the Provincial Secretary, we should
have included the word "mail" to the Pro-
vincial Secretary. The change concerns the
word "deliver". That is all the change in
that.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT, 1953
Mr. Dunbar moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Information Act, 1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this change is com-
plementary to that in the preceding bill. It
concerns changing the one word from "de-
liver" to "mail".
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I have a question to ask of the hon. Attor-
ney-General (Mr. Roberts). Does this govern-
ment intend to introduce any legislation at
this session, relating to the review or appeal
of decisions by administrative boards under
the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I thank the hon. mem-
ber for having arranged to send a memo to
my office a few minutes before the opening
of the House, advising me that this question
would be asked.
A study by the civil liberties committee of
the Canadian Bar Association, to which com-
mittee the subject matter of this question
was referred by my department, is presently
proceeding. This committee is sitting here
in Toronto this weekend, in conjunction with
the mid-winter session of the Ontario sec-
tion of the Canadian Bar Association.
The House will receive the benefit of the
study and will have an opportunity, I expect,
to pass on legislation to be submitted in due
course, but I would assure the hon. member
for Waterloo North and this House that the
legislation, when submitted, will bear little
resemblance to what I dubbed last year as
the "lazy lawyer's bill", introduced by my
hon. friend last year.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask a supplementary question? Will the hon.
Attorney-General introduce any legislation
this year? Now, he has promised on 3 dis-
tinct occasions that in due course he would
introduce legislation. Will he, or will he
not, do so during this particular session? It
might be better to have a lazy man's start on
this than to have nothing at all.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: My answer is quite
clear on this, and if these machines are rec-
ording accurately I think I have already
given a clear answer.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, a second
question, and this is addressed to the hon.
Prime Minister.
FEBRUARY 5, 1958
27
Does the reference in the speech from the
Throne, in relation to credit restrictions
to assist private and public investments, refer
to actions already undertaken or to be under-
taken by the federal government, or to
actions to be undertaken by the government
of the province of Ontario at this session?
Hon. L. M. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I think
that the two paragraphs of the Throne speech
were devised by those who advised the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor to deal
with the broad economic position of the
country. Now I would say to my hon. friend,
and he is, I think, a very able lawyer, that
I have no doubt he knows that the matter
of credit is one entirely for the federal govern-
ment. The matter of credit restrictions as we
understand them, and as we refer to them
here, has no reference to any power of the
provincial government. I would say to my
hon. friend from Waterloo North that, with
others, I was highly critical of the credit re-
strictions which were imposed.
I may say that this, of course, is a matter
which can be discussed in the Throne debate,
but I am very happy because of the relaxation
of the credit restrictions. These, of course,
were imposed over a period of time, in fact
some years. I do not have the figures before
me. Correspondingly, of course, the relaxation
of credit restrictions have to take place over
a period of time. I am happy that there is a
retreat from the former position at the present
time. I hope it will continue.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I just
ask what may be termed a supplementary
question or a clarification? Hon. Prime Mini-
ster, the question was not intended to be
facetious in respect to the obvious fact that,
by and large, what we call credit restrictions
are under the jurisdiction of the federal gov-
ernment. My inquiry was to know whether
that is what was referred to, or was it
to the possibility that this "progressive" gov-
ernment might undertake what many bankers
and economists have suggested, and that is,
some credit assistance or legislation which
would permit further borrowing, or assistance
borrowing-wise, at the municipal level.
Now, in respect to the latter portion, does
this government intend to do anything about
the restrictions on credit that currently con-
front our public bodies at the municipal level?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that of course the reference was to
credit restrictions that are solely and wholly
a part of federal jurisdiction. As regards the
other matter, those things will be developed
as this session proceeds.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, that concludes
the agenda for today and, in moving the ad-
journment of the House, I wish to advise the
House that tomorrow the addresses of the
mover and the seconder of the motion for
an address in reply to the Speech from the
Throne will be made. I move the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 4
ONTARIO
Hegfelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, February 6, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C,
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 6, 1958
Reading and receiving petition 31
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 31
Teachers' Superannuation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 31
Cancer Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 31
Cemeteries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 31
Tourists' Establishment Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cathcart, first reading 31
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading... 32
Motion of thanks for Speech from the Throne, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Guindon 33
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Oliver, agreed to 48
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading 48
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 50
31
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, February 6, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petition
has been received:
Of The South Peel board of education
praying that an Act may pass re-constituting
the board.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the fol-
lowing:
1. Fourteenth annual report of the civil
service commission for Ontario for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 1957.
2. Thirty-seventh annual report of the
public service superannuation board.
3. Report of the provincial auditor on the
public service superannuation fund for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1957.
4. Report of the provincial auditor on
the public service retirement fund for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION
ACT
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Teach-
ers' Superannuation Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will probably
remember that at the session of 1957, ar-
rangements were made to admit to the bene-
fits of the teachers' superannuation fund
those teachers in independent or private
schools who hold Ontario teaching certi-
ficates. At that time, we had not provided
for teachers in those schools who are on
part-time duty teaching music, art, crafts
and so on. This brings them under the same
regulations as obtained for teachers in our
own elementary and secondary schools.
THE CANCER ACT, 1957
Hon. M. Phillips moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Cancer
Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple
amendment in order to expedite the trans-
action of business of our cancer institution
and our cancer foundation. At the present
time, our legislation reads that a quorum
consists of 7 members. We now have in
the Ontario cancer institute, 12 members and
have in the Ontario research and foundation
no fewer than 7 members.
We would like for this purpose to reduce
the number needed to form a quorum from
the majority of the members to 5 members.
THE CEMETERIES ACT
Hon. Mr. Phillips moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Ceme-
teries Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
amendment is to remove any doubt that the
hon. Attorney-General may direct a disin-
terment for the purpose of a criminal inves-
tigation when no proceedings have been
instituted.
THE TOURISTS' ESTABLISHMENT ACT
Hon. B. L. Cathcart moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Tourists' Establishment Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: The purpose of the bill is to
include, in The Tourists' Establishment Act,
the provisions relating to the licencing of
tourist outfitters which are now contained
in and will be deleted from The Game and
Fisheries Act; and to authorize the regula-
tion of tourist establishments licenced under
The Liquor Licence Act where the need
arises. The words struck out by subsection
1 of section 2 of the bill are redundant.
32
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT, 1953
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This amendment will be of par-
ticular interest to a number of representa-
tives, particularly the hon. member for Brant
(Mr. Nixon). There are some 11,662 In-
dians in Ontario living in different counties
who do not constitute under the present
formula. They are not enumerated as people
who would count in the assessed population
for the purposes of the unconditional grant
in aid of administration of justice.
It is felt that it is only proper that these
11,662 people should be accounted in some
way, and this amending act provides for the
monies ascertained in that manner to go to
the counties concerned.
Mr. Speaker: I have the very pleasant
duty of informing the House that one of our
hon. members, the member for Victoria, the
hon. Prime Minister of this province (Mr.
Frost), was signally honoured about an hour
ago, when he was made an honorary mem-
ber of the Parliamentary press gallery— a very
distinctive honour indeed.
I am sure the hon. members would want
me to congratulate the hon. Prime Minister
on this honour, the first to be conferred on
a Prime Minister of this province in its long
history.
I would also like to warn all the hon.
members that the hon. Prime Minister is
now one of the gentlemen of the press, and
to be careful of what they say in his hearing.
On behalf of all hon. members of all par-
ties, I congratulate you, sir, on the high
honour bestowed upon you, and trust that
you will long be spared to enjoy the priv-
ileges that go with membership in that dis-
tinguished fraternity.
Hon. L. M. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I am very
grateful to you for raising this point before
the orders of the day are called. It is very
good of you.
May I say that it was a very great pleasure
and surprise to receive this card which in-
dicates my election to membership of the
press gallery. I may say, I will be on my
good behaviour for the year 1958.
I had the opportunity of expressing to
the members of the press my very inade-
quate thanks, as will be what I say now.
I am not deserving of this honour. I never-
theless appreciate it very much. My recol-
lection is that it was Edmund Burke— per-
haps some of the members here can correct
me if I am wrong— who in referring to the
press in other days said: "There sit the lords
spiritual and the lords temporal and the
commons. But there is another estate, the
fourth estate, who sit in that gallery opposite
who are more important than the other three."
That I think was the origin of the expression
"fourth estate." I may be wrong but at least
that is what gave colour to that statement.
I expressed my gratitude to the press for
something which I knew was extended to
me, not as a person, but as one representing
the elected members of the Legislature. I
would say that I told them I accepted this
honour with humility, recognizing that those
of us who are among the elected mem-
bers, who are reported by the press, are often
unmindful of the difficult task that these
gentlemen have.
Mr. Speaker, through you I thank them
again. I thank them on behalf of all hon.
members for this reason that I know that the
honour which has been extended to me, and
I am sure through the honour which was ex-
tended to you a year ago, was in recognition
of the fact that we are representatives of the
elected members of this House.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a word of
congratulation for this signal honour which
has been bestowed upon the hon. Prime Mini-
ster. I cannot decide which will be the greater
benefactor, the press or the hon. Prime Mini-
ster. I am reminded of the suggestion from
time to time that there was some difficulty,
some reticence on the part of the hon. Prime
Minister in giving out information to the
press. In that respect I am reminded of the old
adage that says: "If you can't win them, take
them into the fold." But seriously, I am
happy that this honour has come to the hon.
Prime Minister, and feel that it is not only an
honour to him but to the Legislature as a
whole.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like also to add my con-
gratulations. As a person who in times past
has had some association with the press, I
can assure the hon. Prime Minister that he
has joined an honourable fraternity. But you
may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, and the hon.
Prime Minister may have noticed, that it has
now become the habit that when one joins
the press, he also joins the Newspaper Guild,
and I am looking forward to the hon. Prime
Minister doing that in the near future.
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
33
Mr. Speaker: Orders.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have a question which
I would like to address to the hon. Prime
Minister.
Wednesday's edition of the Kirkland Lake
Northern News carries under a banner head-
line Tri-Town Farmers Protest Pipe Pact,
the story of how farmers in the Temiskaming
area are being high-pressured and threatened
into signing contracts offered them by the
Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company. In fact,
last night these protests were climaxed in a
meeting at Earlton.
Although the company states that it is not
planning to resort to expropriation, farmers
are being told privately by the company's
agents that either they sign or they will be
forced to agree in one fashion or another.
Now my question is, what steps has the
provincial government taken to protect the
interest of individual property owners against
this kind of high-pressure tactics on the part
of the company?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I may say
that I just learned of this matter when the
hon. member drew it to my attention. I im-
mediately attempted to contact Mr. Crozier,
the fuel controller, who has most of these
things under his review, but he is out of the
city and therefore it is impossible to say what
the situation is from his angle.
However, I point out to the hon. member
that his question is this, that while the com-
pany states that it does not plan to resort to
expropriation, farmers are being told by the
company's agents that either they sign or they
will be forced to agree. That is in the memor-
andum the hon. member gave me.
Now, I point out that last year or the year
before, with a good deal of care, legislation
was passed which was designed to protect the
rights of the individual, and at the same time
give the necessary power and authority to
conduct operations properly— something which
is I think agreed to be in the public interest.
Although perhaps some of us may have
differences as to the method of construction, I
think it is agreed that it is essential that gas
be piped here from the west.
The plight I think is this, and perhaps this
is served by the hon. member's question: I do
not suppose there is anything that I or any
other human agency can do to prevent persons
who are attempting to get agreements from
saying things which they should not say. They
have absolutely no right to say to these farm-
ers or anyone that they will be forced to
sign. As a matter of fact, the farmers' rights
are provided by the statute, and I would as-
sure the people that they cannot be shoved
around, that their rights are as defined and
stated in the statute, and they are entitled
to the compensation.
I do not think I can say to the hon. member
anything other than that. I will make further
inquiry relative to the matter. I will ask Mr.
Crozier and will find out the background of
that particular situation.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. Prime Minister consider going this one
step further:
For example, in the instance of some of
them, who are Veterans' Land Act holders, I
understand that the federal government has
assured these people that they will be pro-
vided with legal advice and lawyers to protect
their interests.
But there is another great group of people
there who do not happen to have the protec-
tion of The Veterans' Land Act. It seems to
me this is an old story. It has occurred in
many other places in the province.
Will the government give assurances to
these other people that they will be provided
with legal advice so whatever pittance they
may get from the company will not be eaten
up in legal advice fees if they are going to
protect their interests?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will be very glad, Mr.
Speaker, to look into the whole subject. I
would not want to make any statement at the
moment because I do not know the details
of the problem.
Mr. Oliver: I am not sure of the statute
at the moment, but does the company possess
the power of expropriation?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think the company does.
Again I received this just before I entered the
House, and I have not had the opportunity
of looking up the statute of last year or the
year before, but I think the company has the
power of expropriation.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
First order, consideration of the speech of
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor at
the opening of the session.
Mr. T. L. Kennedy (Peel): Mr. Speaker,
I would ask leave to move, seconded by
Mr. F. Guindon (Glengarry), that a humble
address be presented to the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario as follows:
34
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
May it please Your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects of the legislative assembly of the
province of Ontario now in session, beg
leave to offer our humble thanks to Your
Honour for the gracious speech which Your
Honour has addressed to us.
Mr. Speaker, may I say how proud I am
to be given this opportunity to make this
address. I feel this is going to be a history-
making session of the House. I also feel that
I have very good friends in every part of the
House and it is rather nice to talk to one's
friends in a formal way.
Last night I had a surprise. My 6 grand-
sons expressed a wish to come down here.
They saw their principal and got permission
to visit the Legislature and they are now
sitting in the gallery. I am proud that I speak
before them. I hope that some day one will
have the honour to be a member of this
House. As we know, the fibre of a family
makes a nation. I believe in the family life;
there is nothing that can take its place.
In this House we have heard a lot about
Lindsay in Victoria and Haliburton, but I
would like to say there is another place that
to my mind is much more important. My
family has been around Dixie well over 150
years, and last Sunday, Mr. Speaker, I had
the privilege of taking communion with 3
generations of my family. I do not know
whether it is just family pride but it makes
me happy when I go to church and see my
children and my grandchildren there with me.
That is the sort of thing that holds a country
together.
I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.
One can be elected Speaker, but the Speakers
in this House must have the respect of all
parties before they really are Speakers of the
House, and I am sure the hon. member for
Brant (Mr. Nixon) will join with me when I
say that all the Speakers in this House since
1919 have been good. They have been excel-
lent and have enjoyed the confidence of all
the members irrespective of party. You, Mr.
Speaker, have carried on that great tradition.
It is rather regrettable that when we come
together we have to face some vacant seats
due to death. "Tommy" Thomas was born in
Peel county where all good people come
from, as a rule. He went to school there, went
to Streetsville High School, and then to the
Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph and
then entered the government service. One of
the happy recollections I have of his life was
that when he made the opening speech the
first year he was made a Minister, his family
sat in the gallery. Later he took them around
to show them the farm on which he was born,
the house he lived in and the schools he went
to. He was proud to show his family the
scenes of his boyhood. I think I came close
to Tommy Thomas that day.
Then, too, we have lost the greatly res-
pected "Tom" Pryde, who was one of the
most popular men in this House. It is regret-
table. One never thought of Tom Pryde
without thinking of Mrs. Pryde. They were
inseparable.
We mourn both of these men.
I want to say a word about Dana Porter.
Dana was a rather particular friend of mine,
and always has been since coming into this
House. I won't say I regret his going. I think
the supreme court is going to be enhanced by
his appointment. I will say this about him:
Dana Porter came into The Department of
Planning and Development under great diffi-
culty. He became Provincial Secretary, then
Minister of Education, then Attorney-General,
and then Treasurer.
I am not as afraid of the hon. Prime Min-
ister as I used to be. I have now overcome
the fear I once had of him, but if he were
not here, I might say he was the best man
all those portfolios ever had. I cannot say
that with him being here.
I have seen many changes in this House.
I have known the hon. member for Brant for
39 years. During that time he and I became
very friendly. He "goes off" every four years
for some reason. He gets a little moonstruck
or something, but outside of that he is a fine
gentleman, and if I got into trouble anywhere
around Brant County, I would call on him
just as soon as I would anyone else. He might
grumble about "these Tories" getting into
trouble, but I am quite sure he would come
and help me.
And the same with the young man who
leads the Liberal Party, who has had over 30
years in public life, entering the Legislature in
1923. What a wealth of exchanges we have
had! They came young in those days and
they stayed young.
I want to say a word about the hon. new
members. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker,
that we have some of the best new members
we have ever had in this House. The House
changed in 1919, changed again in 1923,
changed pretty well in 1926, and completely
changed in 1934, and Mr. Speaker, there was
not one Conservative elected from Toronto
to Windsor, not a man! My, the province
must have suffered for that!
Then, after the next election you and I
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
35
were the only two, Mr. Speaker, but we soon
changed that. We got going. I would say
this to the new members, if they enjoy 50
years of public life like I have, they will be
very happy indeed. If they form the kind of
friendships in this House that I have from
1919 to the present time, they will have a
great joy. I advise them not to worry about
things too much.
We are inclined to worry about things that
never happen. I have worried and worried
my life out about something that happened
only to find no one else was concerned.
I want to recall something which was given
to me in 1930. I think all through my public
life from that time on, this has been the
keynote of my life:
I gave a beggar, from my little store
of wealth, some gold:
He spent the shining ore, and came again,
and yet again,
Still cold and hungry as before.
I gave a thought, and through that
thought of mine,
He found himself— the man supreme,
divine-
Fed, clothed and crowned with blessing
manifold,
And now he begs no more.
I think that is the essence of government
service.
As I have said, I have seen many changes.
I have sat in this House with the father of
the hon. member for St. David (Mr. Price),
the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Mac-
aulay), the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development (Mr. Nickle), the hon. member
for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Lyons), the hon.
member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Rank-
in), and also with the father of the Clerk of
the House, and I still remember— I find myself
referring for a minute to the hon. member for
Brant— perhaps some of us remember the long
speech he gave on that multiple voting bill.
He started and would have been going yet if
he had not talked the bill out. He spoke for,
I think, nearly 5 or 7 hours.
I also have a word to say about the hon.
member for York West (Mr. Rowntree). I
have a very kindly feeling towards him. Some
55 years ago, when I got into municipal life,
one of the men I was told I must see was his
grandfather.
The hon. member's grandfather was called
the "salt of the earth" and as he went, many
other people would go.
The hon. member looks exactly like him
except he hasn't a whisker. In those days one
grew whiskers, of course. When I went to
see him, his first words to me were: "Well,
you had better grow a whisker before you run
for municipal life," and we talked for a bit.
Then he said: "Well, I will vote for you, I
will give you one year's trial," then he re-
mained my staunch friend until he died. I
have a kindly feeling for the hon. member
because of his grandfather. I feel that if the
hon. member follows in his grandfather's
footsteps, he will be a very happy man indeed.
May I say thanks to 3 members who have
been particularly good to me. I live in the
southeast corner of my riding, a long way
from Halton. The hon. member for York
North (Mr. Mackenzie) lives near the north-
west part of my riding, almost right beside
my riding, and he takes a multitude of people
from me. He covers up my sins and helps
me in many ways.
The same can be said for the hon. member
for Wellington-Duff erin (Mr. Root). He lives
right beside my border. He, too, is a good
man and is much closer to thousands of my
voters than I am and I know they go over
to him, and that he gives them comfort.
I want to thank the hon. member— and also
the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Hall). Some-
times I am not sure whether he lives in Peel
or Halton but he must be over in my county
half the time; he gets his mail in my county
and he helps me tremendously. I want to say
to the 3 hon. members: "Thank you very
much."
Last year, many things happened in this
country of ours. There were the reactions to
the satellites and the cold war and other ac-
tivities. I have read for years of the world
coming to an end but it has never happened
yet and I have faith that it never will. I was
a particular student of Genghis Khan whom so
many should know about; it must be abont
700 to 800 years ago that he lived, and killed
20 million people. It is said that Asia Minor
has never been the same since.
He came close to conquering the world but
something intervened, and something will
always intervene to protect people who be-
lieve in our free way of life.
The thing that transcended all that hap-
pened last year was the visit of our Queen to
open Parliament in the capital of Canada. I
followed her visit with attention by television,
and there was pride in my heart— and I might
say also, Mr. Speaker, there was a tear in my
eye. Why that was there I do not know, but
all through that television show, the tear
stayed in my eye and the pride stayed in my
heart. I remember her father and mother. I
remember shaking hands with them at the
36
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
spot where the clerk's table stands now. I
remember meeting her grandfather and grand-
mother. I remember her grandfather on his
black horse inspecting us as we left for
France, and I can remember King George V
and the Queen at a luncheon, and shaking
hands with them.
I never had the tear in my eye that I had
with the present Queen. She holds us closer
together than all the man-made laws put
together, and she will continue to do so.
I would like to say a word of congratula-
tion. I have not got down to — and I am not
going to get anywhere near— the address. I
might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am allowed
quite a bit of latitude.
I want to say a word about lands and
forests. The subject has always been close
to me because agriculture and lands and
forests interlock quite a bit, as both are
natural resources. In earlier days, we had no
conservation-minded people as we have now
and so the natural resources were exploited.
Why? Because our forefathers had to do so.
Land was purchased and the trees cut to give
men work. That is something that we would
never dare do now, but had we not done it
then, dear knows what would have happened
to people of this province who could not get
other work. In 1908 we cut 800 million board
feet of pine lumber. We could not afford
that.
Today we realize the importance of con-
servation. I remember in 1920 when the hon.
member for Brant, then Provincial Secretary,
brought in the Kapuskasing pulp mill and we
rented land adjacent to it so that land would
be retained by the Crown and could, at any
time after so many years' notice, be used for
farming or any other purpose.
Another thing I am very keen on is pro-
bation. In 1908 we started to study that
and it has gone a long way. I know most of
the hon. members in this House have tried
to get a job for some man who had served
time in Guelph or Burwash or somewhere
else. They are not taken on very readily and
I have spent a lot of time, as every hon.
member of this House has, trying to place
them. Now, since we have the probation
officer he has taken care of that.
I want to say how pleased I am about
that, and I also want to point out to the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) that
there are far too many men in jail.
There are two kinds of crime— deliberate
crime and careless crime. I think that there
should be probation power given to magis-
trates and judges so that in some cases the
offender can remain with his family, con-
tinue to earn a living, and avoid the stigma
of being in jail.
I go back to J. W. Hanna when he was
Provincial Secretary. He studied the people
in jail and wondered why they were in jail.
He found out that in so many cases the
father had been killed and the widowed
mother had had to go out to work. As a
result the children ran the streets. From
that, Mr. Hanna originated the mothers' al-
lowance. He said that it would be cheaper
to hire the mothers to look after the children.
It was a great success and I think that he
did a wonderful job of work. Now we can
go to another step forward in this work by
increased probation.
The authorities used to hang a man for
stealing a sheep. They stopped hanging
them and men stopped stealing sheep. Now
that is rather strange but that is what hap-
pened. They used to hang a man for steal-
ing and I believe that we can cure men-
nobody is born into this world a criminal.
A person becomes a criminal for several rea-
sons—a lot of the parents make them crim-
inals, too much love, or it might be that
they do not have the right home environ-
ment, but somebody makes people criminals
after they are born into this world. I think
we can find a new way of dealing with
punishment or crime prevention.
I want to say a word about the farm
situation. First might I say a word about
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Good-
fellow). He is a personal friend of mine, and
I claim some of the credit. I went down to
his first convention and he was elected after
that. I think some of the things I said must
have helped him because he has come a
long way since then and I have had a great
pride in all the departments he has been in.
I do not want anyone else to say he is the
best Minister, but I will say he is the best
when I am not in the House, but when I
am in it, I won't say it.
One of my best friends and his best friends
told me about a month ago right to my face
that he is the best Minister we ever had in
this department. I said yes, but I did not
like him telling me that. I have a great
belief that our present hon. Minister is one
of the best men we ever had.
The hon. members do not realize when
they ask him to go out just how busy a
man he is. He has at least 500 invitations
every year for a night meeting and he has
to go out to school as it were, to study.
When he goes through Ontario, he cannot
go on the King's highways, he must go
through the townships. He must attend many
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
37
farm meetings, in order to know what the
farmers are speaking of. It will take at
least 60 days to cover the province in this
way.
He may write to the agricultural repre-
sentative saying: "I saw a lot of poor farms
there, why?" From that "why" may come
some solution and make him a little happier.
Farming has always been pleasant. I have
been so happy in it. Farming has been one
of the great joys of my life. At 18 I had
consumption, and hon. members will recall
that then people died when they got con-
sumption. But I happened to live through
it, and I became a farmer, and no one could
be happier than I have been, in my pro-
fession of farming, the oldest profession
known to anyone in this world.
I think that we farmers consider it a way
of life and do not ever make any excuses
for it. These are the proud people, proud
that we are not like the manufacturer who
buys this and this and makes that— his known
quantities— we have no known quantities. We
have soil but we have to have water, soil
is no good without water, and we have to
have sun. We have nothing to do with
water and sun and we have the unknown
quality to become great gamblers. But we
have always had 7 lean years and 7 fat years,
all through the ages, and things have evened
up. We can work with nature, so we are
all right.
About 100 years ago, this province grew
about 70 to 80 million bushels of wheat. It
was a big crop. Now they grow about 18
million and it is a small crop which does not
amount to much in our farm economy. It is
a nice crop to get in in the fall and one gets
it off early. It is a nice crop to grow.
When one becomes an old farmer like my-
self, it is hard to quit growing wheat. The
farmer gets it through the thresher and he
gets it in his hands, and it is like gold— he is
like a miser with gold. I grew wheat many
years after I lost money on it just for the
pleasure. I have seen it threshed and seen
that yellow gold come out of the threshing
machine and have sold it for 10 cents a
bushel less than it cost me to raise it. It may
have been a very expensive pleasure but I
enjoyed it very much.
Then we had "the McKinley." I suppose
some here remember the McKinley tariff and
all the black years after that. United States
used to be a great market for our barley,
then all at once— just like that— the market
was cut off us by the McKinley tariff. Our
barns were filled with barley and we had no
place to sell it, and from that came the
English market which we held until World
War II.
Then we had the "horse age" and we got
$25 million a year for horses— one of the
biggest "cash crops" we had in those years.
It does not amount to much now, but then
it was one of the biggest "cash crops" we had
had in years.
That was cut off when gasoline came in.
We survived that as well.
Today, some 80 per cent, of our farmers
grow only 20 per cent, of our food. Now
our trouble is with that 80 per cent, of the
farmers. Our trouble is with marginal farms
and climatic changes. We used to have rain
and snow— now these are no longer plentiful
and we grow crops which are not favourable
to our climate. I think that the hon. Minister
will have to start something new, and I think
he will have to go outside of the office to
get this.
' I have two men in mind but I do not know
if he can get either one of them to see about
this 80 per cent, of the farmers. One cannot
sit in an office and do it. One must get in a
car and go out, and must have with him a
man with an auger to bore down to see what
kind of farms he has. It is not possible to see
all the farms but he will have some idea of
how that 80 per cent, of farmers are faced
with the problem of making money.
Might I say something about redistribution.
I think we should have at least 10 or
12 more members in this Legislature. No
man can give service to too many people.
I do not think people realize that hon. mem-
bers are working 52 weeks in the year and
that people come to us. A government is
an impersonal thing. A person will not go
to the government to talk, but will go to
the member. And he in turn can take them
to the government and try to have their
matter settled.
A member cannot service too many people.
I think it is wonderful . that we are servicing
so many. I found 50,000 is a nice number
to service. It depends on the riding.
Take the hon. member for Kenora (Mr.
Wren), for instance. His riding is tremen-
dous in size. Then take my own riding of
Peel, 50,000 people in an extension of the
city of Toronto, 100,000 in all. ',
By the way, it does not stop those Toronto
men from coming to the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Dunlop) and I can tell hon.
members this, that 7 years from now, for
every schoolroom we have we will have to
have two, and we will have to "come across"
38
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with quite a bit more money than we have
been spending lately.
I think an hon. member can get into
trouble, too. Let me relate how I got into
trouble once, serving people. A widow and
her son were living on a farm at the north
end of the county. The son fell in love with
a girl, down in my village, who was a very
strong Liberal and the widow wrote me a
letter asking me about it. She put in this:
"I am not going to let my son marry any
Grit."
Well, I liked the girl very much, I liked
the family, and I wrote back a letter endors-
ing her to the skies. I knew that no girl
was good enough for a widow's only son—
I knew that— but I just simply had to do it.
1 never got another vote from her again.
She voted against me religiously from that
day to the day she died, so one can get
into trouble for some of the things one does
for one's constituents.
Might I go back just a little bit. When we
came into this House we got $1,400 a year
and once we sat for, I think it was, nearly 5
months. I have seen so many changes, but I
have seen changes in our form of government
as well coming on.
I, as a baby, came in on a stage coach with
my mother in the days before formulas.
Where the mother went the baby went also.
I remember very well travelling on the
horse-drawn street cars. I remember wanting
to see an accident. I wanted to see that car
hit the horse and the horse run away and see
what would happen. It never did happen.
I was always disappointed every time I got off
that street car, because that horse never ran
away.
I remember two farmers in my county who
bred horses for the street cars. One said:
"Henry, I hear they are going to run the street
cars with fishing poles," and they both roared
and laughed. They both kept breeding horses
and they both had to sell the horses some-
where else than to the street car operators
because of the water falling down Niagara
Falls.
I remember the roads in Toronto. The hon.
Toronto members will remember the labour-
ers taking poles and making cedar roads.
Front Street was laid with blocks about 8
inches long. I saw the cobblestones here, and
remember when the only road clearer we had
in the country, Mr. Speaker, was the sun. If
the sun did not clean up the roads, we did
not move out.
Today we are in this phase of spending
money on making roads so perfect that it
is hard to imagine anything better.
I always had to have a candle at my bed-
side when I was a young boy for fear I
might upset the lamp, and for many genera-
tions they thought the coal-oil lamp was the
only working power other than the sun.
Right now we have the hydro, but we
are not going to have that hydro forever.
We are going to get something new. The
people of today are just as clever if not
more clever than those people who changed
the cedar blocks into a good road, changed
the sun-cleared road into a road that we
can travel upon the year around.
I believe we will have a different way of
heating our homes. We had wood and coal
and fuel-oil, we will have a still different
way, and I say to the hon. Minister of Health
that in our local graveyard, from about 1845
to 1865 or 1870, there were hundreds and
hundreds of babies buried.
One family had 7 babies, none of whom
reached a year old. Two of them reached
the age of 4 months. All died in infancy.
All were lost.
I do not know what happened before 1845,
they may not have had tombstones, they just
put up a field stone. But so many babies
died. I remember very well what we called
"black diphtheria." When a person took
black diphtheria, they just measured him
for a coffin.
A carpenter was the chap who made the
coffins for us. Two brothers in our village
got black diphtheria, and he started making
the coffins immediately.
How they made the coffins might interest
the hon. Minister. They made the coffins of
plain wood, with nails all around it so they
could be hammered in fast, and then when
the carpenter got word that the patients
were dead, he went over. He wore long
gloves and he had to drink a quarter-bottle
of whiskey before he went over in order to
"keep off" the fevers and whatnot.
Then he had to handle the body with these
long gloves, put it in the coffin and hammer
the lid right down. Then he had to drink
another quarter-bottle of whiskey to be sure
that he would not catch the fevers.
That was the procedure in our day and
the neighbours went and dug the graves,
so the bodies would be buried quickly.
I don't know if anyone has diphtheria any
more in this province, it is a thing of the
past, and I think cancer will be a thing of
the past. We have several men who found
the cure for diphtheria, and men who found
ways to cure other ailments, including con-
sumption. My father died from consumption
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
39
as a very young man. At that time no one
survived for long. I got through it all right,
but that was exceptional. No one lived.
Today, rapid death from consumption is a
thing of the past, and I think many other
serious ailments will be things of the past in
years to come.
I remember the coming of radio. I went
to the Toronto Exhibition and in the mach-
inery building they had something like this
apparatus at one end, and about 60 feet
away and across the wall there was some-
thing else which we put on our ears and
through it we heard a noise. We were sure
there was some wire hidden somewhere. It
was something new, and I remember the
newspapers saying: "This is original, this is
the new way." But not too many believed
it when the newspapers said that about radio.
Then television. When I first saw, at the
Royal Winter Fair, a woman singing at the
Royal York, her voice failed sometimes, and
sometimes the light went out, but it was
television, and that is something that is now
an accomplished fact. In years to come, new
things will take its place.
I want to say a word about this government,
and I have to be rather particular about what
I say about it, too. I am very proud of this
government of ours. In case anybody doubts
that, I am very, very proud of it. Like
the rest of the hon. members, I have studied
Canadian history a great deal, particularly
from a political point of view. For years and
years I have been reading articles on it; see-
ing some of the old journals of the House.
I divide into 3 parts this government we
had in Canada in 1792. One part was from
1792 to 1840, when they did not know
whether it was going to exist or not, whether
it was going to die or going to live. There
was a fight for existence. It was a question
whether they were going to be able to live
in this wild land. Indians were still wild,
food was hard to get, and the people had no
idea whether we were British or citizens of
some other country.
And here is something. The members for
Norfolk, Oxford, Middlesex, Grenville, and
the first and third riding of York, which I was
in and my family was in, were expelled from
this House for disloyalty. Can we imagine
anyone now expelling a member from the
House for disloyalty? They expelled those
members for what they called disloyalty in
those days.
I think the second period was from 1841 to
1867, at Confederation. I think the greatest
thing that has ever happened in history is
Confederation. It took a genius to join two
provinces such as Quebec and Ontario were
in those days (not friends like we are now),
and then take those two Maritime provinces,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and put
them into one. Mr. John A. Macdonald did it.
At the turn of the century, Mr. James
Whitney brought succession duties in. And
what a fight that was! I remember that so
well.
In 1950, the present hon. Prime Minister
came in. Now the government we have here
wins elections. The people like it because of
"government of the people, by the people, for
the people." It is a "different" government.
I have seen 3 different governments. I
think since 1950 I have seen a government
that the people like.
First, a statesman is born only once in a
while. I remember talking to a group of
farmers about our present leader before he
became our leader. I said he was of the earth,
and that he could go into towns and cities and
talk to those people in their own language
as well. He had a good family life, he had a
wonderful mother.
I never pass March 31 without thinking of
our hon. Prime Minister. He was wounded
that day. Many hon. members in this House
have been wounded. Among the thoughts that
go through one's mind, as one gets that shot
for tetanus— that's the first thing they do for
you— are thoughts of family, and also of one's
country. A great love of country is born.
Any man, who has been overseas and
wounded, thinks of the soldier psalm, yes,
"The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want,"
but he thinks of his country as well, and then
in his mind grows something that makes his
country so precious that he wants to give
his whole life, his mind and his body to make
that a better place for people to live in. I
think our hon. Prime Minister has done that.
I want to ask him to keep on doing it. The
people trust him, they think that he is honest,
they know he is honest, they know he is for
them, just for themselves, and I am happy
that he gets followers.
I wish I could spend another 50 years in
public life, as I remember my school life, my
municipal life and my life here. I wish I
could, I was so happy then. I wish— no, I
do not wish another 50 years. I lived in the
happiest years that ever were; I saw all these
improvements.
The younger hon. members will see them
too. I do not envy what they will see because
I have seen progress. The service one gives
to the public is one's real reward in being in
this House.
40
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Before I close, as I have said several times,
I want to say a word about Peel, but I am a
little afraid if I say anything about Peel again
and nothing about Haliburton, I am through.
We have a great county with a great river
running through it. Water is the most vital
thing we have. If we read in the first chapter
of the Bible about when the world was made,
we will find water is mentioned first, the most
important thing is water.
I am going to close with something which
is a treasure of 10 years ago, which made a
very great impression on me, and it mentions
3 things: water, food and minerals. It gives
the water first and then— this is it:
"For the Lord Thy God has brought in a
good land, a land of brooks and streams and
waters that spring out of the valleys." Then
he goes into food, "a land of wheat and
barley, bread and honey." Then he goes into
minerals, "a land where I shall eat bread
without scarceness and I shall not lack any-
thing."
Mr. Speaker, that is Ontario. Thousands of
years ago that was written. The writer knew
the importance of water, food and minerals.
He knew what order to put them in, and
thousands of years later that is so true of the
province of Ontario today.
I am quite sure that while at election time
the hon. members may disagree, everyone in
this House realizes that we have a man, as
leader of the government, who is well
qualified for the post.
Mr. F. Guindon ( Glengarry ) : Mr. Speaker,
it is with sincere appreciation of the honour
conferred upon me, and upon the constituency
which I represent, that I am privileged to
address this assembly as seconder of the
motion of the hon. member for Peel for the
adoption of the address of His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
It is a very special pleasure to be asso-
ciated on this occasion with the hon. mem-
ber for Peel. My esteemed colleague is a
loved and respected veteran of this House.
His manifold services to our province and
indeed to our nation antedate the memory
of many of us.
We recall his long association with the
Canadian militia. This, coupled with his
sense of duty and patriotism early led him
into active service in World War I. On the
termination of this struggle, a vital turning
point in world affairs, he returned to his
beautiful ancestral acres in Peel county.
It is one of the current tragedies of our
industrial and commercial development that
this fine and fruitful segment of Ontario soil
is bowing to the march of progress to be
submerged in the expanding industrial, com-
mercial and residential development which
features Ontario today.
In 1919, just 39 years ago, my hon. friend
entered this House in a general election
which marked a setback for the Conservative
government of the day— a very temporary
setback— for just 4 years later the late Howard
Ferguson led the party to an outstanding
triumph at the polls.
Since that time, and except for a brief
period, 1934 to 1937, the hon. member for
Peel has been re-elected with impressive
majorities by the people who know him best.
For 13 years he served with distinction as
Minister of Agriculture, and for a period as
Prime Minister of this province.
His love of the land is exceeded only by
the depth of his knowledge of scientific
agriculture and his deep concern for the
welfare of the Ontario farmer. His fields
of service are indeed far-flung, but his many
contributions to Ontario agriculture ensure
for him an honoured place when the history
of this province is written. He is known to
very many of the people of Glengarry as he
has honoured us on many occasions, moving
freely among our people and discussing with
them their hopes and their problems.
I am sure the members of this House join
me in mutual good wishes and in the hope
that we shall long enjoy the privilege of his
friendship and the benefit of his always
sound counsel.
There are certain faces missing today from
the ranks of this Assembly, the faces of hon.
members who had given long and faithful
service to their respective constituencies, men
who had been honoured by high office. It
was not my privilege to know them person-
ally but their names and their records of
service are familiar to all of us. With all
the hon. members of this House, I should
like to express my regrets at their passing.
For 14 years the riding of Middlesex
North was represented by the late Thomas
L. Patrick. Like the hon. member for Peel,
the late member was devoted to the cause
of agriculture and bore the reputation of
being one of Ontario's most successful far-
mers. He had served during his period of
office on many committees and as deputy
Speaker of this assembly. I am sure that
we all regret his absence and that we join in
expressing our sympathy to his family and
friends.
With great regret I also refer to the pass-
ing of the late member for Elgin, Mr.
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
41
Fletcher S. Thomas. I enjoyed his acquaint-
ance and would say that I think there is
general agreement that no life was ever more
wholly dedicated to the service of the people
of Ontario, and more especially to the ad-
vancement of Ontario agriculture.
The late member redeemed Elgin riding
in the Conservative cause. He enjoyed the
wide support of members of all parties. As
Minister of Public Works and as Minister of
Agriculture he made many enduring contribu-
tions. It is a matter of regret that his later
years were troubled with ill-health to the
point where he felt it necessary to lay aside
the burdens of ministerial office. This House
and this province are the poorer for his loss.
In more recent days there has been re-
corded the passing of still another member
of this assembly. I refer to the member for
Huron, Mr. Thomas Pryde. The late member
saw service in two world wars. He was a
tower of strength in the life of his community
and rendered long service in the municipal
field. For 10 years he rendered sterling
service as a member of this assembly.
I have heard very many expressions of
regret at his passing, coupled with many
instances of the fine service he gave to his
constituents and as a member of this House.
It is regrettable indeed, that one of our finest
citizens should have been taken from us.
There are other familiar faces missing from
our ranks, one or two of whom I should
mention, more especially because they are old
friends of mine and because they happen to
come from my part of Ontario.
I should like to mention my predecessor,
Mr. Osie Villeneuve, a 10-year veteran of
this assembly who rendered fine service to
Glengarry and who had a comprehensive
knowledge of farm problems.
I should also mention the former member
for Lanark, my good friend George Doucett.
He left a record of 20 years of service as a
member of this House, coupled with an
extended period of cabinet office.
Both of these popular and respected mem-
bers were some months ago chosen in their
respective ridings to represent their people
in the House of Commons. Both were popular
and faithful public servants in the provincial
sphere, and I am sure we all wish them well
in their new field of service.
It is also my very happy privilege to extend
congratulations and best wishes to 3 hon.
members who, like myself, are newcomers to
this House.
I refer to the hon. member for Middlesex
North (Mr. Stewart), the hon. member for
Lanark (Mr. McCue) and the hon. member
for Elgin (Mr. McNeil). Like myself they
received the majority vote of the electors in
the face of some spirited campaigning on the
part of our opponents. Like myself, they
appealed to the voters on the record of a
government which enjoys continuing esteem
and good-will. I hope to make their better
acquaintance as this session proceeds, and
I hope we may all be able to make some
contribution to the welfare of the people of
Ontario.
This assembly has been honoured by the
presence of His Honour the Lieutenant-
Governor of Ontario (Mr. Mackay), who was
graciously pleased to open the proceedings of
this House. The appointment of His Honour
as the representative of Her Majesty, the
Queen, is one which commends itself to all
our people. His Honour's high academic
qualifications, his distinguished career in his
profession, his outstanding service as a mem-
ber of Canada's armed forces, and the esteem
he acquired as an eminent member of the
judiciary all combine to provide a most
distinguished background for his present high
office.
I am sure that the hon. members of this
Assembly are happy at the choice of His
Honour as Her Majesty's representative, and
that they join with me in extending their
felicitations.
I am sure, also, that the hon. members will
join me in extending thanks and good wishes
to His Honour's predecessor (Mr. Breithaupt)
who displayed dignity and competence during
his period of service, along with his kind
courtesy on all occasions.
The recent visit of Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth II and Her Majesty's distinguished
husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
is a notable landmark in the history of the
Canadian nation. I believe Her Majesty's
visit marked the first occasion on which a
reigning sovereign formally opened the Cana-
dian Parliament.
Her Majesty's visit strengthened the ties
which bind together the nations of the
Commonwealth. Her gracious presence in
Washington strengthened British- American
friendship. Her Majesty's delightful presence,
her courtesy and her stirring eloquence en-
deared her to our people. I hope indeed,
that Her Majesty and other members of the
Royal Family will more frequently embrace
the whole-hearted welcome which will always
await them as they graciously visit our shores.
The riding of Glengarry, which it is my
honour to represent, is rich in the history of
Ontario and of Canada. It is a part of our
42
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
nation which no doubt was the site of phases
of the struggles of early colonial days when
the English, the French, the Indians and the
American colonists battled for the control of
the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence, the major
travel routes of the era and, of course, for the
huge territories served by these rivers.
These early struggles resolved themselves
in the fullness of time, and about 1775, Glen-
garry saw the influx of very many hardy
Scottish pioneers whose descendants today
enrich the life of our community. The writ-
ings of the late Ralph Connor present a
stirring, if sometimes fictional, account of
the life and times of early Glengarry.
Our burying grounds are rich in memorials
of those whose lives were spent in pioneer
days. There are brief records of many who
contributed to the political life of a budding
nation, with all its strivings in the bitter battle
for democracy and for a national unity which
then was but a name.
Among others, two of our churches are
among the oldest in Ontario, the Williams-
town Presbyterian Church and St. Raphael's
Roman Catholic Church. Both are well pre-
served and both still serve substantial con-
gregations.
Glengarry is essentially a rural community.
It has no cities and indeed no large centres
within its borders. Its villages afford ample,
modern shopping and commercial facilities.
Its countryside presents broad acres of well-
managed farms, among the best in Ontario.
But Glengarry has something else which
I think constitutes an example for this great
nation from coast to coast. In Glengarry we
have national unity in fact as well as in name.
The complexion of racial origins has changed
over the decades so that now I should say
that our population is perhaps equally divided
between people of Scottish, English and
French origin.
But we are free from racial and religious
prejudices. We live in harmony, a close-knit
community, each respecting the views of the
other. In our elections we support the man,
the party, the record of the leader and with-
out, I think, any special thought of ulterior
considerations. And here, I think, we are
setting a good example for Ontario and for
Canada.
The growth and development of our prov-
ince in recent years has won the attention of
Canada and indeed of America. Our popula-
tion growth, our industrial and commercial
expansion, and our vast increase in produc-
tivity have been at a very rapid pace.
In eastern Ontario our growth and develop-
ment until recent years has been steady rather
than spectacular. I suggest, however, that it
is inevitable that the rapid progress of east-
ern Ontario in every sphere of activity is now
ensured. Given ample natural resources, given
good transportation, given an adequate supply
of labour— and couple this with an abundant
supply of readily available power— industrial
and commercial development will follow as
surely as day follows night. All these factors
feature eastern Ontario.
We shall no doubt hear from the hon.
member for Hamilton - Wentworth ( Mr.
Connell ) of the amazing progress of hydro, and
more especially the vast developments on the
St. Lawrence and on the Ottawa. The great
power houses on the Ottawa— Des Joachims,
Chenaux, Otto Holden— have long since been
pouring their enormous output into hydro
lines serving vast portions of Ontario. The St.
Lawrence development, to produce 1.1 million
horse-power, will commence delivering elec-
tric energy this year, 1958.
Coupled with this is the deep waterway
which will make every lake port in Ontario
an ocean port, with results almost impossible
to predict. The combined projects are bound
to have a telling effect on a great part of the
northern half of this continent.
Great as are the implications of the seaway
and the hydro development, there is another
factor of great importance to eastern Ontario.
There is no more delightful drive in Ontario
than that along the St. Lawrence River from
Kingston to the Quebec border. The river is
more or less skirted by highway No. 2, which
has served our people for two centuries and
more but which has for decades been hope-
lessly out-of-date. Now, all this is being
changed.
The St. Lawrence parkway is perhaps sec-
ondary to the seaway and hydro develop-
ments. Nonetheless, coupled with the easterly
section of highway No. 401, it will mean one
of America's finest thruways — 135 miles of
dual-lane controlled-access highway, border-
ing one of America's greatest waterways, by-
passing the centres of population, and flanked
by scenes of natural and of man-made beauty.
At Niagara, Ontario has a gateway which
is a delight to tourist and to native-born, but
I think the St. Lawrence parkway will stand
comparison as it gradually takes form. That
such historic tourist attractions as Chrysler's
Farm and Old Fort Henry will receive a new
influx of visitors, I have no doubt.
There are few developments more wel-
come to eastern Ontario than highway No.
401. This vast thruway, 542 miles long,
spanning southern Ontario from Windsor to
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
43
the Quebec border, is one of the most im-
portant projects ever launched in Ontario.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was an im-
portant factor in welding the provinces into
a federal state. The Welland Canal opened
Lakes Ontario and Erie to huge, upper lake
freighters. These were developments on a
national scale.
But this magnificent highway, in the pro-
vincial plan, will be one of comparable im-
portance. Some of the hon. members may be
surprised, as I was, to know that already
about 175 miles of highway No. 401 are
already in use.
Part of the Kingston by-pass is already
open. Contracts have been let to carry the
highway around Brockville, Prescott and
Maitland. Construction is to go ahead on
one lane east of highway No. 16 to tie in
with a 20-mile stretch around Cornwall.
A little later the section from Cornwall to
the border will be completed.
The Cataraqui bridge at Kingston is a
major structure, part of a link to eliminate
the present bottleneck in that city. Major
bridges have been built over the Trent, the
Moira and the Salmon rivers. In the fall
of 1958, by-passes will be open around
Trenton and Belleville.
Then we have the Toronto-Newcastle sec-
tion, the Toronto by-pass, the Woodstock-
Ingersoll-London section, and the section
from Windsor to Tilbury all open today.
These sections are already relieving traffic
conditions, and when in due course the
project is finished, southern Ontario and
eastern Ontario will have a vast thruway,
second to none on this continent.
The hon. Minister of Highways ( Mr. Allan )
summed up very briefly in a recent address
his views as to departmental policies when
be said:
The facts, as we see them today, call
for immediate action and a long-term
plan for construction that will anticipate
the demands of increasing traffic on our
highways; and not the least of these are
the requirements of public commercial
vehicles in intra-provincial and inter-pro-
vincial transit.
We must build the most modern, multi-
lane, controlled-access freeways which will
bypass our urban centres and provide non-
stop through traffic with the safest, quick-
est and most economic route possible.
We must reconstruct many of our older
highways to higher and more modern
.standards.
Such highways as No. 400 and No. 401,
and the radical measures of reconstruction
and improvement as are in evidence in my
part of the province, and doubtless all over
Ontario, prove that the hon. Minister is
backing up his words with the most realistic
highways programme in Ontario's history.
Our municipal problems as to roads and
streets are being eased by this administration
on a scale never before contemplated; $60
million a year is a lot of money but that
is approximately the amount of municipal
road subsidies this year. In general, they
equal 50 per cent, of approved municipal
expenditures on roads and streets and 80
per cent, of the cost of bridges.
Also important is that, under the system
inaugurated by this government, there is
recognition that our cities, towns and villages
have their municipal road and street prob-
lems as well as do the counties and town-
ships. Thus, some 1,400 municipalities are
now in receipt of provincial road grants in-
stead of fewer than 400 as formerly.
I have mentioned briefly the Ontario
Hydro developments in eastern Ontario. I
should like to add this: under this adminis-
tration, Hydro has added approximately
25,000 miles of rural lines to serve more
than 300,000 new rural customers. If the
average Ontario family comprises 5 persons,
this indicates that 1.5 million of our people
now have hydro light and power who for-
merly were without this utility. Since 1945,
the provincial treasury has paid out over
$86 million to pay one-half of the cost of
rural line installation.
It is interesting to record that Ontario
Hydro in November last announced a policy
change of importance to many of our far-
mers. The policy now is that hydro, where
required, will provide farm extensions for
two-thirds of a mile from existing lines in-
stead of one-third of a mile as formerly.
This policy change applies to well-established
farms and will undoubtedly aid very many
farmers throughout Ontario. It is needless
to say that, without the realistic expansion
of rural hydro, it would be impossible for
many of our farmers to carry on today.
There is nothing static about Hydro's pro-
gramme. The steam-electric plant at Toronto
is being enlarged to develop 1.062 million
horse-power in place of 354,000 horse-
power as at present. The Niagara redevelop-
ment scheme is one of America's greatest
engineering projects. New steam-electric
plants are planned for the Long Branch and
the Hamilton areas, each ultimately to de-
44
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
velop 2.4 million horse-power or more than
double Ontario's share of the St. Lawrence
development.
As an easterner, it is gratifying to me
that Canada's first atomic-electric plant is
being constructed in eastern Ontario. This,
of course, is a pilot plant, designed to de-
velop 26,000 horse-power, a partnership pro-
ject involving the Canadian General Elec-
tric Company, the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion of Canada, and Ontario Hydro— another
fine example of the co-operative attitude of
the present administration.
Ultimately, atomic-electric power will be
available on a commercial basis. For the
present we must proceed with steam-electric
power developments, as the harnessing of
the St. Lawrence involves use of the last
of our major hydro-electric power sites.
The enormous 3-fold expansion of Hydro
in recent years is perhaps but a preview of
other and greater developments ahead of this
great public enterprise.
May I add it is not so many years ago
that certain hon. members opposite were
members of an administration which de-
plored the excess of hydro power, which
declaimed in the strongest terms against the
St. Lawrence development and which, gen-
erally, exhibited a complete lack of vision
of the future of this province.
As was so properly pointed out in the
gracious address of His Honour, the Lieute-
nant-Governor of Ontario, the provinces and
the municipalities form the right arm of our
development. For many years the govern-
ment of Canada closed its eyes to the
enormous responsibilities of the provincial-
municipal partnership.
There was a stubborn refusal to admit
that the development of provincial-municipal
facilities is a completely necessary prelude
to the development of the nation as a whole.
In the matter of federal-provincial fiscal
arrangements the federal attitude was essen-
tially one of take it or leave it.
Notwithstanding the former federal attitude
toward the provinces, this has never been the
attitude of our provincial administration to
the municipalities. During the life of this
government there has been an increase of
about 11 -fold in provincial grants to the
municipalities. Some 40 per cent, of Ontario's
provincial revenues are paid to the munici-
palities in grants of one type or another. To
every $1 raised by local taxation the provincial
treasury adds about 50 cents.
With federal affairs now in new hands, the
scene has changed. There is a realization of
the necessity of a healthy provincial and
municipal treasury.
What has been accomplished? For one
thing the provincial share of federal income
tax has been increased from 10 to 13 per
cent. The unrealistic, impractical and dicta-
torial federal restrictions as to the sharing of
the costs of direct relief have been eliminated.
One result is that this province has been able
to reduce the municipal share of relief costs
from 40 per cent, to 20 per cent.
Another unrealistic and wholly artificial
barrier erected by the late federal govern-
ment has been torn down. Here, I refer to
the federal ruling requiring participation of
6 provinces before the hospital insurance plan
could become effective.
We shall no doubt hear more of the details
of the hospital insurance plan during the
deliberations of this House. One feature which
impresses me is this. It is being launched
after an extended period of intelligent and
intensive preparation at the hands of a com-
mission whose members are highly skilled in
all matters of hospital administration. The
plan is one of vast implications, and it is right
and fitting that there should be no loose ends
when it is placed in operation on January 1
next.
The advances in medicine and surgery, in
all the vast array of equipment designed to
help the work of the medical and nursing
professions, along with the rapid increase in
our population, demand a very large expansion
in our hospital establishment.
It is this government which has continued
to overhaul its grant-aid system to aid in the
financing of our hospitals. It is this govern-
ment which initiated a system of capital
grants to aid in new hospital construction and
to aid in the rehabilitation of older hospitals
along with replacement of equipment.
As has been announced, capital grants for
general hospitals and related institutions are
being doubled as from January 1, 1958—
a stimulus to hospital construction and
incidentally a tonic for the building trades.
More than this, it is good to know that the
federal government, headed by Prime Min-
ister the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, is follow-
ing the example of the Ontario administration
and, in the main, is doubling its former scale
of capital hospital grants.
There is likewise under way an imposing
programme of mental hospital construction
and expansion. A new mental hospital has
been opened at Port Arthur; a similar hos-
pital is already occupied at North Bay. Thus
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
45
the north for the first time in history is being
supplied with this type of facility.
A new hospital is planned for the general
Kent area; another for the Huron area. I was
interested to hear that large extensions are
under way at 12 existing hospitals, with other
extensions planned.
In eastern Ontario we take a justifiable
pride in the massive hospital and school at
Smiths Falls — a project abandoned by a
former administration. Much-needed addi-
tions are accomplished at the Brockville and
Kingston hospitals. It is gratifying, indeed, to
know that the needs of our great eastern
community are no longer neglected.
Another great field of human betterment
receives the very capable attention of my
good personal friend and neighbour, the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare ( Mr. Cecile ) . My
hon. friend administers his department quietly
and efficiently, as thousands of our people
who receive state assistance can testify. Many
of those who have the pleasure of enjoying his
personal acquaintance can testify as to his
unfailing kindness and courtesy.
It is indeed natural for him to carry on the
manifold duties of his office, motivated by
the same humane principles which were the
guiding light of his predecessor.
The whole history of The Department of
Public Welfare is a history of change— change
in legislation, in regulation and in adminis-
tration — but change always motivated by
humane considerations and always designed
to improve the lot of the many who tempor-
arily or permanently require state assistance.
It was not so long ago that provincial aid
to our homes for the aged was limited to a
paltry 10 cents per inmate per day. That
was changed by this government which
assumed 50 per cent, of all costs related to
municipal homes for the aged. In the main,
these homes have been renovated or replaced
by modern structures; services have been
improved; and about 3,000 additional beds
have been added.
Keeping up the good work, the adminis-
tration has increased its contribution to 75
per cent, of all costs, and now proposes
similar treatment for other charitable institu-
tions. I cannot see that there will be any
serious quarrel with this policy.
Nor do I think there will be any objection
to proposals to improve mothers' allowances
and unemployment relief. Not only will there
be increased aid for helpless and dependent
persons but also a substantial relief as to local
taxation.
There has of late been in evidence all over
America and indeed the western world much
more than the usual interest in the subject
of education. As was remarked in the address
of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, it
was indeed fortunate that our education prob-
lem received recognition in Ontario some 15
years ago.
We have in Ontario a large and increasing
school population— approximately 1.174 mil-
lion pupils. The increase in pupil population
last year was 77,000, and we can reasonably
expect a similar increase year by year. The
cost of additional school accommodation was
in excess of $70 million and there is bound
to be a similar expenditure over a long period.
A satisfactory feature is that needs are being
met.
It is important to realize that no school in
Ontario is closed for lack of a teacher, that
the demand for teachers has been met, and
that the increasing demand for teachers will
continue to be met. A new teachers' college
with a full enrolment is in operation in east-
ern Metropolitan Toronto. Another was
opened at Hamilton in April, 1957. The
cornerstone for another, adjacent to the Uni-
versity of Western Ontario at London, was
laid in June, 1957. Plans have been com-
pleted for still another at New Toronto.
Our teachers' colleges graduated 2,600
students in 1957, while 3,647 are enrolled at
this time.
At the Lakehead, the new College of Arts,
Science and Technology is in use, while at the
justly famous Ryerson Institute of Technology
the first unit of a comprehensive building
programme is nearing completion. Of special
interest to eastern Ontario is the Eastern
Institute of Technology, opened last year at
Ottawa. A similar institute is being organized
for western Ontario, this to be opened in
September, 1958.
For the current fiscal year ending March
31, next, Legislative Education Grants total
slightly more than $104 million, an increase
of $20 million over the previous year. Univer-
sity grants total $18 million, an increase of
$2 million.
The hon. Prime Minister has announced
in some detail a 3-year plan or revision of the
education grant system. It will be recalled
that there was a vast overhaul of the system
commencing in 1945. The provincial grants
were first increased 3-fold, then 5-fold and
finally 10-fold. Last year a 3-year revision
was commenced; this will be extended this
year and will be completed in 1959.
The hon. Prime Minister stressed the
flexibility of the plan, stating that it is the
46
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
foundation for a system of increasing aid
which must continue for 10 or 15 years.
I shall not attempt to detail the proposed
changes and improvements which were dealt
with quite fully in a telecast address of the
hon. Prime Minister on January 13, last.
Entering into the grant formula are certain
main factors: provincial equalizing of assess-
ment; the number of children in attendance;
and finally a new factor described as the
growth-need factor.
In brief, the revised plan of grants implies
a vastly increasing scale of provincial aid
along with the transfer of still more education
costs away from the home and the farm and
toward the broader base of provincial taxa-
tion.
Our universities are receiving careful and
practical attention. In 1945, only 3 were re-
ceiving provincial aid. Today, there are 8,
some of them newly established. We have
today approximately 25,000 students enrolled
in our various universities.
During the past academic year $469,625
was awarded in provincial and federal-prov-
incial bursaries of which the province con-
tributed $369,625.
I am sure that we shall await with interest
the details of the new system of students' aid
referred to in the address of His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
Admittedly, the cost of higher education is
high. There is a good case for ample state
aid. As the state, however, assumes a greater
share of the cost it is elementary that there
must be safeguards established— something of
a selective system to guarantee reasonably
well that state aid shall go to students who
have the intellect, the intelligence, the energy
and the determination to benefit from univer-
sity training.
Our secondary schools perhaps afford an
example from which we may profit. I think
there is approval of present proposals on the
part of certain secondary teachers to comb out
students who fail or refuse to profit from edu-
cational opportunities. There is no place for
the idler either in high school or university, a
fact which we must keep in mind. After all,
there is a lot of the taxpayer's money at stake.
I should like to mention the work of the
9-member archaelogical and historic sites ad-
visory board, functioning under the general
direction and counsel of The Department of
Travel and Publicity. I understand that al-
ready some 60 sites have been marked with
suitable plaques, while many other sites are
the subject of research and investigation for
ultimate similar consideration.
We have a number of such sites in Glen-
garry, and they are regarded with continuing
interest and affection by our people.
John Sandfield MacDonald, Ontario's first
Prime Minister, was born at St. Raphael's
and was buried at St. Andrews, just over the
border in Stormont. Simon Fraser, noted
Canadian explorer who is credited with the
discovery of the Fraser River, is likewise
buried at St. Andrews.
I might mention also Bishop Macdonnell, a
whole-hearted Loyalist, who in his younger
days fought bravely with l^rock at Queenston
Heights. A substantial cairn erected in his
memory stands in the grounds of St. Raphael's
Church.
Also I should mention the Rev. Charles
Gordon, better known as Ralph Connor. He
was born at St. Elmo, a son of the manse.
His father, in fact, built the local church
which is still in use. Ralph Connor won en-
during fame not only as a clergyman with
great gifts but also as one of Canada's out-
standing authors.
I suggest, therefore, that if the hon.
Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cath-
cart) will direct the steps of the archaelogical
and historical sites advisory board toward
historic Glengarry, they will not only have
made a rewarding journey, but they will win
the acclaim of the people of this historic
part of Ontario.
I shall await with great interest such
remarks as may be made during the course
of this session by the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture (Mr. Goodfellow) and the hon. Minis-
ter of Lands and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram).
I may say that the nursery established by
The Department of Lands and Forests at
Kemptville is an increasingly valuable asset
to eastern Ontario. The department, I un-
derstand, last year distributed 26.5 million
young trees and expects to pass the 30-
million mark this year.
We have large areas of broken land in
eastern Ontario, much of it favourable to
reforestation, and the efforts of the depart-
ment in this connection are bound to be
of the greatest value to this and coming
generations.
The 18 conservation authorities in Ontario,
embodying 287 municipalities and covering
12,870 square miles, are carrying on a vast
work of enormous importance. The efforts
of these authorities which constitute a model
of inter-governmental co-operation receive
the solid backing, expert engineering and
other advice, and the substantial financial
assistance of The Department of Planning
and Development.
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
47
The hon. Minister of Planning and Develop-
ment (Mr. Nickle) is to be commended for
his vigorous administration in this important
sphere. His good work here, of course, is
allied with the vast tasks of the Ontario water
resources commission which reports through
the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Griesinger ) .
Of great importance to rural Ontario, and
of special importance to such areas as Glen-
garry where the dairy industry features our
farm operations, is the extension of the On-
tario Veterinary College at Guelph. This
fine institution has gone a long way since
it was transferred many years ago from its
primitive quarters on University Avenue
in this city. Work is far advanced on a
thoroughly modern medical and surgical
building, a vast structure to cost well over
$1 million dollars and which will round out
the facilities of a world-famous institution.
This major project, I believe, was pio-
neered by the late Fletcher S. Thomas when
he occupied the portfolio of agriculture.
Much credit is due to the late Mr. Thomas,
to his successor, the present Minister of
Agriculture and to the hon. Minister of
Public Works— not forgetting the realistic
contribution of the former Provincial Sec-
retary (Mr. Porter).
I should like to say a brief word of thanks
to the members of the civil service of On-
tario. I am glad that in recent days the
administration has been able to effect an
upward salary revision to help bring salaries
in line with those generally paid elsewhere,
and in the light of the high living costs of
these years. The vast ramifications of gov-
ernment with its multitude of services pose
many problems for a new country member
like myself.
Very many members of the service have
helped me in solving the various problems
of my constituents, and everywhere I have
met with efficiency and courtesy and a desire
to help wherever the problem may arise.
Then there are many members of the ser-
vice operating from our local offices. I know
many of these members of the outside ser-
vice in my area. They too, are uniformly
kind and helpful.
I should like to mention in particular
all members of Ottawa division office of The
Department of Highways. These technicians
direct a large organization and they are
performing a fine service for the large dis-
trict which comprises their jurisdiction.
Another efficient official who has achieved
a fine record of accomplishment is our Agri-
cultural Representative, Mr. J. Y. Humph-
ries. He is a leader in many community
activities and is secretary to Ayrshire clubs,
Holstein clubs and like organizations. He
also gives of his leadership and ability to
our 4-H clubs which are invaluable to our
young folks.
Also, I should like to commend the fine
work of Mr. L. L. Sicard of Alexandria, field
officer of The Department of Public Wel-
fare. He brings to bear on his duties the
efficiency and the humanitarian outlook
which feature the work of this important
department.
To all these and to many other members
of the civil service may I say that I am
grateful for their courtesy and assistance.
We shall hear much, as this session pro-
ceeds, of the growth and development of
this province, of the services supplied under
this administration, and of the problems
which face not only this government but also
our municipalities. Our population is now
about 5.750 million, approximately one- third
of the population of Canada. We supply
one-half of the enormous revenues flowing
into the Ottawa treasury.
Ontario supplies manufactured goods val-
ued at $10.6 billion per year— one-half of
Canada's whole production. Here alone, we
have an increase of 179 per cent, over 1946.
In the last 10 years an estimated 700,000
immigrants have settled in Ontario.
We produce nearly all of Canada's motor
vehicles and motor vehicle parts, along with
heavy electrical machinery and farm im-
plements. Our labour force exceeds 2 mil-
lion people. Our industries of mine and
forest are the envy of the world. Our north-
land is being developed as never before,
aided by the construction of modern high-
ways and mining and access roads.
The enormous progress of this great prov-
ince stems from many factors. We are
rich in natural resources— and it is good
to see that our forest resources are rapidly
attaining a sustained yield basis. New min-
eral wealth is constantly brought to light,
thanks to our prospectors and our mine de-
velopers.
Good highway transportation is an indis-
pensable factor in today's economy, and here
we have the realistic approach of The De-
partment of Highways and The Department
of Transport. It is a startling fact when we
realize that we have enough rubber-tired
vehicles in Ontario to carry every man,
woman and child in the province at one and
the same time.
48
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Yet our material resources could not be
developed, our astounding progress could not
be achieved, without vision and leadership.
That vision and that leadership we have in
the person of the hon. Prime Minister of this
great province. Never before in our history
have the people of Ontario displayed more
trust, more confidence, more genuine affection
toward the head of their government than
they have awarded to their present Prime
Minister. He is today, as he has always been,
a man of the people, and he heads a people's
government.
In one by-election after another the electors
of the various ridings have endorsed the
leadership, the policies, and the administra-
tive practices which have aided the forward
march of this, the banner province of this
Dominion. As recently as January 31 last, the
people of Elgin not only elected a supporter
of this administration with a handsome plur-
ality but also with an overall majority over
not one, but over 3 opponents.
It says something for the hon. Prime Min-
ister, for his leadership, for his administration,
when young men of the type of the newly
elected hon. member for Elgin, with a fine
personal and academic background, with a
long record of municipal and community
service, offer themselves for duty in the
broader provincial sphere. It says something
for the sound judgment of the people of the
historic riding of Elgin when they recognize
a good candidate and a good government.
The same is true of Middlesex North in
the western part of southern Ontario, and of
Lanark in the east. I congratulate my young
colleagues who, like myself, are newly elected
to this House, and I am sure I speak for them
as I do for myself when I say that we are
deeply indebted to the hon. Prime Minister
for his never-failing courtesy, encouragement
and support. It is an honour to serve under
such a leader.
It is an added honour to be a supporter of
the Progressive-Conservative party, a people's
party with a long record of service to this
province and to this nation.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to second
the motion to adopt the Speech from the
Throne, moved by the hon. member for Peel.
Mr. F. R. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, in case there
is something still to say and for purposes of
reflection I would move the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
THE HOSPITALS SERVICES
COMMISSION ACT, 1957
Hon. M. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 45, "An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Commission Act, 1957."
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I by no
means want to take a course which would
depart from the practice we have of indicating
to the hon. members the business of the
ensuing day, but in this case I thought that
the hon. members opposite, particularly,
might agree to an advancement of this bill
by one stage. Now I am not so sure that the
urgency that I was led to believe there was
in this small amendment is really a fact, but
the reason the bill was introduced as the first
bill, or the bill to be introduced following
His Honour's address, was the fact that it
was felt that it might be of some importance.
Frankly, I have some doubts about that, but
on the other hand, I think the hon. members
would have no objection at all to the bill.
The situation is this : It arises from a request
from the Ontario hospital services commission
which is engaged in ironing out any out-
standing details in relation to an agreement
relative to hospital insurance with the federal
government.
Now this point is surely a technical one.
It is a matter of what has been termed some-
times as "lawyers' law." I must admit that
I find it difficult to follow the point that has
been raised by some of the parties negotiating
in this agreement. The parties concerned are
Messrs. McCarthy and McCarthy, the solicitors
for the Ontario hospital services commission,
The Department of the Attorney-General,
the hon. Attorney-General, and The Depart-
ment of Justice at Ottawa.
Now the point is obscure but it involves
this: section 15 of The Ontario Hospital
Services Commission Act says that subject to
the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council, the commission may make regulations
(a) establishing a plan of hospital care in-
surance in accordance with the agreement
mentioned in section 13.
Section 13 states, going back in the Act,
that the government of Ontario represented
by the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario may
enter into an agreement with the government
of Canada under which Canada will contri-
bute the cost of the plan of hospital care
insurance provided for in this part, in accord-
ance with such terms and conditions as the
agreement may provide.
Now, the effect is this, that section 15, sub-
section (a) states that the hospital insurance
FEBRUARY 6, 1958
49
commission may establish a plan, in accord-
ance with an agreement as in paragraph 13.
It is debatable that there is no agreement
under section 13 and therefore one section
nullifies the other. Or, in the reverse, it might
mean that the sections approved by the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have
to be promulgated from time to time before
an agreement could be entered into.
The other interpretation is this, that sub-
section (a) of section 15 means, in effect, and
this, I think, is the view that is now generally
accepted by all parties, that such a plan may
be formulated as would be agreeable to all
parties. In other words, it would be a plan
to which they could agree.
Now, that, I say, is an obscure point, but
we have absolutely no objection to eliminating
the 9 words, "in accordance with the agree-
ment mentioned in section 13." If that is
done then, of course, that obscure but de-
batable point is open to two interpretations.
If these 9 words are removed, that obstacle
no longer exists.
Mr. Oliver: It is quite unnecessary.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would think it is.
However, as I say, I think the concensus of
legal opinion is that the words make no
difference. On the other hand, it is debatable
and if there is agreement, why have something
that may create an obstacle? Therefore, the
purpose of this bill is to remove those words.
I would say to the hon. members opposite
that if the bill is advanced a stage, then the
matter can again be reconsidered in commit-
tee, although I doubt if there is any further
explanation I could give, other than what I
have given at the present time, and if it is
neccessary in order to, in the opinion of the
commission, facilitate their arrangements, then
this could be given Royal Assent and the ob-
stacle would be removed. That is the purpose
of asking for second reading at this time and
as I say, it is purely a technical matter, a
matter of a legal interpretation.
The purpose of the Act and the purpose
of us all in connection with it is entirely clear
and there is no dispute on any side as to the
terms of the agreement and the desire to
enter into it except the meaning of these
sections and the effect it would have.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Prime Min-
ister whether this will in any way preclude
or handicap the Ontario government from
going beyond the facilities that the agree-
ment will provide? For example, the govern-
ment gave us assurance last year that ir-
respective of what the federal government
did, it would include mental and tubercu-
losis care.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It would make no dif-
ference. I think it is purely a matter of re-
moving what some might argue made a dif-
ference in entering into the agreement as
to the promulgation of the regulations and
matters of that sort, which I think the hon.
member will see is just simply an obstacle
to bringing the matter into effect.
I think the plan is this: obviously, if the
federal government is going into an agree-
ment and is going to contribute, and if the
province of Ontario is to be part and parcel
of the agreement, then they have to be in
agreement upon the arrangements that are
made, otherwise there could not be a meeting
of minds and there could not be an agree-
ment.
Mr. Wintermeyer: May I ask the hon.
Prime Minister whether there is a meeting
of minds at the present time? Is the federal
government going to make any contribution
for mental and tuberculosis care?
Hon. Mr. Frost: All I can say to the hon.
member is to refer to the statement made
by the federal government at the time of
the conference, on November 25, in which
they stated under certain conditions they
would agree to contribute.
Now, that is a matter to be considered in
the continuation of the conference. As for
myself, I have rather strong views on that
matter. Quite frankly, I think we ought to
each look after our own business, I think
it is a question of the tax fields, I do not
think it is a question of making deals of
that sort. However, that is a question for
further discussion.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): But,
Mr. Speaker, there is no actual contribution
if they give with one hand and take it away
with the other, as in the proposal of last
November.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to
the hon. member for York South that all I am
interested in is the $100 million.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, the hon. Prime Min-
ister is still interested?
Hon. Mr. Frost Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Good.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if
there is much of the agreement signed be-
50
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tween the federal and provincial govern-
ments?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, not as yet.
Mr. Oliver: Not as yet, and will it, in the
estimation of the hon. Prime Minister, in-
clude the participation on the part of the
federal government for tuberculosis and men-
tal patients?
Hon. Mr. Frost:
concerned.
No, not as far as we are
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, will it be
precluded from the rebates? I understand
that the offer that was made at the meeting
was that if the federal government did par-
ticipate in mental and tuberculosis care, the
amount of that contribution would be de-
ducted from any rebates that were required
under the fiscal arrangement. Have we any
clarification in that respect? Is it the hon.
Prime Minister's desire that the federal gov-
ernment participate in regard to mental and
tuberculosis care and make the rebate as
scheduled?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to the hon. member
that the agreement that was made, I think, is
contained. Some of my hon. friends took
objection to the "four corners" of certain
correspondence— the hon. member will under-
stand. Now our position is this: We entered
into that arrangement and by that we stand.
I have not asked for reconsideration of that.
We were content in our arrangement to pro-
ceed with the plan which was given to this
House last spring, and I would say that "that
is it." I, myself, prefer to avoid all of the
complications of matching grants if we can
avoid it.
Now, sometimes it is impossible to avoid
getting into those things, but my own tend-
ency, my own feeling with regards our own
relations with the federal government and our
relations with the municipalities, is to try to
avoid that. We wish to run our own show.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving the
adjournment of the House, tomorrow is ob-
viously a short day. There will be presenting,
reading and receiving any remaining petitions,
presenting the reports of the striking com-
mittee. That, of course, involves the setting
up of the various committees of the House
which were adopted here the day before
yesterday.
May I say that if any hon. member is
omitted from any committee, and desires to be
on that committee, if he will let me know I
will be very glad to make the arrangement
that he be placed upon the committee.
There will be the introduction of bills and
tabling of reports by the hon. Provincial
Secretary.
I might announce that on Tuesday we will
continue the Throne debate, and I would like
to continue the Throne debate through Wed-
nesday, Thursday and Friday. Now, that is
not for the purpose of hurrying anything at
all, but is for the purpose of making use of
those days and giving all of the hon. members
the opportunity of speaking. I would say
that Tuesday would be the day upon which
the hon. leader of the Opposition and myself
would discuss a few of the issues of the day,
and then we will follow with the hon. mem-
bers. I would like to have it that the House
would be prepared to take part in the Throne
debate in the succeeding days of next week.
The hon. Prime Minister moves the ad-
journment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.40 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 5
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
Beuate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, February 7, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev« A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 7, 1958
Reading and receiving petitions 53
Report of select committee re standing committees 53
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 55
Statute Labour Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 55
Highway Improvement Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 55
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 57
53
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, February 7, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass enabling the
council of the corporation to pass by-laws
regulating the external design of buildings
adjoining highways; and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Eastview
praying that an Act may pass authorizing a
special debenture issue.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Sutton, from the
select committee appointed to prepare the lists
of members to compose the standing commit-
tees of the House, presents the committee's
report as follows.
Your committee recommends that the stand-
ing committees ordered by the House be com-
posed as follows:
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Belisle, Boyer, Cass, Child, Connell, Edwards,
Fullerton, Guindon, Hall, Hanna, Herbert,
Hunt, Innes, Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound),
Johnston (Simcoe Centre), Johnston (Carleton),
Kennedy, Lavergne, Letherby, Lyons, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, Manley, Morningstar,
Murdoch, Myers, McCue, McNeil, Nixon,
Oliver, Parry, Rankin, Robson, Root, San-
dercock, Scott, Spence, Stewart (Middlesex
North), Sutton, Wardrope, Whicher, Whitney
-45.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Belisle,
Cass, Chaput, Connell, Cowling, Elliott, Gis-
born, Gordon, Guindon, Hall, Hunt, Innes,
Jackson, Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Kennedy,
Lavergne, Letherby, Lewis, MacDonald, Mac-
kenzie, Manley, Monaghan, Murdoch, Myers,
McCue, McNeil, Oliver, Root, Rowntree,
Sandercock, Spence, Stewart (Middlesex
North), Stewart (Parkdale), Sutton, Wardrope
-37.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Boyer, Cass, Chaput,
Child, Collings, Cowling, Davies, Edwards,
Fishleigh, Graham, Guindon, Hunt, Jackson,
Innes, Janes, Johnston (Simcoe Centre),
Johnston (Carleton), Jolley, Kerr, Lavergne,
Letherby, MacDonald, Maloney, Monaghan,
Morin, Morrow, Murdoch, Myers, McCue,
McNeil, Oliver, Parry, Price, Rankin, Reaume,
Robson, Root, Spence, Stewart (Middlesex
North), Thomas, Wardrope, Whicher, Winter-
meyer, Worton, Wren, Yaremko— 48.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON GAME AND FISH
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Belisle,
Boyer, Cass, Chaput, Child, Connell, Cowling,
Elliott, Fullerton, Gisborn, Gordon, Guindon,
Hall, Herbert, Innes, Jackson, Johnston (Parry
Sound), Johnston (Simcoe Centre), Johnston
(Carleton), Jolley, Kerr, Lavergne, Letherby,
Lewis, Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mal-
oney, Manley, Morningstar, Morrow, Mur-
doch, Myers, McCue, McNeil, Nixon, Noden,
Oliver, Rankin, Robson, Root, Sandercock,
Scott, Spence, Stewart (Middlesex North), Sut-
ton, Thomas, Wardrope, Whicher, Whitney,
Wren-52.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
COMMISSIONS
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Cass, Chaput, Child,
Cowling, Fishleigh, Frost (Bracondale), Gross-
man, Guindon, Hall, Jackson, Janes, Johnston
(Carleton), Jolley, Kerr, Lewis, Macaulay,
54
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
MacDonald, Morrow, Murdoch, McCue, Mc-
Neil, Nixon, Noden, Oliver, Price, Reaume,
Robarts, Robson, Rowntree, Sandercock,
Sutton, Whicher, Whitney, Wintermeyer,
Yaremko— 37.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Messrs. Auld, Boyer, Cass, Child, Cowling,
Davies, Edwards, Elliott, Fishleigh, Foote,
Frost (Bracondale), Fullerton, Graham, Gross-
man, Guindon, Hanna, Hunt, Johnston (Parry
Sound), Johnston (Simcoe Centre), Johnston
(Carleton), Jolley, Kerr, Letherby, Lewis,
MacDonald, Mackenzie, Maloney, Monaghan,
Morin, Morningstar, Morrow, Murdoch, Mc-
Cue, McNeil, Oliver, Parry, Price, Reaume,
Robson, Root, Rowntree, Spence, Stewart
(Middlesex North), Stewart (Parkdale), Sutton,
Thomas, Wardrope, Whicher, Wintermeyer,
Worton, Yaremko— 51.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY SAFETY
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Belisle, Boyer, Cass,
Child, Cowling, Davies, Edwards, Elliott,
Fishleigh, Fullerton, Gordon, Graham, Gross-
man, Guindon, Hall, Hanna, Hunt, Innes,
Jackson, Janes, Johnston (Parry Sound), John-
ston (Carleton), Kerr, Lavergne, Letherby,
Lewis, Macaulay, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
Maloney, Manley, Monaghan, Morrow, Mur-
doch, McCue, Noden, Oliver, Parry, Price,
Reaume, Robarts, Root, Rowntree, Sander-
cock, Scott, Stewart (Parkdale), Sutton, Thom-
as, Wardrope, Whitney, Worton, Wren, Yar-
emko—55.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON LABOUR
Messrs. Belisle, Cass, Child, Collings,
Elliott, Fishleigh, Fullerton, Gisborn, Gordon,
Grossman, Herbert, Jackson, Jolley, Lavergne,
Lewis, Macaulay, MacDonald, Maloney,
Monaghan, Morningstar, Murdoch, Noden,
Oliver, Price, Reaume, Robarts, Wardrope,
Wintermeyer, Worton, Wren, Yaremko— 31.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of 5 members.
dale), Fullerton, Gordon, Graham, Guindon,
Herbert, Hunt, Innes, Jackson, Johnston
(Carleton), Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston
(Simcoe Centre), Lavergne, Letherby, Lyons,
MacDonald, Mackenzie, Maloney, Monaghan,
Morrow, Murdoch, Myers, McCue, McNeil,
Noden, Oliver, Price, Robson, Sandercock,
Scott, Spence, Stewart (Middlesex North),
Sutton, Thomas, Wardrope, Worton, Wren
-43.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON LEGAL BILLS
Messrs. Becket, Cass, Hall, Herbert, Hunt,
Macaulay, MacDonald, Maloney, Myers,
Nixon, Noden, Oliver, Parry, Price, Rankin,
Robarts, Root, Rowntree, Thomas, Ward-
rope, Wintermeyer, Worton, Yaremko— 23.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON MINING
Messrs. Beckett, Belisle, Boyer, Cass, El-
liott, Fishleigh, Fullerton, Gisborn, Gordon,
Hanna, Herbert, Hunt, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Jolley, Lavergne, Lyons, Mac-
Donald, Mackenzie, Manley, Monaghan,
Morin, Morrow, Murdoch, Nixon, Noden,
Oliver, Price, Robson, Rowntree, Sander-
cock, Sutton, Wardrope, Worton, Wren— 35.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL LAW
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Beckett, Boyer, Cass, Child, Collings, Cow-
ling, Dunlop, Edwards, Fishleigh, Frost (Bra-
condale), Graham, Grossman, Guindon, Hunt,
Jackson, Janes, Johnston (Carleton), Ken-
nedy, Kerr, Lavergne, Lewis, Macaulay,
MacDonald, Mackenzie, Maloney, Manley,
Monaghan, Morin, Murdoch, Myers, McCue,
McNeil, Oliver, Price, Rankin, Reaume,
Robarts, Robson, Root, Rowntree, Scott,
Spence, Stewart (Middlesex North), Stewart
(Parkdale), Sutton, Thomas, Whicher, Whit-
ney, Wintermeyer, Worton, Yaremko— 53.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON LANDS AND FORESTS
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Belisle,
Boyer, Cass, Chaput, Elliott, Frost (Bracon-
COMMITTEE ON PRINTING
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Boyer, Cass, Child, Davies, Fishleigh, Frost
FEBRUARY 7, 1958
55
(Bracondale), Fullerton, Gisborn, Gordon,
Graham, Grossman, Hunt, Johnston (Carle-
ton), Johnston (Simcoe Centre), MacDonald,
Manley, Morin, Murdoch, Oliver, Parry, Sut-
ton, Whitney-24.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Beckett, Boyer, Cass, Child, Chaput, Col-
lings, Cowling, Edwards, Elliott, Fishleigh,
Frost (Bracondale), Gordon, Graham, Gross-
man, Guindon, Hall, Hanna, Hunt, Innes,
Jackson, Janes, Johnston (Carleton), John-
ston (Simcoe Centre), Jolley, Kennedy, Kerr,
Lyons, Lavergne, Macaulay, MacDonald,
Mackenzie, Maloney, Manley, Monaghan,
Morin, Morningstar, Morrow, Murdoch,
Myers, McCue, McNeil, Nixon, Oliver, Parry,
Price, Rankin, Reaume, Robarts, Root, Rown-
tree, Sandercock, Scott, Spooner, Stewart
(Middlesex North), Stewart (Parkdale), Sut-
ton, Thomas, Wardrope, Whitney, Winter-
meyer, Wren, Yaremko— 64.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND
ELECTIONS
Messrs. Cass, Davies, Edwards, Fishleigh,
Grossman, Kerr, Lavergne, MacDonald, Mur-
doch, Nixon, Oliver, Robson, Stewart (Park-
dale), Thomas— 14.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Cass, Collings,
Cowling, Davies, Edwards, Elliott, Fish-
leigh, Frost (Bracondale), Graham, Gross-
man, Guindon, Hall, Hanna, Janes, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Kerr, Lavergne, Letherby,
Lyons, Macaulay, MacDonald, Maloney,
Monaghan, Murdoch, Myers, McCue, Nixon,
Noden, Oliver, Parry, Robarts, Root, San-
dercock, Stewart (Parkdale), Scott, Sutton,
Thomas, Wardrope, Whicher, Whitney, Win-
termeyer, Worton, Yaremko— 45.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 7 members.
COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS
Messrs. Allen (Middlesex South), Auld,
Belisle, Cass, Chaput, Child, Davies, Ed-
wards, Elliott, Fishleigh, Frost (Bracondale),
Fullerton, Gisborn, Gordon, Graham, Hall,
Hanna, Hunt, Kerr, Lavergne, Lyons, Mac-
Donald, Manley, Murdoch, Oliver, Rankin,
Robson, Sutton, Wintermeyer, Worton— 30.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 5 members.
COMMITTEE ON TRAVEL AND
PUBLICITY
Messrs. Auld, Beckett, Belisle, Boyer, Cass,
Chaput, Child, Cowling, Edwards, Elliott,
Fishleigh, Frost (Bracondale), Fullerton,
Gordon, Graham, Grossman, Guindon, Han-
na, Johnston (Parry Sound), Jolley, Letherby,
Lewis, Lyons, MacDonald, Mackenzie,
Morin, Murdoch, McCue, Noden, Oliver,
Reaume, Root, Sandercock, Stewart (Park-
dale), Thomas, Wardrope, Whitney, Wor-
ton, Wren, Yaremko— 40.
The quorum of the said committee to
consist of 5 members.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar: Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to present to the House the following:
No. 1. Forty-ninth annual report of the
Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario
for the year ended December 31, 1956.
No. 2. Seventy-first annual report of the
Niagara Parks Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 1957.
THE STATUTE LABOUR ACT
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways)
moves first reading of bill intituled, "An Act
to amend The Statute Labour Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a clarification
of The Statute Labour Act which of course
is applied to some sections in unorganized
townships and it clears up any doubt as to
whether or not, if the work is not performed,
the amount per day can be collected by the
statute labour board and provides for a
penalty.
THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT,
1957
Hon. Mr. Allan moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Highway
Improvement Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
56
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He said: Mr. Speaker, this involves about
4 or 5 sections, or revisions of about 4 or 5
sections. The first one provides for making
connecting link agreements with the cities.
We have always had provision for making
connecting link agreements covering that
portion of street or streets within the town
or village that serves as a connecting link of
the King's highway. The Highway Improve-
ment Act does not provide for such con-
necting links within our cities, although the
Minister has been empowered to enter into
construction agreements covering such links
with the cities.
Experience has indicated that it would be
better to have the connecting links set out
in the cities so that those streets which will
be connecting links are definitely known by
the city and by The Department of Highways.
This would relieve the problem which pres-
ents itself each time that a city intends to
construct a street which might be considered
a connecting link, and when there is doubt
it is a matter of negotiation each time.
The second subsection of that same section
involves the contribution paid by our depart-
ment toward the cost of connecting links in
towns and villages. The percentage of cost the
government has been paying was set up some
time ago. Previously, a subsidy of 50 per cent,
was paid on all road work in towns and vil-
lages. It is felt by those municipalities, and
with justification, I think, that because there
is a good deal of through traffic on the con-
necting links, they are entitled to a greater
proportion of the cost being paid by the prov-
ince. Therefore, we are suggesting that the
government pay 75 per cent, toward those
connecting links in towns and villages instead
of the 50 per cent, that has been paid.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Does that
apply to the cities as well?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, that condition already
exists in the cities. That is, our contribution
to cities on their streets is 33 per cent., and
on connecting link construction, 50 per cent.,
so there is the difference already in the cities.
An amendment of subsection 1 of section
30 merely states clearly that a permit is re-
quired for an entrance or such addition that
has to do with the highway by a person whose
property is abutting the highway. These per-
mits have always been required but there
has been some doubt expressed as to whether
it was clearly set out in the Act.
During the last few years, supplementary
by-laws have been recognized from cities,
counties, townships, towns and villages. The
various sections of the Act, having to do with
these different types of municipalities, are
being revised to remove any doubt as to the
legality of these municipalities making appli-
cation for these supplementary by-laws.
Subsection 3 of section 56 deals with the
rebate, that is, the return, to towns and vil-
lages by counties, of the percentage of the
payment that has been made by the towns
and villages toward the county good roads.
The section has stated that there shall be a
minimum of 25 per cent, return. There is no
suggestion of any limit, and no suggestion
of any limit of the percentage that should be
rebated by the county to those towns and vil-
lages. These percentages have gradually
increased until some are now 50 per cent.
It is our feeling that 50 per cent, is suffici-
ent, so the bill is being amended to state that
the minimum shall be 25 per cent, and not
more in total value than 50 per cent.
There is a slight amendment to section 63
which makes it illegal for a member of a sub-
urban commission to sell to personally, or do
business with, the commission of which he
is a member.
Section 71A has to do with subdivisions. At
the present time, the province does not pay
subsidy to a city, town or village for the open-
ing of a construction, or the construction of a
road in a new subdivision. It is intended that
the developer of a subdivision shall provide
the roads. The word "townships" should have
been included originally due to the fact that
a great number of these subdivisions do exist
in townships, and it is the intention to add the
word "township" to "city, town or village."
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to bring a suggestion to the hon.
members of the House that I hope will com-
mend itself. I want to thank the hon. Minis-
ter of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger) for
providing these handsome and comfortable
new chairs for the hon. members, and the
question ran through my mind as to what
was going to happen to the old ones.
Now, we well know the hon. Prime Min-
ister's (Mr. Frost's) passion for historical
tradition in this province, and I think that
those chairs have a great deal of historical
tradition about them. They have, for many
years, served as the chairs for the seats of the
mighty, as the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Oliver) will probably agree, and I would
like to see their tradition preserved.
We have a new museum about to be built
in the city of Port Arthur and I think that
they would appreciate getting one of these
FEBRUARY 7, 1958
57
chairs. I would suggest to the hon. Minister
of Public Works that they be made avail-
able to the hon. members who wish them.
Whether the hon. members are to buy them
and present them as gifts to their museums,
or whether they will be given to us gratis,
of course, will be left to the hon. Minister's
generosity. I think it is a suggestion that
we should entertain, Mr. Speaker, and I am
glad to make it. I might say that coupled
with that, my good friend the hon. member
for Brantford (Mr. Gordon) is "in on" this
suggestion, and I think he will go along
with me in this proposal.
Mr. G. T. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, when I
came here and saw the new chairs, it ran
through my mind as to what would be done
with the old ones. We now have a very fine
historical society in Brantford, also a museum,
and I thought it would be a very nice ges-
ture if the hon. members could purchase,
or get, one of these chairs and present it
to the museum. I do not know how old
these chairs are, but some have said 100
years. Well, when a person sat in them
they sounded like it, because they creaked
as if they were suffering from old age. But
anyway, I have sat in them close to 10
years during the sessions and they were very
comfortable, and I think as the hon. mem-
ber has just suggested, it would be a fine
gesture on the part of the Legislature if
we were able to present these chairs to our
various museums.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, may I ask, in order that
we have the premise accurately stated, are
we to understand that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter did not trade the old chairs in on the
new ones?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is "no".
I might say that these chairs, I believe,
came into the House in 1892 when this
building was constructed, and they have
withstood some 66 years of strenuous use,
strenuous sitting sometimes, and strenuous
action. They have seen many important
and boisterous events, solemn events and
some historical events. There are a few
hon. members of the House today who sat
in this House on midnight of March in 1945
when they saw one of those historical events
that had quite a good deal to do with the
history of this province, and there were
many others which could be recalled.
I am sure that the hon. Minister of Public
Works would take the responsibility of
assisting in any way possible to help pre-
serve history by preservation of these chairs
in such spots as might seem appropriate.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, if this is going to happen, there
is just one little idea as we all find our
minds carried on that might be pursued.
In the United States one can travel all
throughout the nation and find beds in which
George Washington slept, and there are
more of them than would fill the Royal
York hotel. Why not add a plaque which
would say "this is the chair in which Oliver
sat" for example, or "Frost sat," and there
could be a dozen of them in which they all
sat and nobody would know the difference
anyway.
Mr. H. Fishleigh (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I do not care what is done about the old
chairs but I must say that these new chairs
are awfully hard. They are much harder
than the old ones and they were 100 years
old, and this is in the days of foam rubber.
I would have thought that these chairs
would have been equipped with foam rub-
ber so for the next 2 months when we
sit here we will not become calloused.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think
perhaps one of the reasons for the hardness
was to keep hon. members at work during
the hours of the Legislature sitting. Before
moving the adjournment of the House I
will just repeat what the hon. Prime Minis-
ter said yesterday, that the business of Mon-
day next would be the introduction of bills
and second readings of the bills ready for
that reading, provided that if any hon.
member opposite does not want a bill called,
I am sure that these wishes would be com-
plied with. On Tuesday, and the following
days of the week, the Throne debate.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of
the House.
Mr. Speaker: Before I put the motion, I
would like to welcome, to the assembly
today, students and teachers who have been
here for the short session, or rather the com-
ing teachers, students from the Teachers'
College, London, Ontario and also students
from the third-year journalism class from
the Ryerson Institute of Technology. We
welcome you.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 2.40 of the
clock, p.m.
No. 6
ONTARIO
Legislature of Ontario
Beuates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, February 10, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q»C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 10, 1958
Communication re vacancy and by-election 61
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, 1954,
bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 61
Public Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 61
Separate Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 62
Ontario-St. Lawrence Development Commission Act, 1955,
bill to amend, Mr. Niclde, first reading 62
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 62
Statement re committee on commissions, Mr. Frost 62
Ontario School Trustees' Council Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, second reading 66
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, second reading 66
Anatomy Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 72
Beaches and River Beds Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Roberts, second reading 73
Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 73
County Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 73
General Sessions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 74
Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act,
bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 74
Interpretation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 74
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 74
Magistrates' Act, 1952, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 74
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 75
Mortgages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 75
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 75
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 76
61
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 10, 1958
3 o'clock p.m. Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the chief election
officer and laid upon the table the following
certificate of a by-election held since the last
session of the House:
Electoral district of Elgin: Ronald Keith
McNeil.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of
election dated the sixteenth day of December, 1957,
issued by the Honourable Lieutenant-Governor of the
Province of Ontario, and addressed to Harold Mc-
Kenzie, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral dis-
trict of Elgin, for the election of a member to represent
the said electoral district of Elgin in the legislative
assembly of this province, in the room of Fletcher S.
Thomas, Esquire, who, since his election as represen-
tative of the said electoral district of Elgin, hath de-
Earted this life, Ronald Keith McNeil, Esquire, has
een returned as duly elected as appears by the return
of the said writ of election, dated the eighth day of
February, 1958, which is now lodged of record in my
office.
Roderick Lewis,
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, February 10, 1958.
Ronald Keith McNeil, Esquire, member for
the electoral district of Elgin, having taken
the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his
seat.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petition
has been received:
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it
to fluoridize its municipal water supply; and
for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by commit-
tees.
Motions.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND ROARDS
OF EDUCATION ACT, 1954
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Secon-
dary Schools and Boards of Education Act,
1954."
He said: There are several proposed amend-
ments in this bill which, of course, go to the
committee on education as all the others do.
The first amendment has to do with
changes in high school districts in unor-
ganized territory.
The second amendment has to do with the
membership of a school board in this respect
—at present no member of a municipal
council or officer of a municipality or county
is qualified to be a member of a high school
board. The amendment provides that no
member of a municipal council, the clerk, or
the treasurer may be a member of the school
board.
The third one has to do with cases where
there are two or more public school boards
operating schools situated in a high school
district and has to do with a choice of the
representative of each board on the high
school board.
The next amendment has to do with the
borrowing of money by school boards and
sets forth the duties of an assessor and a
tax collector.
The next one provides for the payment for
permanent improvements up to a certain
limit out of current funds.
The next one sets up further the expen-
ditures for permanent improvements out of
current funds which must not exceed 1 mill
on the dollar.
The next one has to do with the decisions
of an arbitrator when the matter is referred
to their municipal board.
The next one, where a high school district
has to be enlarged or decreased in size.
The next one, that a board of education
having more than 100 teachers may appoint
a director of education qualified under the
regulation.
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. Mr. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Schools Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: this bill provides that on a school
site only certain buildings may be con-
structed and that a school site may be used,
62
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not only for the building of a school, but
for use as a school playground, a school
garden, a teachers' residence, caretaker's resi-
dence and so on including a parking area.
The next amendment in this proposed bill
has to do with the right of a corporation,
society, agent or other body which has cus-
tody of a child, to send that child to a public
school in the municipality.
The next has to do with the following:
an inspector may, before July 1 of any year,
form two or more school sections in terri-
tories without municipal organizations, with
the approval of the Minister.
The next one, council has to approve of
such changes. The School Administration
Act, as the next amendment will show, does
not apply to a school established under this
section unless the second school is relieved
of the attendance of certain pupils.
The next amendment has to do with the
formation of school sections in the town-
ship areas, and the next one gives the in-
spector authority to define the area for
the township school within the area.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. Mr. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Separate
Schools Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This proposed bill provides for
certain amendments to bring the separate
schools into line in every respect with the
public schools. To arrange for the payment
of teachers' salaries monthly instead of
quarterly is one of these amendments, and
to provide for adequate accommodation for
pupils and legally qualified teachers just as
in The Public Schools Act.
ONTARIO-ST. LAWRENCE DEVELOP-
MENT COMMISSION ACT, 1955
Hon. W. Nickle moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Ontario-
St. Lawrence Development Commission Act,
1955."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: The amendment provides that
the counties of Frontenac and Lennox and
Addington will now be in the jurisdiction of
the Ontario-St. Lawrence development com-
mission and the members of that commission
shall be increased from 9 to 11.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Report of the Minister of Agriculture of
Ontario for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1957.
2. Report of the Statistical Branch, Depart-
ment of Agriculture, for Ontario for the year
ended 1956.
3. Report of the Ontario Stockyard Board
for the year ended June 30, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I
should like to make a statement which I had
intended to make on Friday last at the time
of the appointment of the standing com-
mittees of the House.
I apologize for making it now, but I know
that Mr. Speaker will grant indulgence to
any of the hon. members of the House who
might want to refer to it.
At this time I should like particularly to
refer the committee on government com-
missions to the auditor's report, 1956-57,
and particularly pages 17 and 18 thereof
as it relates to boards and commissions.
This committee was brought into being
about 1951. I very well remember Mr. Jol-
liffe, the predecessor of the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald), discussing
this matter at that time. It was brought into
being in order to bring within the preview
of this House the policy and the operation
of such commissions and boards.
At that time, this move was very definitely
an innovation. It was a departure from the
idea that boards and commissions were sep-
arate entirely from the work of the govern-
ment. I may say that at one time, that was
very much the case with the Hydro Electric
Power Commission, as some of the hon. mem-
bers of the House will recollect. The feeling
was so strong at that time that politics or
political interference should have no part of
the operations of Hydro, as a matter of fact,
that it was almost an offence to mention the
commission's name here in the House. I am
glad to say that feeling has changed.
In addition to the boards and commissions
mentioned by the provincial auditor, there are
some additional ones, such as the Ontario
municipal board, the liquor licence board, and
the labour relations board, which are quasi-
judicial in function. Those mentioned by the
auditor include those which are conducting
physical operations on a very large scale.
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
63
Some of the boards, notably the Ontario
municipal improvement corporation, the On-
tario junior farmers' establishment loan cor-
poration, and the Ontario parks integration
board are entirely made up of civil servants
and government personnel. That is particu-
larly true of the parks integration board, for
I think they are practically all Ministers.
Others, such as the Ontario cancer treat-
ment foundation and the alcoholic research
foundation, were designed to make available,
in the treatment of their problems, scientific
opinion which might not otherwise be avail-
able. The cancer commission, I think, goes
back to 1943, and I believe it was introduced
into this House by the late Harold Kirby, who
was then the Minister of Health.
These particular commissions also influence
public interest and contributions on an im-
portant scale— for instance, the cancer society
works with the cancer foundation. This back-
ground has been evident in the discussions
relative to matters of discrimination.
On the other hand, commissions such as the
Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission
and more recently the hospital services com-
mission were designed and set up to admin-
ister fiscal matters of very great magnitude on
behalf of the government and the people, and
to assure that the organizations would be run
with all efficiency and not be subject to so-
called political interference.
This latter point is very evident in the oper-
ation of the workmen's compensation board
and the various investigations and surveys
that have been made in the work of that
board.
However, in protecting such organizations
against so-called politics and political inter-
ference, care must be taken that these are
not set up in such a way as to override the
democratic rights of the people. That was the
purpose of setting up the above-referred-to
committee on commissions.
Personally I have felt, and this has been
translated into action in the use of committees
of this House on a wider scale than ever
before attempted, that our parliamentary and
cabinet system should be widened to give the
hon. members of the House widened scope
and opportunity.
May I point out that the parliamentary
system, and indeed the congressional system,
are matters of evolution, and I think that the
problems of these days have shown that many
things about those systems could undergo re-
view and indeed enlargement.
I have heard this argument in connection
with scientific circles, in connection with the
space satellites, "sputniks" if you want to
call them that: a totalitarian government may
concentrate on some particular thing, whereas
in the democracies either under the parlia-
mentary system or the congressional system,
the tendency is to deal with matters on a very
wide scope, and therefore we have not per-
haps the "efficiency" that comes from a con-
centration on a particular subject or policy.
That is something which deserves consid-
eration in this day. One of the very great
problems of these days is making sure that
our form of government can meet the test it
is called upon to face.
Since the 1930's both the parliamentary
and congressional systems of government
have been called upon to accept respon-
sibilities not before contemplated. Since
that time, the duty of governments has been
extended to such needs as maintaining high
levels of employment.
Not so many years ago, such a thing as
that, or the directing of the general econo-
mic trends of the country, had never been
mentioned. That is a recent development
in our way of life, having its origin really
only about as far back in an effective way
as the 1930's.
These things of course have increased
budgets and responsibilities.
Now the problems that we are discussing,
as I see it, are these:
Not to deprive the government of the
effectiveness of business practices and effi-
ciency, yet to preserve for our parliamentary
and democratic system the basic principle of
"government of the people, for the people,
and by the people."
It is the combining of these two necessary
things which is so important. The provincial
auditor has suggested that we have a survey
to assess the strength and weaknesses of
the present machinery of government. He
goes on to say on those pages to which I
have referred:
Such a survey could be expected to report
upon the reallocation of duties between
departments themselves, and between de-
partments and boards and commissions
based upon the principle of the nature ot
service rendered to the community. Other
benefits of such a survey would be a better
organization for financial administrative
work, and better arrangements for inter-
departmental discussions.
May I say to the House that it is this
government's opinion that such a survey
should be made. As a matter of fact, with
the introduction 4 years ago of The Finan-
64
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cial Administration Act of 1954, the prob-
lem was then objectively recognized.
The treasury board and the budget com-
mittee have become a very important part of
government administration. It is fair, how-
ever, to point out as well, the importance of
the difficulties and problems which are to be
met in regard to what I say.
At this moment I would like to enlarge on
this problem.
I desire to refer this problem to the com-
mittee on government commissions, together
with this memorandum which I am reading,
suggesting that consideration be given to the
nature of such a survey, and advice given in
relation to the same. Such a survey obviously
must be based riot only on theory but on the
actual practice, administration and business
problems to be met by the governments in
these days.
The problem is one of making our demo-
cratic procedure work in these days of vastly
increased business. There are two examples
to which I might refer:
First is the Haldane committee which came
into being nearly 40 years ago in the United
Kingdom, at the time during which great
demands were placed upon the machinery of
government by World War I. This com-
mittee's direction was to inquire into the
responsibilities of the various departments of
the central executive and to advise in what
manner exercise and distribution by govern-
ment and its function should be improved.
Latterly, in the United States the same
problem was dealt with. I should not say
exactly the same problem, because I think in
the United States the problem was directed
to the efficiency of the government's spending
which of course has its reflection here. The
problem was dealt with by what came to be
known as the first Hoover commission, organ-
ized in 1947. The report to Congress was
made in February, 1949.
This committee or commission was re-
organized in 1953 under the chairmanship
of Mr. Hoover, its declared purpose being:
to promote economy, efficiency and im-
proved service in the transaction of public
business in the departments, bureaus,
agencies, boards, commissions, offices, in-
dependent establishments and instrumen-
talities of the executive branch of the
government.
That is the end of the quotation.
This committee reported in June, 1955.
I think our objectives must obviously
include not only the above references, but
also the preservation of our parliamentary
form of government together with the effi-
ciencies and improved services which it is
desired to promote.
It seems to me that, before determining
the nature and scope of the inquiry I have
mentioned, we should have the benefit of the
work of the standing committee on commis-
sions, which this session as before will have
the opportunity of examining the policies and
practices of such commissions and boards.
Then, keeping in mind the survey which is
envisaged, it can make such recommendations
as it desires to the House.
I had intended to say these words on
Friday, at the time this committee of the
House came into being, but I do so now and
will give to the chairman of the committee,
when it meets for organization, a copy of this
statement, and there all hon. members of the
House are represented and can look at the
problems to be met and make recommenda-
tions to the House before any form of inquiry
is determined.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon.
Prime Minister is showing some concern in
regard to the matters that he has discussed.
I am just a trifle surprised at the timing of
this announcement. I am not suggesting that
it has any particular significance at the mo-
ment, but it happens to be interesting.
As far as I am concerned, I have had a
very deep conviction and feeling regarding
this whole matter for some years as the hon.
Prime Minister knows. It is a growing convic-
tion that we ought to very shortly decide just
what relationship these boards and commit-
tees or commissions have to this Legislature.
Now, I do not know just what the hon.
Prime Minister has proposed this afternoon.
Is he suggesting that the standing committee
of the House on commissions should be en-
trusted with the task of determining what
that relationship should be in this province
at this session of the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, but I —
Mr. Oliver: Well, what then? It was not
very clear.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the
hon. leader of the Opposition that my purpose
was this, that before such an inquiry were
instituted, the committee of the House on
commissions should consider the matter, be-
cause it is going to have the opportunity of
dealing very objectively with the problems of
these commissions. All of the commissions
under the terms of reference can come before
that committee.
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
65
I am in no way saying that the standing
committee on commissions should, or should
not, do any particular thing. If the committee
of the House desires to bring in a recommen-
dation, one aimed at the problem we are
speaking of, then it is free to do so.
But what I rather think is this, that the
committee should and would find it desirable
to look at the problems to be met and per-
haps make recommendations to the House as
to the form the inquiry should take and what
the scope of the inquiry should be.
I think it will be indicated to the hon.
members of the committee that it covers the
subject of dealing, as I say, with administra-
tive problems of government in these days of
1958 and following. But it also deals with
this: I do not think it is at all desirable to use
expressions such as "politics" and "political
interference" to avoid the rights of the hon.
members, the elected members in this or any
other parliamentary system, from seeing what
things are about. Now that is the point and
it seems to me it is proper, before any type
of inquiry is set up, to see how the hon. mem-
bers of the House feel. They can voice their
views through their own committee which
has been set up by this House.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the hon. Prime
Minister this question, are we clear on this?
He is not expecting the committee on com-
missions to examine into and to report on their
findings to this House as a body?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No. I would say I am not
expecting them to. On the other hand, I am
not saying anything that would preclude them
from doing so if they so desired.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, will the
hon. Prime Minister inform the hon. mem-
bers whether or not some investigation will
be made, either by an independent body
or by a body of this House, at some time
in the reasonable future, to investigate this
whole problem?
The Haldane and Hoover reports were
obviously by independent bodies. I gathered
from the hon. Prime Minister's remarks that
an investigation will be made— that he
wanted the advice of the committee first,
but that irrespective of that advice, an inves-
tigation will be made. Now, have we the
hon. Prime Minister's assurance that inves-
tigations will be made?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is it the hon. Prime
Minister's intention that investigation be made
by an independent body or by a body of
this House?
Hon. Mr. Frost: We will have the views
of the hon. members on that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Will we have the guid-
ance of the hon. Prime Minister at the time
the committee is—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, if the hon. mem-
bers ask me for it. I do not know if I
am on that committee.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And what about the
auditor's guidance?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, that is my under-
standing.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, if the reply of the hon. Prime
Minister to the leader of the Opposition
indicates that this is a preliminary investi-
gation from which will flow conceivably a
further investigation, I want to say that I
am very heartily in support of this move.
I am for this reason, that I have noted with
considerable concern the kind of line that
has emerged particularly from the group
of hon. members to my right here, ideolo-
gically and otherwise, in the last two or
three years with regard to deprecating the
rule of commissions and the threat that they
represent.
Now I would be willing to concede that,
to the extent that there is any validity in
their fears, it is because we have not exam-
ined, re-examined and clarified our thinking
on the exact role of public commissions in
twentieth-century government.
For example, the hon. Prime Minister re-
ferred—if I got the meaning of his words
correctly— in the terms of reference to this
committee, to redistribution of functions and
duties.
It seems to me that the main job here,
and this is the kind of thing that has been
tackled in Britain of recent years outside
government circles if not inside government
circles, is to examine how the Legislature,
as the representatives of the people, can
effectively fill its function as shareholders
in a public corporation. And this, it seems
to me, sets this problem of politics and
political meddling in its correct context.
In a private corporation the shareholders
meet, their decisions become directives with
which the management of the corporation
has to live in their day-to-day operation.
It does not become a meddling in the day-
to-day operation.
With the setting up of public commis-
sions we have not yet worked out the tech-
niques, and it is very difficult because of
66
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the limitations of time and so on in Houses
of Parliament and Legislature as to how we,
the elected representatives of the people,
in effect the shareholders on behalf of the
people in this public corporation, can ex-
amine the general policies of the commis-
sion and become in a continuing way aware
of how it is operated.
The hon. Prime Minister referred to this
as a necessity in preserving our parliamentary
government. I do not know that to my
mind it is so much a case of preserving our
parliamentary government as examining care-
fully a very necessary extension of parlia-
mentary government in the twentieth cen-
tury with all its perplexities of government
today arising from government intervention
in economic and other social matters.
Just briefly in summation, Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this because I think it is some-
thing that other jurisdictions have looked
into and that we perhaps have neglected too
long, and the sooner we can make up for
lost time the better.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, there are
a large number of bills on the order paper.
These bills go to committee, but I am not
anxious that they should be hurried to com-
mittees at all, and if any hon. member of
the House would like any of these bills to
stand over, by all means say so, and we
will allow them to do so.
THE ONTARIO SCHOOL TRUSTEES'
COUNCIL ACT
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves second reading of
Bill No. 47, "An Act to amend The Ontario
School Trustees' Council Act."
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): These bills have
not been before us for very long and we have
not had an opportunity to look into them,
and perhaps the hon. Minister of Education,
although he probably did speak briefly at the
time of the introduction, could on this
occasion perhaps develop some of the bills a
little further.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: The trustees' council, Mr.
Speaker, has 7 affiliated bodies of trustees. It
is doing good work. Their particular problem
as outlined in this bill is that, when they have
had a certain chairman for a year and he must
give way to someone else who is elected
chairman, for the sake of continuity they may,
if they like, appoint the former chairman as a
third member of their executive council so
they may have the benefit of his advice for
another year. I think, Mr. Speaker, that sums
it up, but if there is any question I would be
glad to go into it further.
Mr. H. A. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Speaker, does that imply that if a man is not
elected, he can be put on as an extra member?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think from this, it is
the man who has been on and has served his
term, and they would like to keep him on in
another capacity for another year.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT, 1954
Hon. Mr. Dunlop moves second reading of
Bill No. 48, "An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954."
He said: Although I cannot mention the
amount of this loan fund, which will be dealt
with before long, this first amendment pro-
vides for the mechanics of operating that loan
fund. There will be a committee which will
deal with the terms and conditions of persons
eligible, defining the types, classes and so on.
That is the first amendment.
Mr. Wintermeyer: May we ask whether or
not the fund will be for tuition only, or will it
be for any purpose for which a student might
require funds while at school?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: The opinion is that it is
a definite loan of so much money to be used
by the student in any way that he thinks best.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Will it be a sufficient
amount to cover the normal student's total
expenditures while at school?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I would think so. I
would think it would have to, but, of course,
we will have to make sure that they are reas-
onably good students.
I have an idea that in a few years we will
be using bursaries for students in perhaps the
first and second years in university and in
teachers' colleges, and then these loans to
enable them to finish the third and fourth
years, probably. I think that is the way it
will work out.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, may
I ask the hon. Minister a question in respect
to this bill? Will this apply in any way to
graduate students? I have in mind cases that
have come to my attention recently where
people from mv part of the country were
taking postgraduate work, for example in
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
67
English, to enable them to get their Master's
degree and teach in the universities. The
present regulations preclude them from any
type of assistance because they are already
graduates of a recognized university course.
Will this take that into consideration and offer
them some assistance?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Those graduate students
are some of our most valuable material for
the future, as the hon. member will agree,
and there is no question whatever but that it
should be for people of that sort. Further,
there will be no question about the graduate's
subject, whether it be English, science or
whatever it may be.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
it was stated that a committee would be set
up to administer this fund. Is the committee
likely to be elected or appointed, or who are
they likely to be?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think the committee
would consist of officials of the department
who have had a good deal of experience
in that. They are the people who know the
standing of the student, they have the in-
formation right at hand, and can be depended
on to do that work perfectly well.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I note that the
amendment says "donations received and
monies appropriated." The question I want
to ask the hon. Minister is this: Is there any
relationship between the donations and the
money that the government will put into the
fund? Is it going to be on a dollar per dollar
basis or is there any relationship at all?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: As I visualize it, it will
be this. The government will appropriate so
much capital funds for this loan, and philan-
thropic citizens will send in donations. They
will be added to that capital fund. Possibly
some of those students of today who have
received bursaries, when they become wealthy
or before that, will want to put some money
into this fund as a token of appreciation.
But I think there will be no relation between
the amount the government puts into it and
what may come in from other people.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Why should private
donations be added to this fund? Would it
not be better to reserve those donations for
bursaries and scholarships?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: It would depend on the
wishes of the donor.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, I do not suppose
anyone would preclude the donor from exer-
cising his judgment. What is the government's
attitude toward this particular problem? Does
the hon. Minister think that industry and
private donors should be encouraged to
support the bursary and scholarship funds
rather than this particular fund?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: In each case, if the donor
asked my advice or the advice of the officials,
he would be told: "Now here is this loan
fund for a certain purpose, here is this bursary
fund which means simply the giving of
straight gifts to well-qualified students. Into
which would you like to put your money?"
I would then follow his wishes.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a few general
comments on the principle of this, but first
I have a question I would like to ask the hon.
Minister. Are these loans to be interest-free?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: That is still to be
decided. They will be either interest-free or
at a very nominal interest.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, speaking on
the principle of this matter, the hon. member
just asked the question as to why or what
logic or reason there was for including private
donations with the money that the govern-
ment may be contributing to the fund.
I suspect that maybe one of the reasons for
it is the pure illogic of the box that the
government got itself into last year by that
devious amendment to my resolution when
this issue was before the House.
The principle of my resolution was such
that they could not vote against it, so the
government resorted to the procedure of an
amendment which said, as I recall, that the
bursary fund would be expanded to include
not only bursaries monies but donations from
whatever source, and that out of this general
pot these needs would be met.
Now, apparently, they propose to separate
the monies, with bursaries in one fund, and
loaned monies, whether it is government loaned
or private donations, in another one. Well,
it seems to me that that was exactly what I
asked for last year, and which the govern-
ment members could not support because of
this procedure that apparently, in our Parlia-
ments today, it is impossible to accept a
motion, even if it is a good one, when it
emerges from the Opposition benches.
However, I commend the measure now,
though it is a little late. For example, this is
the kind of thing that a CCF government in
Saskatchewan put into effect in the year
1950, just as they implemented hospital in-
surance in 1944. and along come the Tories
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in Ontario 13 years later. The government is
a little quicker on this, implementing it only
7 or 8 years after the CCF have done it in
Saskatchewan.
Which brings me to a point which, to my
mind, is one of the most important, Mr.
Speaker, and that is that I have noted
editorials in the Toronto Daily Star and else-
where, critical of this move. The argument
being advanced is that this is going to put
students under a burden of debt from which
it would take them a certain number of years
to get out of afterwards.
Let me say quite frankly that the proposi-
tion of a student loan fund, in face of the
current desperate need to take the dollar sign
off the lack of educational opportunities at
the university level, is a very, very small part
of the over-all picture. Quite frankly, the
only reason why I advanced it a year ago,
was that it would not even cost this govern-
ment money— it becomes a revolving fund to
which the money comes back— and it seemed
to me to be so acceptable that even this gov-
ernment would have to accept it, which it
has now done.
But it seems to me, on the principle of this
matter, Mr. Speaker, that we must lift our
sights now because we are away behind the
times in terms of a greatly expanded scholar-
ship programme.
Why, even the Liberals in their conventions
in Ottawa have now come out in favour of
free education, and once again if I may go
back to the Star, I notice they credit this free
education plank of the Liberal "new look" as
the source from which the government got its
inspiration for the student loan proposal. The
cartoonist might have come closer to the truth
—the source was either the resolution last year
or what happened in Saskatchewan 7 or 8
years ago.
This is not a new idea, it is an old idea,
and in the sputnik age it is even older and
less capable of meeting the desperate needs
of making education available to a greater
number of our people when we have only 7
per cent, proceeding to universities.
Now, having taken this step of making loan
money available— which is the least important
in the over-all picture— I hope that this gov-
ernment and the government in Ottawa can
be persuaded to expand national scholarship
schemes and bursary schemes so that we can
get education to the 15 or 20 per cent, of the
school population that graduates, as in the
case of Britain. There are some 30 per cent,
in the case of the United States. Our record
in Canada is a shocking one in comparison.
In conclusion, I emphasize a further point
for one reason more than anything else,
and that is that during this past fall— this
is really a delicate situation, because the
man I have to refer to has now gone to
greater heights which are beyond political
criticism, but let me put it this way— this
past fall, the then hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Porter) was speaking to a group on
the student campus and he made the pro-
posal, in commenting on fees in the univer-
sities, that in his opinion, fees were too
low and they should be increased.
I am curious to know whether this is
the government's approach, because I sub-
mit that not only are fees too high, in terms
of taking the dollar sign off educational op-
portunities at the university level, but that
we should be moving toward what has been
the CCF programme for quite some time,
and now apparently has become a Liberal
programme, and that is removing tuition
fees altogether.
We can find the money from the bounty
that we have in this country so that any
young person who has the ability, the quali-
fications, and the willingness to absorb fur-
ther education should have that opportunity.
The dollar sign should be removed com-
pletely from education.
I would be curious to know— perhaps the
hon. Prime Minister or the hon. Minister
of Education would indicate— whether it is
the government's opinion that tuition fees
in our universities are too low and should
be increased, because that certainly would
give us some idea as to how soon they are
going to move ahead to the other even
more important aspects of widening educa-
tional opportunity at the higher levels than
the one which is dealt with in this bill.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, if statis-
tics were compiled in the same way in
Canada as in the United States, that so-
called 7 per cent, of those going on to
university would appear in quite a different
light. In the United States, as I imagine
the hon. members know, young people go
to university after 4 successful years of high
school. Here we require 5. Now many,
many more could go to university and used
to go to university after 4 years of success-
ful high school instruction, and it was neces-
sary in the year 1931 to make a change
across the ravine and to require 5 years of
successful instruction in a high school. That
would make a tremendous difference in that
figure just quoted by the hon. member for
York South.
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
69
Mr. Wren: Mr. Speaker, on the amend-
ment of this particular Act, I heartily en-
dorse the principle in this particular Act
because it is going to be of great benefit
to the people in northwestern Ontario, where
tuition, board and room and other expenses
of education above the elementary level are
very serious problems indeed.
I may say that I did not particularly ap-
preciate some of the snide references of the
hon. member for York South regarding the
Liberal party's attitude towards matters of
education, but I was impressed with one
thing he said, and one thing with which I
am going to agree from now on. He said
that perhaps if he had not introduced this
legislation last year, the bill might have
gone through last year. The hon. member
confirms what I believed many times. If
he talked less we would get more things
done in this legislation.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Referring to
the principle and subject matter of this bill,
I intended to speak to the hon. Minister of
Education in regard to this matter but per-
haps this would be the time to express an
idea which has been within my head for
some time. I am only going to propound
the idea and not the scheme which might
be put into effect in order to put the idea
into effect.
In looking at the accounts of the Univer-
sity of Toronto during I believe, the past
year, I noted that the expenditures indicated
roughly a cost of $12 million to operate the
University of Toronto during the course
of that year, and I noted that roughly one-
quarter of the $12 million had been raised
by the fees, tuition and otherwise, and that
another one-quarter had been raised from
philanthropic sources, and that the other one-
half, approximately $6 million had been pro-
vided in this way: approximately $1 million
by the federal government and $5 million by
this province. Consequently we have a situa-
tion where, if using round figures, there were
12,000 students in attendance at the Uni-
versity of Toronto, and the cost to educate
a student from the point of view of the Uni-
versity, worked out to approximately $1,000
per student, of which the student, and I
am using round figures because I am pro-
pounding an idea and not a scheme, the
student paid one-quarter— that would be $250
—and from other sources there was raised
another one-quarter— that would be another
$250— and the federal government and this
government provided $500 per student cost
during the year at the University of Toronto.
It is in regard to that $500, that one-half
of the cost to which I would like to direct
the attention of this House.
That $500 was given for each and every
student at the University of Toronto re-
gardless of two things— regardless of the
standing which he achieved either on en-
trance to the university or while at the
university and secondly, regardless of his
financial ability to attend the university.
All he had to do was somehow provide for
himself, either directly or through his parents,
$250 to attend the University of Toronto, and
immediately he was the recipient of $750
additional cost from that university — $250
from outside sources and $500 from govern-
ment sources.
All he had to do was pay an initial one-
quarter, and he became the beneficiary of
three-quarters of the cost during that year
of his education.
If the hon. member for York South would
only wait until the end of my idea, then
he can ask the question. I suggest to him
—it is amazing how sometimes the hon.
member's mind works in such a way that
he cannot even see where an idea is good
coming from someone else even if he may
also have an idea paralleling to it.
I bring to his attention that this govern-
ment, the federal government and this prov-
ince provide for each student at the Univer-
sity of Toronto regardless of the standing
he achieved on entrance or while attend-
ing there, and regardless of his financial
ability, $500— one-half the cost of his educa-
tion during that year.
I suggest, that perhaps this government
could do this in a different way. It could
produce a premium plan on tuition fees,
a tuition plan on university cost, that in-
stead of supplying this $500 to the univer-
sity and then in turn expending those monies
for the education of every one regardless
of the standing he achieved on entrance or
while in attendance, and regardless of his
financial ability, that this $500 could be
made available to every student in the prov-
ince of Ontario who achieves a certain
standing, that every student who achieves
the standing of first or second class honours,
whatever it be decided, be provided with
$500 to defray the cost of his university fees.
Then, for the other $250 he can make an
application to the bursary fund to make up
the $750 which is provided for himself
now, and by the government. The other
$250 I presume will continue to come from
other sources. Then this loan fund would
be made available, not to cover the cost
70
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the university education itself, but to
assist the student in maintaining himself
while in attendance at the university.
If the cost were $1,000 and $250 came from
outside sources, so they would have to raise
from somewhere else $750, even if they raised
their tuition fees, provided this government
made available to every student within the
province upon entrance or while at the uni-
versity that $500 provided that he attain a
certain level.
Now, it is an idea that I have been pro-
pounding, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the hon.
Minister, who is always willing to try an
idea, can go into this and set up a 3-point
picture.
The government grants for maintenance
which I believe in the last year were some
$18 million through all the universities in
the province of Ontario, to use those funds
now to pay the tuition fees of every bright
student in the province of Ontario, to pay
a portion of the fees, to use the bursary fund
to pay the additional amount that is necessary
for those students who cannot make up the
extra amount in order to continue at univer-
sity, and then to use this loan fund for the
maintenance of themselves while they are at
the university, while they are getting the
advantage of the $1,000 cost of education
each year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In regard to free university
education, and this is really in response to what
the hon. member for York South has said, that
viewed from a superficial standpoint there is
in our system of education where we have free
education from the elementary stages onward,
really there is I say, superficially, no argument
against carrying free education through to the
universities.
But I point out that it is not just as simple
as that. Some time during the last 3 or 4
weeks I had the opportunity of being with
quite a large group of students and I found
that there was a very great difference of
opinion on that point. And I think that the
point is really touched up by what the hon.
member for Bellwoods has said. Again it is
not just as simple as extending, one might
say on a free basis, university education to all.
Now much of this has come about, of
course, by the emphasis that has been placed
on the achievements in science of other na-
tions, and may I point out that in some of
those other nations there is pretty strict regi-
mentation as to what a person may do or
what he or she may not do.
According to a certain standard, a student
in one of those other countries may be elev-
ated to the university class but if they do not
reach that class, then they are forever left
in some other class. I think such a thing as
that in this country is very definitely impos-
sible.
The problem I think is this: There is
nothing to gain by sending on to university
students who are not qualified, merely because
it is free. I think the hon. member will agree
to that, and I do not think we should do any-
thing to further what I think would be a very
undesirable result.
Remember this, the universities in our land
have to compete with industry and with other
countries for the talent that is developed.
Many on our university staffs, of course, are
qualified people. If they left the teaching
profession or their chairs in university, they
would receive far higher sums from some
other source.
Now, as a matter of fact, I think this is the
desirable objective, that no person in this
country who has the potential to make good
in the university world and in the things that
lead from university should be denied that
education, and I think that is a point that the
hon. member for Bellwoods, and I have no
doubt the hon. member for York South as
well, referred to.
How to do that, of course, is a problem,
and I think that it will come about with the
development of the bursary and the loan sys-
tems, and perhaps some other things. v
As to how to choose the students who will
receive these bursaries and loans and the
assistance to go on is a problem for the edu-
cationists, of which the hon. Minister of
Education is one. It is said, perhaps with
exaggeration, that Sir Winston Churchill was
not a good student, and probably would have
been unsuccessful at university, and probably
would have been one of those who would
have been barred from a course in higher
learning if his academic standing had been
the matter on which he were judged. How-
ever, he did receive training which assisted
him to the position which he afterward at-
tained.
Now, I say that it is for the people who
are dealing with the human resources we
have in students to determine the way to
bring on those who have the potential to make
good in the university world. Again, how that
will be done, I imagine, will be evolved by
trial and error, but I think we must accept
the objective of making it possible for every
student who should be in university to have
the opportunity of going there.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I think
what the hon. Prime Minister has said is the
common objective of everybody. I would
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
71
simply ask him, as the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer, whether his government is prepared to
underwrite in a realistic way the cost of the
programme that he envisages.
For example, I examined some statistics
presented in the very brief to which I think
he has made reference, where it is demon-
strated that the federal-provincial bursaries
had been cut back substantially during this
past year.
Now, that is an unfortunate thing, and in
some instances, in some of the individual
cases that I have examined, I found that they
were cut back rather substantially. Surely
that type of administration is inconsistent with
what our objective is now, wherein we will
expand the bursaries to take care of these
worthy students.
I would want assurance from the hon.
Prime Minister, as hon. Provincial Treasurer,
that the strings will not be tightened to the
degree that the very objective we have in
mind is precluded by practical application.
Secondly, I would ask the hon. Prime Mini-
ster whether or not there is any truth in the
suggestion that has been made in various
newspapers that the loan fund will be in the
approximate amount of $400,000. If that be
so, that is wholly— well now, Mr. Speaker, my
own rough calculation is that the fund to be
realistic must be in the neighbourhood of not
$400,000, but 10 or 20 times that. I think
this is the important issue, the assurance that
we should ask of this government is not the
altruistic idealism that we all have in mind
and are working for, but an assurance from
this government that it will implement the
idea, and carry out the programme which I
interpret at this stage to be something over
and above the technicalities of The Depart-
ment of Education and at the doorstep of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer as such. If the
funds are made available we can carry out
this programme.
I agree thoroughly that tuition is not the
problem. A youngster coming from my dis-
trict spends on the average of $1,200 a year,
of which, maybe, tuition might represent
$400 or $500. If he gets free tuition it is hardly
fair that he has to pay the remaining $800,
and a child from some other area who is not
required to board away from home receives
free tuition. I say, however, that we should
have some assurance from the government at
this time that it will underwrite the financial
cost of this idealism in a practical way.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, regarding
bursaries being cut back, we have used up all
the money appropriated for that purpose with
the exception of about $125, and if the hon.
member for Waterloo North can let me know
of any cases where bursaries have been cut
back, I would be grateful for the information,
because I have not heard of such a thing.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, this is what
I had reference to:
I examined, I think it was, 10 or 20 applica-
tions wherein applicants had asked for a cer-
tain amount of money. Although that amount
had been approved by officials of the partic-
ular university, they did not receive the
amount requested.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: They must have asked
for more than $500, did they not?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh no, they were all
under $500.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Was their standing all
right?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, to the best of my
knowledge.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I have not heard of this
matter at all. I will certainly look into it.
Mr. W. Murdoch (Essex South): Mr. Speak-
er, coming from a rural area, I am aware
of problems with regard to attendance at uni-
versities by our boys and girls, which perhaps
do not exist in a metropolitan area. It has
been my privilege while a member of this
government to see the idea of equal educa-
tional opportunity to all children extended
as far as the high school level. We know
that our students travel to the high schools,
the district high schools, by bus and we have
an excellent system of transportation all over
the province of Ontario which means that
those— the boys and girls who lived on the
farms 10 or 15 years ago and who were un-
able to bear the expense of boarding in town
to attend high school— those youngsters are
all attending high school today.
We find, however, that when they are
through high school, then the problem of at-
tending university becomes quite severe.
I was thinking that perhaps some atten-
tion should be paid to bringing about this
equality of educational opportunity, before
going into the deal too far of giving grants
on a straight basis. For instance, travelling
backwards and forwards perhaps 200 or
300 miles to a university at holiday seasons,
plus the board which has to be paid during
attendance at university, is indeed quite a
strain and disbars many of our young people
in rural areas from attending university.
It is certainly much easier to attend uni-
versity when one lives in a metropolitan area
such as Toronto, than it is for those from
72
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the outside. We did improve the situation
considerably in Essex county by the creation
of Assumption University a few years ago.
However, the courses are somewhat limited,
but they will be built up as time goes on.
But here again we find that we do not
have equality of opportunity because from
the town which is situated 25 to 35 miles
from the city of Windsor, for instance, the
students have to come in by bus and per-
haps the public transportation system just
does not allow that, so even if they live
30 or 40 miles from the university they have
to board in the city.
I think we should pay particular attention
to the cases of these particular students
when we are considering loans and should
try to extend something which we have
done through the high school level and that
is to bring about this equal opportunity in
education, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. H. C. Nixon ( Brant ) : Mr. Speaker,
I would like to express my strong support
for this legislation. I think I made some
comments on it last year when the hon.
member for York South introduced his reso-
lution asking the government to consider
this matter. I do not know that I have much
to add to what has already been said except
this suggestion, that many of the colleges
and the universities in Ontario have had long
experience in administering such a fund as
this.
I believe the hon. Minister for some years
had the administration of very considerable
funds for this very purpose. I know the
institution with which I am probably most
familiar, the Ontario Agricultural College,
some 50 years ago had a fund that was of
some age then, known as the Massey fund,
and it was available for students to borrow
and I presume that they have been very
successful in repayments because I know
that fund is still in existence after more
than 50 years, and, I believe, undiminished.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that he
might well consider, rather than keeping
this tightly within his own department, that
the universities themselves might administer
this fund.
I fancy the graduates would be anxious
to repay this money in any instance, but I
believe they would be even more anxious
to repay it to their university from which
they had received it, than they would to
the government. After all, some of us feel
that when we pay our regular taxes to the
state that we have discharged our responsi-
bility to the government, and we might
not be as keen about repay irg a loan as
we would be if our dealings were with our
university. I just throw that suggestion out
to the hon. Minister.
Certainly the federal government, in mak-
ing their payments or their grants to univer-
sities, found that even in that case it relieved
them, I believe, of certain embarrassments
to have those funds administered by the
universities' association, or whatever it is
they call that organization, and it might
be that this fund could much better be
administered by the universities and colleges
themselves than by a government depart-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Would the hon. mem-
ber suggest that the fund be divided up
among the 8 universities?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ANATOMY ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 50, "An Act to amend The
Anatomy Act."
He said: In introducing this bill, I made
some short comments about it. I think per-
haps the House would like me just to read
section 3 of the Act in order to illustrate, I
think, as clearly as any way, the effect of this
amendment. Section 3 of The Anatomy Act
reads :
The body of any dead person found
publicly exposed or sent to a public
morgue upon which a coroner, after hav-
ing viewed it, shall deem an inquest un-
necessary, or if any person who immedi-
ately before death was supported by any
public institution, shall be immediately
placed under the control of the local
inspector of anatomy.
I might say that for some years now the
local inspector of anatomy is usually a local
coroner in a city or a municipality. This
is subsection 2:
Unless such body within 24 hours after
being so found or sent to a public morgue
or after death where the death takes
place in a public institution is claimed
by certain people, a relative or a friend,
or a person who is willing to pay a cer-
tain amount to defray or aid in the de-
fraying of funeral expenses, or in the case
of a body of a person who was supported
in a county house or refuge, a county
councillor, the same shall be delivered
by the local inspector or some person
qualified as hereinafter provided.
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
73
And then subsection 3 provides for an
order being obtained from a magistrate un-
der certain circumstances, but this is the
subsection that is being removed by the bill.
Subsection 4 shall not apply to the body
of a mentally incompetent person who has
died in an institution under The Mental
Hospitals Act.
Mr. Speaker, removing that subsection
merely puts a body of a mentally incom-
petent person who has died in an institution
under The Mental Hospitals Act in the same
category as the body of a person supported
by any public institution and as otherwise
outlined in subsection 1.
The effect, it is felt, of this amendment
is that, in view of the need for additional
anatomical material to assist in the university
medical schools in this province— and there is
a very serious shortage really of the necessary
material of that sort for research purposes and
the proper purposes of a school of that nature
—some assistance at least will be given to
the 4 medical schools in the universities of
Toronto, Queens, Western and Ottawa.
I might say it is clearly understood that
this sort of work must be necessary and serve
a useful purpose, and that the body of the
deceased will be treated with the dignity and
respect which it deserves, and that it is only
in cases where the body is not claimed by the
persons I mentioned. Of course, the proper
burial will take place eventually in accord-
ance with the rites of any particular de-
nomination to which the person adhered in
his lifetime.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. Attorney-General advise us whether this
applies to all persons who die in mental institu-
tions or only those bodies that are unclaimed?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Those that are un-
claimed are in the same category as the ones
in public institutions.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Of course, we will not
allow a mentally incompetent person to dis-
pose of his physical possessions. We require
a public trustee and other official bodies to
assist in this administration, and we should
take these steps with respect to his most
precious possession, which is his body. Now,
I recognize the ultimate need— has there been
any effort made to take care of the need in a
voluntary way?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Phillips) would know more
about that than I do. He is not in his seat at
the moment, but I will say that this will in no
way meet the needs in full. This is merely a
step towards assisting a problem that is acute,
and one which I think all who have to do
with medical science know is necessary and is
in the interest of the people as a whole.
I do not think in any way that this amend-
ment is putting the bodies of people in that
particular type of institution in any different
position from the bodies of those who are
perfectly mentally fit and are in other
institutions or public institutions.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE BEACHES AND RIVER BEDS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 51, "An Act to Repeal The Beaches
and River Beds Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need
add anything to what I said on first reading of
this bill. I pointed out at that time that the
Act has been on the statute book for some 46
years, and has been used only once in that
period, and that the removal of sand from
beaches and river beds is regulated now by
another Act, The Beach Protection Act. This is
merely getting rid of an unnecessary statute.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 52, "An Act to amend The Condi-
tional Sales Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is
really just to make it a little more convenient
in business practices to enable the verifying
affidavit under section 14 of The Conditional
Sales Act to be made by any officer, employee
or agent of a corporation rather than certain
designated ones only. This is a business-like
widening of the authority to take the affidavit
which has to do with notice or renewal state-
ment on behalf of a corporation in respect to
a conditional sales agreement.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 53, "An Act to amend The County
Courts Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is
designed to expedite the administration of
74
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
justice in county court district No. 3, which
is made up of the counties of Wellington,
Huron, Perth and Waterloo.
The effect will be that the sittings of the
county court of Waterloo with or without a
jury will commence on the first Monday in
June and December instead of the first
Monday in June and the third Monday in
November. This was requested by his honour
Judge Charlton, judge of the county court of
Waterloo, and approved by the inspector of
legal offices and is, I think, a local situation
that is justified.
I might just say in connection with this,
mentioning the districts, that there are now
in the province a number of county court
districts. I hope to have something more to
say about that at some later date during the
session. But I do feel that the making of
adequate use of the districts and of the county
court judges in the districts should go a con-
siderable distance towards better administra-
tion of justice and more expeditious dealing
with cases in the districts concerned.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE GENERAL SESSIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 54, "An Act to amend The General
Sessions Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, here again what I
said a moment ago in relation to Bill No. 53
applies to Bill No. 54 in relation to the same
county court district, general sessions in this
case.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DESERTED WIVES' AND
CHILDREN'S MAINTENANCE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 55, "An Act to amend The Deserted
Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will
make available garnishee proceedings as a
further method of collecting monies due under
orders that are made under this Act and are
filed in a division court.
The Deserted Wives' and Children's Main-
tenance Act is an Act that has brought a con-
siderable amount of benefit to those unfortun-
ate people, and in the year 1957, some
$2,765,700 was collected by way of support
money for deserted wives and children, greatly
by the assistance of probation officers and by
using a court process where that was neces-
sary, and this particular amendment is to fur-
ther facilitate such collections.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE INTERPRETATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 56, "An Act to amend The Inter-
pretation Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment
merely brings up-to-date, and in line with
the present terminology, Her Majesty's titles
as set out in The Interpretation Act. The
present Act finds Her Majesty as the Sovereign
of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the seas for the time being.
The change brings the definition up-to-date.
It refers now to the Sovereign of the United
Kingdom, of Canada and her other realms
and territories, and Head of the Common-
wealth.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 57, "An Act to amend The Judicature
Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this change means
that local registrars of the supreme court
appointed after April 1, 1953, and on full-time
salary or remuneration do not retain fees in
respect to examinations or references. It is
simply bringing the Act into line with what
is the actual practice and has been for some
time.
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
THE MAGISTRATES' ACT, 1952
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 58, "An Act to amend The Magis-
trates' Act, 1952."
He said: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is to allow,
in addition to the safekeeping inspection of
books and documents and papers of magis-
trates, the destruction of them by regulation.
Mr. H. A. Worton ( Wellington South ) : Mr.
Speaker, might I ask the hon. Attorney-
General if there is any stated time they have
to forego before they can destroy these
records?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I would say that
this will be done by regulation, and the
FEBRUARY 10, 1958
75
regulation will specify the time and the time
would, I would say, be a substantial time after
the documents originated.
Mr. H. C. Nixon ( Brant ) : May I ask if, up
to the present, the records from the beginning
of time have been kept and never destroyed
or cleaned out?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I cannot answer that
question as to how long back, but I could
venture to say that all documents are intact
from the time I took office.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SURROGATE COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 60, "An Act to amend The Surrogate
Courts Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the present
section 10 of the oath of office of a surrogate
court judge, the oath of office must be taken
before a person appointed for the purpose by
the Lieutenant-Governor, and this requires an
order-in-council.
The change allows the senior judge at point
of time or, if he is not present, the next
senior judge, to administer the oath of office.
A similar change is being made in the
swearing-in of the county court judges which
is under Bill No. 59 which is not printed at
the present time.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MORTGAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 61, "An Act to amend The Mort-
gages Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment pro-
vides that where judgment has been obtained
in a foreclosure action, any person having a
subsequent lien or encumbrance must now
receive 10 days' notice of the judgment. He
will then be able, if he wishes to do so, to
stay proceedings by paying cost in arrears.
That is the substance of the amendment.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES
COMMISSION ACT, 1957
House in committee on Bill No. 45, "An
Act to amend The Hospital Services Com-
mission Act, 1957."
Hon. M. Phillips: Shall section 1 stand
as part of the bill?
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, I may be unusually
dense but I am not too clear on this. Does
this bill change in any sense the plan for
hospital care insurance?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I must say, Mr. Chairman,
I am not surprised that the hon. leader of the
Opposition might be a bit confused by the
wording of this bill, because I must say I
found it difficult to perceive the reason for it.
As I say, it comes about because of a dif-
ference of opinion between The Depart-
ment of the Attorney-General, The Depart-
ment of Justice at Ottawa, and the solicitors
for the hospital services commission, Messrs.
McCarthy and McCarthy.
I think, to put it very generally, the effect
is this: Clause A of section 15 gives the
power to formulate a plan. Section 13, if
I recollect rightly, refers to the department
of the federal government and ourselves
agreeing upon a plan, and it is argued that
it is impossible to agree upon a plan in sec-
tion 13 which is not yet formulated under
section 15.
Now the point is this, that it is just the
fact that there are certain words there in
accordance with the agreement mentioned
in section 13. The argument is that a plan
could not be formulated in accordance with
the agreement because there is not an agree-
ment until a plan is formulated. So we
thought that to clear that up, we had better
remove the words.
I may say that the point was raised by
The Department of Justice at Ottawa but
afterwards I think they then agreed upon
the point of view expressed that the argu-
ment was not really very valid. Neverthe-
less we thought it would be better to strike
the words out and then the matter would
be entirely clear.
Mr. Worton: May I ask on this, does this
finalize any further debate on this matter
or is there any opportune time coming that
we can discuss anything in regard to this
Act?
Hon. Mr. Frost: If this goes through com-
mittee today it would be ready to receive
76
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Royal Assent. Now I must admit that I
have some diffidence in calling his Honour
the hon. Lieutenant-Governor in here to
assent to this bill, but perhaps if it reaches
this stage, it may be acceptable by the other
parties to the agreement that is contem-
plated.
Yes, it would end discussion on this par-
ticular bill, but may I point out to the hon.
member that if he wanted to discuss hos-
pital insurance, he would have the fullest
of opportunity on the Throne debate and
again would have the fullest of opportunity
on the budget debate to discuss that and
could make any elaborate speech he wishes
on the principle of this bill.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, it was just
a suggestion that I had that I wanted to
put forth on it, and I was just wondering
whether or not this is the time to promote it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If it refers to this par-
ticular bill, yes.
Mr. Worton: Well, it pertains to some-
thing that I have learned in the past few
weeks regarding different plans, and I had
felt that at some time I could suggest it,
if it was later on to a committee, that I
feel that we have had numerous co-opera-
tive medical groups in the province which
have done a good job—
Hon. Mr. Frost: It may please the hon.
member that the matter he mentions could
be brought up on the Throne debate where
he could elaborate on the point of view
he wants to express. It does not affect the
principle of this bill. The principle of this
bill is to permit the formulation of a plan
upon which the various parties can agree.
That is the purpose of this bill, but it does
not go to the matter of the agreement that
may be entered into in all of its details.
Mr. Worton: The point that I am trying
to bring out is that I do not like making
long speeches in the Throne debates, be-
cause I like to get my point across when
I feel it is the time, so I just felt that this
was something I had to put forward and I
would like to do it.
Mr. Oliver: At this point, Mr. Chairman,
I think the hon. Prime Minister has said
quite correctly that the hon. member for
Wellington South will have ample oppor-
tunity to discuss phases of the hospital in-
surance scheme throughout the session. I
would imagine, I do not know, that there
would be some legislation by way of amend-
ments or otherwise bearing on this question,
when it will then be wide open for debate.
Although I do not want to be dogmatic
about it, I want to say to the hon. member
for Wellington South that I think the com-
ments he intended to make are not applic-
able to this particular bill, and that in my
opinion as well as ih the hon. Prime Min-
ister's, there will be ample opportunity
later on.
Sections 1 to 3 agreed to.
Bill No. 45 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do now rise and report a certain bill with-
out amendment.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report one bill
without amendment and asks for leave to
sit again.
Report adopted.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, may I say
that the business tomorrow will be Throne
debate and we will proceed with the Throne
debate and with the business of the House
on every day succeeding. I move the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.55 of the clock
p.m.
No. 7
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Bebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, February 11, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 11, 1958
First report, standing committee on standing orders, Mr. Sutton 79
Schools Administration Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, second reading 79
Debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Frost 83
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 103
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 103
79
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 11, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. E. Sutton, from
the standing committee on standing orders,
presented the committee's first report and
moved its adoption.
Your committee has carefully examined
the following petitions and finds the notices,
as published in each case, sufficient:
Petition of the corporation of Windsor
Jewish communal projects praying that an
Act may pass exempting the Windsor Jewish
community centre from taxation except for
local improvements.
Petition of the board of trustees of the
Roman Catholic separate schools of the town
of Lindsay praying that an Act may pass
providing for the election of the trustees by
means of the regular municipal election
machinery.
Petition of St. Peter's Church, Brockville,
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the
sale of the rectory.
Petition of the corporation of Huron Col-
lege praying that an Act may pass constitut-
ing "Huron College corporation," "academic
council" and "executive body" and defining
their powers.
Petition of the Stratford Shakespearean
Festival Foundation of Canada praying that
an Act may pass exempting its lands from
municipal taxes except for local improve-
ments.
Petition of the corporation of the township
of Grantham praying that an Act may pass
providing for the constitution and election of
the council of the corporation.
Petition of the corporation of the township
of London praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a pension plan for employees.
Petition for the incorporation of Sudbury
Young Women's Christian Association.
Petition of the corporation of the township
of Chinguacousy praying that an Act may
pass authorizing the sale of the municipal
telephone system to the Bell Telephone Com-
pany of Canada.
Petition of Canadian Pacific Railway Com-
pany praying that an Act may pass vesting
the assets of certain subsidiary companies in
the company and dissolving the said com-
panies.
Petition of Waterloo College associate
faculties praying that an Act may pass grant-
ing power to expropriate lands required for
the college.
Petition of Queen's University praying that
an Act may pass granting certain powers of
expropriation to the university.
Petition of the Ontario Dietetic Associa-
tion praying that an Act may pass granting
to the association the right to regulate the
standards of practice of its members and
securing to the association the designation
"registered professional dietitian."
Petition of the corporation of the township
of Teck praying that an Act may pass validat-
ing an agreement between the corporation
and certain mining companies for the supply
of water to the companies.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Toronto praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a simplified expropriation pro-
cedure for street and lane openings in the
city; and for other purposes.
Petition praying for an Act to incorporate
the Society of Professional Directors of
Municipal Recreation in Ontario.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Belleville praying that an Act may pass
authorizing the appointment of a city mana-
ger; and for other purposes.
Petition of the corporation of the town of
Almonte praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a debenture issue for sewer and
water works construction.
Motion agreed to.
Motions.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to make the following statement:
80
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On January 30, 1958, a brief was pres-
ented by the Individual Dump Truck Owners'
Association to the select committee on labour
relations of the Ontario Legislature. This
brief for the most part was devoted to allega-
tions, and I am using the wording of the brief,
that "unlawful pressure, intimidation and co-
ercion" were alleged to have been exerted on
the membership of the Individual Dump
Truck Owners' Association by— and I again use
the words of the brief— the Teamsters' Union,
with the intention of obtaining bargaining
rights by means contrary to law.
The brief instanced a number of occasions
of violence and threats, and asked the com-
mittee to recommend some positive solution
to prevent any recurrence of the matters
placed before it.
Following the presentation of the brief
and after discussion in the committee, the
following resolution was carried:
moved by Mr. G. E. Jackson (London
South) and seconded by Mr. R. Macaulay
(Riverdale) that the allegation made by Mr.
Watson and Mr. Harvey of the Individual
Dump Truck Owners' Association to the
select committee be referred to the
Attorney-General for investigation by his
department.
I understand that there was one dissenting
vote cast, not because the person was opposed
to the investigation but because he felt the
committee itself was the proper forum to
proceed with such an investigation.
I am informed that, following the passing
of the foregoing resolution, a brief was sub-
mitted by the Aggregate Producers' Associa-
tion of Ontario which supported the allega-
tions contained in the brief of the Individual
Dump Truck Owners' Association.
Mr. I. J. Thompson, who, I understand, is
the regional director of the central conference
of the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, told the committee at that hearing that
he would, and I use the words appearing in
the transcript, "welcome an investigation into
this allegation and will co-operate to the full-
est extent to have the facts ascertained." I first
heard of the action of the Legislature by long
distance telephone communication from a
member of the press at Moosonee which is
still Ontario's only seaport, but its claim to
that distinction will soon be a thing of the
past. The communication to me on Friday,
January 31, of this resolution illustrates the
excellent means of communications existing
in our province, or perhaps good police work,
because I took the message in the new detach-
ment office of the Ontario provincial police
office at Moosonee.
Since my return from that distant point
I have received a telegram from Mr. I. M.
Dodds, president of the Teamsters' Local 880,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, from
Windsor, Ontario, assuring me of the co-
operation of his union in any action decided
upon.
It should be noted that The Department of
the Attorney-General is not equipped to con-
duct investigation except through the criminal
investigation branch of the Ontario provincial
police. I do not think that the assignment of
criminal investigation branch personnel to in-
vestigate allegations of this character would
be satisfactory. The investigating officers
could only interview witnesses and make a
report. Such a report would have no legal
consequences and would fall within the juris-
diction of hearsay evidence and would not, of
course, be subject to cross examination.
I feel then, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the
most satisfactory way of dealing with the sub-
ject, now that the resolution of the select com-
mittee has been passed (and I am one of
those who always feels that a resolution from
a representative body, such as that, is one
that is entitled to the very greatest of con-
sideration, especially when it is chaired by
such a fine chairman as this particular one is)
and presented to me, is by the appointment of
a commission under The Public Enquiries Act.
I am pleased to report to this House that the
hon. Mr. Justice Wilfred Roach, of the On-
tario court of appeal, has been appointed a
commissioner under The Public Enquiries Act
to inquire into the allegations contained in
the briefs that I have just mentioned.
Mr. Justice Roach has had a long and in-
timate association with employer-employee
relationships, and in my opinion enjoys the
confidence of both management and labour.
We are fortunate indeed in having his services
available for this important undertaking.
The commissioner will be supplied with
competent counsel in the person of Charles
Dubin, Q.C., a lawyer extremely well versed
in labour matters.
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Education):
Before the orders of the day are called, I
should like to provide for the hon. member
for Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer) cer-
tain information for which the hon. member
asked yesterday.
As the hon. member knows, but as perhaps
hon. members of the House generally do not,
Waterloo College in his riding, I think, has
inaugurated a plan for the training of engi-
neering assistants. This plan provides that a
student attends college for 3 months and then
is employed with pay in an industrial plant
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
81
for the next 3 months, then goes back to
college for another 3 months and so on. This
is a statement which comes to me from the
chairman of our committee on bursaries.
The hon. member probably had reference
to a number of students who were awarded
Type A university bursaries last summer, and
later decided they would prefer to enter the
co-operative applied science course at Water-
loo College rather than the regular engineer-
ing course at one of the other universities
designated in their applications.
Inquiries from some of these students were
received by the departmental bursary com-
mittee as to whether or not their awards
would stand should they make the change,
having regard of course to the fact that they
would be remuneratively employed in alter-
nate 3-month periods under the Waterloo
College plan. The dean of the college was
consulted as to the financial needs of these
students.
After careful consideration, the figures for
Type A bursaries to non-resident and resident
students entering the above course were fixed
at $300 and $150 respectively. That these
amounts were considered satisfactory is in-
dicated by the following paragraph from a
letter written by the dean of the college to
the superintendent of secondary education
on September 20, 1957. "The amounts desig-
nated," he says, "appear quite sufficient in
view of the additional opportunity for employ-
ment that these students will have." Their
original awards were, therefore, reduced from
$500 to $300, or from $250 to $150 as the
case might be, which I think the hon. mem-
bers will agree, Mr. Speaker, was a perfectly
reasonable and logical procedure.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, the inquiry which I had made
had no reference to Waterloo College. It was
with reference to students in the University of
Toronto. It was a personal investigation. I
am quite prepared to accumulate the names in
the particular colleges if it be the wish of the
hon. Minister.
I did make further inquiries last night
and was told that probably the total number
of dollars had not decreased, but that there
were more applications last year than in the
previous year, and that in reference to the
particular increased number of applications,
lesser amounts were given than were given in
the previous years. It had nothing to do with
Waterloo College, but had to do with the
University of Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member will supply me with that information,
I shall certainly be glad to investigate.
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture ) : Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, I would like to call to the attention
of the hon. members this fine-looking group
of young men that we have in the east gallery
this afternoon, who are enrolled at the On-
tario Agricultural School at Ridgetown. These
young people are the second-year students
who will be graduating this year from that
school. They are in Toronto today to look in
on the proceedings of this House as well as to
visit some other places of interest that they
felt would be useful to them in their course
of training.
I may say in this day and age, when agri-
culture is becoming more competitive, that it
is more and more important that young men
who intend to be farmers must be well
equipped. Perhaps no vocation today, or in
the future, will require the kind of training
that successful farmers will need. I am sure
the hon. members join with me in welcoming
to this assembly this fine group of young farm
people from western Ontario.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day are
called, may I ask the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) whether he is yet in a position to give
a report to the House on the investigations
into the protests in connection with the pipe
line in Temiskaming and particularly whether
the government feels that it can grant legal
aid.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I may say that I discussed
that matter with the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture and we had some difficulties in south-
western Ontario, and in that case a committee
of farmers was set up. We are proceeding
with that same method at the present time.
I think my hon. friend could perhaps give a
fuller description than I could.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Speaker, last
year there seemed to be a great deal of mis-
understanding, and I would say this misunder-
standing for the most part occurred between
the gas company, which was laying a pipe
line from Sarnia to the Hamilton area, and
farmers in that area.
There was justification on the part of many
farmers for their feeling against the attitude
which the pipe line company assumed before
securing proper easement agreements. The
workmen proceeded due to the fact that, with
the pipe line company, there was urgency in
connection with the completion of the line,
and they proceeded in many cases to cross
farm property before the easements had been
signed.
82
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I must say that a good deal of consideration
has been given to the agreement which is
now entered into between the farmers whose
properties are being crossed and the pipe line
company.
I do feel, in going into it very thoroughly
with the former hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Porter), and the fuel controller at that
time, that the farmers are very well protected
in the new agreements between the pipe line
company and the farmers whose properties
are being crossed.
We appointed two outstanding farmers as
liaison officers between the government, so to
speak, and the farmers and the pipe line
companies, and I am very pleased with the
results of the work which these two men have
done in creating a better feeling of under-
standing. They went into the farmers' prob-
lems with the pipe line companies, and I must
say the public relations immediately became
much better.
The hon. member for Lambton ( Mr. Janes )
can tell the hon. members of some of the
experiences he had in connection with the
laying of the pipe line through his particular
county and I think, Mr. Speaker, that in most
cases it is a matter of poor public relations
and misunderstanding.
I would be prepared to suggest at this time
that we consider the appointment of someone
in northern Ontario throughout the agricul-
tural areas to work with the pipe line company
and the farmers, in order to see that the
farmer is properly protected and understands
what the easement agreements are all about
and so on, because he is an individual and
always more or less fearful, I suppose, that
he is dealing with big interests and is not
protected. I feel we would be quite justified
in appointing someone to look after his
interests in northern Ontario through The
Department of Agriculture.
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I am
happy to say we have a warden, Arthur
Bridge, in Welland county, who is really a
second Sir Winston Churchill, and who is per-
haps the unique warden in Canada. He has
been in municipal affairs for many years and
this year at the age of 84 attained the highest
office in the county of his fellow councillors
by being elected warden of the historical
county of Welland.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to add my personal word of
welcome to the students from the Western
Ontario Agricultural School at Ridgetown,
students from Stamford Collegiate Institute,
from Lillian Street School in Willowdale, and
also students from the Toronto Teachers'
College.
And, in the west gallery, we also have 25
ladies from the Third Thursday group of
Willowdale. This group meets on the third
Thursday of each month to study the functions
of government at its various levels, and I am
sure that all hon. members join with me in
extending to these groups a very warm wel-
come to the legislative assembly this afternoon.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar ( Provincial Secretary ) :
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Eighty-first annual report of the Ontario
Agricultural College and Experimental Farm
for the year ended March 31, 1957.
2. Report of the Ontario Veterinary College
for the year ended March 31, 1957.
3. Report of the Ontario Food Terminal
Board, The Department of Agriculture,
Ontario, for the year ended March 31, 1957.
4. Report of the Co-operative Loan Board
of Ontario for the year ended December 31,
1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Introduction of bills.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT,
1954
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves second reading
of Bill No. 46, "An Act to amend The Schools
Administration Act, 1954."
He said: I have explained this fairly fully
on first reading, Mr. Speaker, and I may now
say that it deals with the right of a teacher
of music, art, crafts and so on, called an
itinerant teacher, to have the usual arrange-
ments regarding sick leave, and to be allowed
to participate in the teachers' superannuation
fund.
There is another amendment which requires
that a principal and an adequate number of
teachers, all of whom shall be qualified
according to Acts and Regulations, must be
appointed and provides also that a supervisory
officer may be appointed in a municipality,
and also provides that any person may, at all
reasonable hours, inspect the books, audited
financial report, and so on of the school board.
In another amendment, it provides for the
election of trustees biennially, just as in the
case of municipal councils. Three of them
provide for that.
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
83
Then, a school site is defined for the reason
that certain buildings may be erected on a
school site. And then there is the long amend-
ment providing for payment by inhabitants of
trailers for the education of their children,
$2 a month for elementary education, and
$3 a month for secondary education. That
is it.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, in rising to make some
remarks the extent of which I am not quite
sure at the moment on this debate, I want to
say first of all that I am happy, as all hon.
members are, I am sure, to know that you
are again presiding over the deliberations of
this assembly.
In the present method employed in elect-
ing Speakers, I do not know that we could
hope for a more impartial Speaker than the
one we have presiding at the present time.
We feel that not only have we your con-
fidence, but that that confidence is mutual,
and in your inimitable way you have a power
over the hon. members of the Legislature
that keeps things running smoothly.
In my preliminary remarks I want to say
something about the speeches of the mover
and the seconder of the address in reply to
the speech from the Throne. My friend, the
hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) moved
the address in reply, and he is, as all of us
in the House will agree, a very affable hon.
member, a man of great experience in and
outside the Legislature. He has a disarming
attitude, he disarms his opponents and leaves
them wide open to the sort of propaganda
that he wishes to impart.
It is a very difficult task to oppose the
ideas of my hon. friend, even if one were in-
clined in that direction. All hon. members
welcome the speech that he made and the
sound truths that were contained therein.
He has had, as I have mentioned, a long
and varied experience in this House, and that
experience is a great help not only to his
own party but to those who have known him
as a friend over the years.
Also, the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon) in an eloquent reading of a very
long speech— I just want to say this to the
hon. member, and it is not meant in a criti-
cal tone at all— and this is what I would say,
that no government, not even this one look-
ing through his eyes, could be as good as he
portrayed it to be in his speech in the House
the other day. It must be, Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. member has not been fully initiated,
not only with the virtues of this government,
but also its shortcomings.
Its virtues we heard of the other day, and
we can look forward some day, I presume,
to hearing something of its shortcomings. I
do not expect, however, that they will fall
from the lips of the hon. member for Glen-
garry.
I want to say this to the new hon. mem-
bers generally— and there have been a num-
ber of them introduced in this session— all of
us welcome the new hon. members to this
Legislature, and all of us will be friends to
those new members as they seek to embark
on the duty of representing their people in
this Legislature.
I could well have wished that others
would have been here in their stead, but that
was not to be, and to those who were elected
from these various ridings I want to say on
the part of all the hon. members in the
House, I am sure, that we welcome them
and will work with them in making Ontario
a better place in which to live.
When I say that, it may be that I am
borrowing a phrase from the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost), but if it is, it is one
of his better phrases and I do not mind
employing it for this particular purpose.
When we come to this document which
tradition has labelled "the speech from the
Throne," I want to say of it, after a careful
perusal, that it looks awfully like other
speeches from the Throne that I have heard
and seen over the last 30 years.
A speech from the Throne is intended to
convey to the hon. members of the Legis-
lature an outline, and the more brief the out-
line the better, of legislation that is about to
be introduced in this Legislature. In keeping
with that definition, this speech from the
Throne was on a par with those that have
gone before. It discussed, as hon. members
will recall, a variety of subjects having to do
with this Legislature and over which this
Legislature has control.
When one thinks of the size of this prov-
ince and of the many and varied problems
that confront our people and that are subject
to laws enacted by this Legislature, it is not
surprising to appreciate that in the speech
from the Throne there was attention paid,
however scant that attention may have been,
to a great number of subjects.
In my remarks this afternoon, I do not
intend to mention or discuss the speech from
the Throne in detail, nor do I intend to make
84
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
remarks about all the subjects that were
enumerated in the speech from the Throne.
I am not going to say anything at this time
in respect to hospital insurance because I am
persuaded that there will be ample oppor-
tunity to discuss the various aspects of this
very important bill, the benefits of which will
start to flow to the people of Ontario next
January 1, all being well.
I am not going to discuss the fact that the
speech from the Throne failed to mention
whether or not the committee which was
appointed to examine into the set-up of
Metropolitan Toronto would report to this
Legislature. Now, it may be that this com-
mittee was so partisan in its composition that
it is felt by the government that it is not
proper for it to report to the Legislature, but
rather to report to the government itself. I
would agree that it makes little difference
whether a committee so partisan in its char-
acter reports to the Legislature or to the
government.
While I am on this subject, I want to say
—I think I have said it before but it bears
repetition— that I hope I never in this Legis-
lature witness a government having the nerve,
the audacity or the gall, or whatever one likes
to call it, of appointing a committee of this
Legislature to deal with a matter of provincial
importance and appoint only hon. members
of the government party to that committee.
In my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, the
government in adopting that course has pur-
sued a path which it should not have put its
foot upon.
The matter of Metro is one which affects
not only the city of Toronto and those areas
that are adjacent thereto, which are included
in the Metro set-up but an analysis of the
Metro situation is one that very probably
would and could have its effect on other areas
of the province of Ontario, and as such that
committee is one which in my judgment
should be representative of all hon. members
of the House.
It may be for this reason that there is no
mention of this committee in the speech from
the Throne, or what has happened to it, or
whether it will report. There is no mention—
at least I did not find it in the speech from
the Throne— as to whether the committee on
labour relations will report to this session of
the Legislature.
I would say to the hon. Prime Minister that,
in these days when unemployment is at its
highest figure since the 1930's, it is of vital
importance that a committee so related to the
problems of unemployment should report to
this Legislature, and there should be an in-
dication in the speech from the Throne that
it will report to this Legislature.
If there ever was a time in the history of
this province when The Labour Relations Act
should be brought into conformity with pres-
ent-day needs, that time is now, and the
responsibility for delaying the report and the
findings of the committee is on the govern-
ment's shoulders.
There should be, I suggest to the House, at
least an interim report. There should be a full
opportunity for hon. members of the Legis-
lature to express their views and give their
opinions in relation to labour legislation as
a whole, and there should be an opportunity
to analyze what the government proposes to
do in respect to amending The Labour Rela-
tions Act, particularly in view of the abnormal
conditions existing throughout this province in
relation to employment.
I am not going to discuss the field of prov-
incial-municipal relations at this time, others
of my colleagues will deal with that, I am sure
very effectively.
I want to discuss a number of subjects,
however, Mr. Speaker. I do not want the
House to run away with the idea that, because
I have eliminated some, I have eliminated all.
There are 4 or 5 subjects, with which I want
to deal perhaps rather extensively this after-
noon. I deal with them because I think that
they are of paramount importance, particularly
as they apply to this Legislature and to the
day in which we live and the time through
which we are passing.
I want to make particular reference to
The Department of Education, and I think I
should say at the outset that I am perhaps,
in the minds of some, not particularly
equipped to deal with The Department of
Education and all the questions that pertain
to that department, both in the monetary
sense and in the strictly educational atmo-
sphere of the department.
I feel, however, that I am competent, and
that I have a duty to discuss these problems
frankly as I see them, and have come to
understand them not only because of my
membership in this House for a great number
of years, but because of my interest in the
problem and of the searching and the analyz-
ing that I have been able to do in respect
to the whole question of education.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal at
some length with The Department of Educa-
tion.
Now, the hon. Prime Minister has referred
many times to the 3-year plan. There is just
one thing at the moment that I want to em-
phasize about the 3-year plan. It was men-
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
85
tioned again, quite properly, in the speech
from the Throne. Of the 3-year plan, one
year's objective has been unfolded pretty well
before the legislators, and another year— yes-
well, there are slight indications of what the
second year's objective might be.
We do not know at all, we have not even
had a glimpse of what the third year's objec-
tive is, except that the plan says that the third
year will consist of "further refinements." Now
what those are, of course, time will tell,
unless the hon. Prime Minister chooses to tell
before time tells. In any event, we know
exactly what the first year's plan is, we have
had a glimpse ever so fleeting of what the
second year's plan is to be, and we have no
conception and cannot be expected to have
of what the third year's plan is.
There is just one observation I want to
make in respect to the plan as we know it,
as much of it as we know. In essence, it is
a financial plan, dealing almost in its entirety
with the grant system as applied to our
schools. It deals with the matter of equal-
ization — or will — and it is restricted to the
financial aspect of the schools of Ontario.
There is nothing in the plan that we have
seen or that we could hear, that has anything
to do with the curriculum, that has anything
to do with departmental examinations, there
is nothing to indicate that the government is
not fully satisfied with what is going on in the
rest of education outside the financial aspects.
I want to deal first of all with those finan-
cial matters because, after all, they are of
paramount importance. I believe, and have
said it before in this House and want to
repeat it, that the day has come when the
province of Ontario must, not from choice but
from necessity, assume a much larger share
of the cost of education. One can find in a
study of the accounts of different states of
our southern neighbour, that some of those
states across the line assume up to 80 per cent,
of the cost of education, while in Ontario, this
year if these new grants are put into effect,
the government will be assuming something
like 40 per cent, of the cost of education for
the first time in quite a substantial number of
years.
Back in 1945, the province paid 45 per
cent, of the cost of education, and then we
slipped back into the 30 per cent, field all
through the intervening years. If the size of
the grants actually are as indicated this year,
I say that for the first time in many years we
will be paying some 40 per cent, of the cost
of education.
When hon. members hear the hon. Prime
Minister, as we will again probably this
afternoon, if he speaks, talk about the large
increase in the grants to education, they can
almost be convinced, if they are gullible at all,
that the amount of money by which he has
increased grants for education is in fact
lowering the cost of education to the muni-
cipal taxpayer.
Now, the bald, unvarnished truth, of course,
is that the municipal payer of educational
taxes pays more now than he did 10 years
ago, and his share of educational tax continues
to rise in spite of the increased grants from
the provincial government. To say it in
another way, the grant increases from the
province of Ontario for the purposes of
education have not kept pace, nor nearly so,
with the increased cost of education at the
municipal level.
I want to say further to this House, Mr.
Speaker, in repetition of what I have already
said, that the day is at hand in this province
when whatever government is in power
should recognize the prime responsibility of
assuming a greatly increased cost of educa-
tion. We are spending, on education in
Ontario, only some 20 per cent, of the pro-
vincial budget. We are proud to proclaim
from the housetops that our children are our
greatest asset, and that no money should be
spared in seeing that they not only have the
best schools in which to be taught, but that
they have the best system of education. Now
a government which subscribes to that very
worthwhile doctrine, it seems to me, must
at one and the same time subscribe to the
principle of paying greatly increased costs for
education.
Now then, the financial aspect of educa-
tion, with which the House is conversant, is,
of course, not the only one. I want to direct
my remarks to the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Dunlop) for a few moments about two
or three matters that have to do with the
other side of education, not the dollars-and-
cents side but that which deals with instruc-
tion, the side that deals with the plans that
we have in mind to impart the best we have
to the children of this province so that they
may learn the maximum in the years in which
they attend school.
The House will recall that last year the
speech from the Throne made extensive
reference to the shortage of teachers, and
they called it, I think properly, "a problem
of some magnitude." This year, in the speech
from the Throne, there is no mention of the
teacher shortage. I expect we are to assume
that in the year that has elapsed since last we
met, what was a tremendous problem has
evaporated and that there is no teacher
86
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shortage today. That of course, as the hon.
Minister quite well knows, is not the case.
I want to say to the House quite frankly
that this is not a new problem in Ontario. I
suggest it cannot be called an emergency
problem any longer, because it has been with
us longer than any emergency should be. I
have for instance, as the hon. Minister will
recall, an extract from a preliminary report of
the Hope commission in 1949 on this parti-
cular matter, and I was quite taken with their
recommendation and their findings almost 10
years ago. That report said to the Minister
of the day, in respect to teachers:
The first objective must be to discontinue
the emergency normal school summer
sessions and the issuance of letters of
permission.
Almost 10 years ago, the finding of experts
in respect to education said to the Minister
of the day that one of the greatest problems
we have, and one of the first objectives that
we should have in mind, is the discontinuance
of the emergency normal school summer
sessions and the discontinuance of the letters
of permission.
Now, almost 10 years have passed since
that report was made to the Minister of
Education of the day, and I suggest to this
House that the emergency that existed in 1949
is still with us; that its magnitude has not
diminished in the last 10 years; and that the
problem is still a problem for this government
in the present day.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, just what the
views of the hon. Minister are in this regard,
but it seems to me that the great danger is
this— that what was once called an emer-
gency in education is now going to become
a permanent part of our educational system.
Ten years have passed since the Hope com-
mission report said that we should discon-
tinue the summer courses, and that we
should deny further letters of permission to
teach, and in those years there has been no
meeting of these objectives concerned.
What I am alarmed about, Mr. Speaker,
and it seems to me that the alarm is general,
is this, that the hon. Minister of Education
and the department over which he presides
has become so used to these emergency sum-
mer sessions, and these letters of permission,
that they are not regarded any longer as an
emergency but have become part and parcel
of the thinking and the acting of The Depart-
ment of Education of this province.
It seems to me inconceivable that we are
going to adopt, as a permanent policy of The
Department of Education, the training of
school teachers in 6 weeks after they have
graduated from grade 12. We are asking too
much of these young people, we are expect-
ing too much of them.
More, it seems inconceivable we are ask-
ing the school children of this province to
put up with— I do not want to make the
words any milder— to put up with instructors
who are not adequately and properly trained
to teach them. I am quite concerned over
this matter, as perhaps the hon. Minister is,
but what we are doing at the present time
is perpetuating a situation that should have
been a short-term situation, and should have
been regarded entirely as an emergency
matter.
I want to come for a moment to the cur-
riculum, and to the other parts of the instruc-
tion end of education. Back in the days prior
to the Porter plan, we had, of course, a rigid
instruction in the schools, I mean within
rigidly drawn lines. We had, as hon. mem-
bers know, departmental examinations all
along the line; we were obliged as pupils to
subscribe to a pretty closely drawn curricu-
lum put out by The Department of Educa-
tion.
Then a new day dawned so far as educa-
tion was concerned, and these examinations
were done away with in one fell swoop so
far as The Department of Education was con-
cerned. There are no examinations up to, as
I understand it, grade 13. None are insisted
upon by The Department of Education.
There is of course the curriculum as such; it
is what might well be called a "floating cur-
riculum." It is one that is completely flexible;
much is left— in fact almost all is left— to the
teachers and to the pupils in respect to the
curriculum. All the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion does is to suggest to them in a very
broad, general sort of way what the curricu-
lum should be.
Now I want to say as firmly as I can that
in my judgment, we should not go back to
the rigid curriculum and the examinations
experience of a number of years ago. But I
do say this to the hon. Minister of Education
that, in my judgment, we have gone already
altogether too far in the other direction, and
I think the time has come in Ontario when
The Department of Education must return, to
some extent at least, to departmental exam-
inations, and must exercise much more control
over, and direction of, the curriculum in our
elementary schools than they do now. I
think we have gone too far.
Nobody wants to go back, at least I do
not, to the little red schools; nobody wants to
go back to the rigid set-up that we had before.
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
87
But I think all of us are coming to an appre-
ciation of what is a very substantial fact, that
in ridding ourselves of one system, we have
gone too far in the other direction. I know
for a fact, that it is time we took a good
hard look at the curriculum, the teacher stan-
dards, and the matter of direction from The
Department of Education to the teachers and
to the school boards of this province.
After all, Mr. Speaker, it is all right for us
to say that we spend millions of dollars in
building new schools. It is all very fine to say
that we transport the children to school as
we did not in former days; and that they are
provided with meals at the lowest possible
cost. All that is to the good. But all that does,
I suggest to the hon. Prime Minister and to
the hon. Minister, is to make education more
available to a greater number of children. It
is a good thing to be taught in new schools,
a good thing to be drawn to those schools,
but those factors are not the answer to our
educational problem.
The two best teachers I ever knew in my
life drove 7 miles every morning to high
school and did that all through their high
school years and they were, as I say, two
of the best teachers that one could wish for.
So that to say that we are providing convey-
ances to draw the children to school now,
and that we are constructing new buildings,
is not saying that we are giving them a full
and complete education. It is not saying, I
suggest to the hon. Minister, that the depart-
ment is taking the proper attitude toward the
teachers and the pupils of this province.
I have said these things because I felt
them for a long time. I believe that the
people generally in Ontario are getting
around to the place where they feel that
there should be more discipline and when I
say discipline I do not mean strapping, I
mean discipline in its general applied sense.
I think we are getting around to the place
where examinations must be returned in
measure or in part to our school system. We
are getting around to the place where The
Department of Education, after having as-
sessed all aspects of the problem, must
assume greater responsibility for the cur-
riculum and see that it is enforced in the
schools of Ontario.
That is all, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say
at the moment about education.
I want to deal now with a subject with
which we are all familiar and that is agri-
culture. I do not make any apology for deal-
ing at some length with this subject this
afternoon, because in this Legislature and in
the federal Parliament, there has been more
attention given to the agricultural industry
this last year or so, than has been given to
it for a long time.
I want to start off this way, if I may. The
House will recall that last year we put, on
the order paper, a motion which asked the
government to set up a committee to examine
into the economic conditions of the farmers
of this province, and particularly to give at-
tention to what could be done in respect
to price spreads and research as applied to
the agricultural industry.
Two things should be said about that, and
the first one is this, that I believe that the
government would have been wise to have
accepted that motion. Now, some hon. mem-
ber will say this afternoon that the federal
government has already undertaken to in-
quire into and to investigate the price spread
as between what the farmer receives and
what the consumer pays. That, of course, is
accurate. Some time after an event on March
31, they are going to get around to assessing
this problem. I am going to say something
about that later on, I will just reserve any
comments that I have at the moment.
What I want to point out to the House
is this, that that deals with only one aspect of
the farm problem, and I do not think that it
is actually the most important problem that
faces the farmers of Ontario and of Canada.
I believe that applied research and creative
research can do much more than it has done
for the farm industry.
Last year the hon. Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Goodfellow) was pretty well satisfied
with what was being done in respect to re-
search, yet this year in the speech from the
Throne there is a promise that greatly ex-
panded research will apply to the agricultural
industry.
Industry in this province has stolen research
to the exclusion of the agricultural industry,
and agriculture has therefore fared badly in
getting returns from the value of research in
this province. We have had applied research,
but so far as creative research is concerned
we have had little or none, and until this
move in a declaration in the speech from the
Throne there was no intention that we were
going to have any. And I suggest one of the
bigger things that we can do for the industry
is to determine how much expanded research
can assist in the various ways in which it can
be applied to the agriculture industry gen-
erally.
The other way I think we could have helped
by this committee was by examination into the
economic conditions generally of the farm
people of Ontario. The resolution asked that,
88
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and we were justified if not impelled by
good sense to have given the farm people of
this province that sort of a committee. It
would have examined into price spreads, eco-
nomic conditions and research in particular.
Now I want to say that there has been
some move federally in respect to the agri-
cultural situation. Some enactments in the
last and only session of the federal Parliament
dealt with the farm problem. I want to say
just briefly but as firmly as I can that the
legislation placed on the statute books by the
Diefenbaker government is quite inadequate
and quite unrealistic as applied to the needs
of the farm people in this province and other
provinces of Canada. Why would they not
vote for it? I ask because actually it is only
an extension and an expansion of the price
support programme of the late Liberal gov-
ernment. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am not complaining, except this, that I
said on the legislation under the old Liberal
government, as I say it of the Diefenbaker
government, that that sort of approach and
that sort of an applied solution is quite
inadequate to meet the general over-all prob-
lem of the farm people of this province. All
that legislation does in actual operation is to
guarantee that the farmer will get 80 per cent,
of the price of his product over the last 10
years in average, but of course anyone look-
ing at the problem will appreciate that does
not meet the situation at all.
All that legislation does is to keep the
farmer from going broke. All it does is to
keep him out of the poorhouse. It does not
give him a reasonable or a fair share of the
national income at all. What we have to have
by way of farm legislation is legislation that
is tied to the cost of production, that bears a
relationship, and a close one, to what it costs
the farmer to produce agricultural products.
That is not what Mr. Diefenbaker is doing,
and if one reads the proposal he will know it
is not what he is doing. It has nothing what-
ever to do with it.
Time after time the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture in the House, when questioned on
this point, said it had nothing to do with
parity prices, that he was afraid of parity
prices, and of tying the price to the actual cost
of production. He kept away from that, as far
away as night is from day, and then he tried
to read into it what my hon. friend is suggest-
ing. He certainly must be reading with a
magnifying glass, indeed.
The commission that was set up, and I
think my hon. friend knows this, has primarily
to do with the price spreads between the pro-
ducer and the consumer. My hon. friend is
portraying all too clearly a lack of knowledge
on these subjects when he said what he has
just said this afternoon. Of course the in-
quiry initiated, but not carried out as yet by
the Diefenbaker government, has to do only
as between the cost to the producer and to
the consumer.
Now I am suggesting to the House that we
are not going to settle or cure the farm prob-
lem until by government action we say it a
different way, that the farmer is entitled for
his production a fair share of the national
income. And up until now and including
what my friends are trying to do at Ottawa,
we have not even approached that problem
at all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let him tell us what his
party did in the last 23 years.
Mr. Oliver: I do not know whether the hon.
Prime Minister remembers or not, but I am
independent enough to have said in this
House and other places that what the federal
Liberal government were doing was not
enough, and I say again this afternoon that,
as inadequate as their programme may have
been, the programme of the Diefenbaker ad-
ministration is even less able to meet the
problems that exist in agriculture.
I would say to the House, in pursuing this
point, that there is a conception quite widely
held that farmers should be careful that they
do not get the price of their product too high
for the world market. Well now, newspapers,
editorial writers and others and sometimes
governments are saying this to the farmers,
"there is a danger and a rather imminent one
that you will get your costs so high that you
cannot trade on the world markets." I want
to say this afternoon that the world price for
agricultural products is a starvation price,
and that the Ontario and Canadian farmer
should no longer be expected to meet the
world price for agricultural products. How
can they meet the world price for cheese
when the New Zealand price for cheese is
some 17 cents per pound and our price is
34 cents a pound? How can the Canadian
or Ontario farmer be expected to compete
with that sort of an atmosphere? I suggest
that we want to look at the agricultural
problem in a different light altogether. There
is not much of a surplus of basic agricul-
tural products except wheat, and the sooner
governments, both provincial and federal,
recognize that the small surplus there is of
basic agricultural products must have nothing
to do with the domestic price received for
those products the better it will be. The
world price in the past has exercised all too
great an influence on the price that the farmer
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
89
receives for his products at home. And the
day is fast approaching if we are realists, and
I hope we are, when we will say to the
farmers of Canada: "You are entitled not only
to a fair share of the national income but you
are entitled to a share that measures up well
with what the rest of the people make in the
various lines of endeavour."
May I suggest that in Ontario, as in
Canada, we are not doing that very well. The
hon. Minister says he is raising the money for
fall fairs, is building more buildings at Guelph,
and is actually doing a lot for the agricultural
people. Well, actually, the problem has be-
come so great that the hon. Minister, I think,
completely misses the point, and I give him
the benefit of the doubt that he would not
want to miss the point. It seems to me that
he is missing, to a degree at least, the problem
that exists.
I do not know how many hon. members saw
this article in the Globe and Mail; appearing
as it does in the Globe and Mail I can vouch
personally for its authenticity. This article
was printed on February 5, 1958, just recently,
and said: Mass Farming Said to be the
Solution to Hand-Outs.
The fellow doing the talking was a chap by
the name of Alfred Leatherbarrow, and it says
he is a farmer conservationist from Elora.
This man was speaking to the Meat Packers
Council of Canada, and said that "they should
get into large-scale farming directly and run
units of several thousand acres on a corpora-
tion or profit-sharing basis." And he said
further on in his speech, "I am here now to
challenge you to take over agriculture in this
province and in this country." He was talking
to fellows whom I am sure would be receptive
to the plan he was outlining.
I would think, however, if farming is to be
taken over, let it be taken over by farmers and
not by meat packers. I mean, this whole
system is growing up around our ears and we
do not seem to be doing too much about it.
When I farmed 20 years ago, we used to
keep 200 to 300 hens on the farm and we
thought we made a nice little profit out of
that sideline. No average farmer keeps hens
today, and the reason he does not keep them
is because he cannot afford to. The "big
fellows" have taken over the poultry industry
in total, and by taking it over in total they
have deprived the ordinary farmer on the
150 or 200 acre farms from making what used
to be a pretty good nest-egg in the fall of
the year.
We have the meat dealers and the meat
packers, and we have all these giant corporate
bodies with unlimited funds at their command,
with the ability to get the feed at the lowest
possible price and with the opportunity to
produce these products in abundance, in great
volume, and no farmer situated on a 150 or
200 acre farm can compete with that.
What has been done, in respect to hens or
chickens or fowl, or poultry, or whatever we
like to call them, is in the process of being
done with hogs. I am sure rural hon. members
of this House will agree with me, we have
today feed companies and packing-house
companies that are into the hog business on
a tremendous scale, and slowly— and I am
afraid it is not too very slowly, but let us say
slowly but surely— they are moving the ordinary
farmer off his farm so far as poultry and hogs
are concerned, and they are now getting into
the cattle business as many hon. members
from southwestern Ontario can attest.
We are getting into this big-scale produc-
tion, and I suggest to this House that two or
three decisions have to be made and rather
quickly. If we are going to have to go into
corporate farming by organizations with
which the farmers are not connected, and
over which they have no control, then let us
say so, and let us face this matter in a real
way, because if we are to have corporate
farming on a large scale then it should be
done by the farmers of this province, not by
the middleman, not by the feed dealers, not
by the packing-house companies.
This is the position we are getting into in
Ontario at the present time. We are moving
resolutely toward the goal of doing away with
the small farmer and are getting into the
position, whether we like it or not, where
the farmers of this province are becoming the
hewers of wood and the drawers of water for
corporate concerns over which they have no
control and no financial interest at all.
I suggest that unless we are going to
become an industry of tenant farmers, an
industry of peasants in this province, then
it is time for government, both federally and
provincially, to come to grips with this prob-
lem, not by scratching at the surface but by
really getting down to the kernel, finding out
what the trouble is and applying the remedy
fearlessly and courageously and up until now
I suggest that this has not been done.
I want to speak for a few minutes on
a subject very close to the heart of the
hon. Prime Minister. I know from past ex-
perience he would not want me to miss it
entirely. This is the matter of federal-pro-
vincial arrangements or fiscal undertakings or
tax agreements or whatever we like to call
them. In this day it is difficult to know what
90
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to call them. We knew what the definition
was a few years ago but now we do not,
things change so rapidly and in such a revo-
lutionary manner. We have a new day.
It all depends upon one's interpretation of
a new day. Some new days may be very
black and others not quite so black. Now
until I define what I mean by a new day, no
hon. member should in any manner express
his opinion, because he does not know
exactly what I am going to say.
But I did want to say this in respect to the
conference: it has been suggested that this
was a new kind of conference. It was, I
agree readily and at once with that. It was
a new kind of a conference. During the days
which preceded the federal election, Mr.
Diefenbaker promised — I imagine with the
concurrence of the hon. Prime Minister if
not his insistence — that there would be a
federal-provincial conference as I recall it in
September.
Well, Mr. Diefenbaker got around to it a
couple of months later, which is pretty good.
He called the Premiers in from the 10
provinces of Canada, including Ontario. I can
imagine the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario
going down to Ottawa flanked by all his
aides and advisors and consultants ready to
put Ontario's case before this new-born
federal-provincial conference.
When the Premiers got there, this new
situation developed. The hon. Prime Minister
of Canada, Mr. Diefenbaker, said in effect,
to them: "Now, boys, I have wanted to see
you for quite some time. In spite of the fact
that we have called this conference, and in
spite of the fact that in the long run if any
remedy is to come to you fellows, we are the
ones who are to pay the money, and we are
the ones to dish it out. In spite of those
rather basic facts, I must now say to you that
we have not any programme to offer. We
have not any proposal to make to you today
at all. Now I do not want you to think you
wasted your time coming here, I want each
one of you to have an opportunity to tell me
what you want."
Well, I can imagine the range of wants,
from fairly low to very high, that came from
the lips of every Premier in Canada, and so
each one of them said what he wanted.
When that was all over, Mr. Diefenbaker
said in effect: "Now, thank you very much,
gentlemen, I am going to be so good as to
suggest that you come back some other
time." The time was indefinite, the date was
unknown, but at some future time the
Premiers are to be recalled, and to have
another conference with the federal govern-
ment.
The hon. Prime Minister of Ontario went,
I am sure, to Ottawa insisting on his $100
million. I cannot think, knowing him as I do,
and remembering the utterances that have
fallen from his lips on innumerable occa-
sions, I cannot imagine him going there
asking for less than $100 million. Surely he
would expect just as much from his friends
as he would demand from his enemies, so I
think it is fairly basic to assume that the hon.
Prime Minister would ask for $100 million,
while he left the conference of course with-
out anything.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh no, I did not.
Mr. Oliver: Oh yes, the hon. Prime Mini-
ster did. There was no intimation, public or
by any other way, that he was to get a single
cent out of the $100 million that he asked
for, and he did not know until the telegram
arrived that he was going to get any part of
the $100 million.
Well, I am reasonably sure of that and I am
reasonably sure of this, that if there had not
been the advent of a federal election, and if
there had not been a decision that there was
going to be an election even though the an-
nouncement had not been made, the hon.
Prime Minister would still have not received
his $22 million. That was a political payment
if ever there was one, and I suggest to this
House and to the hon. Prime Minister that
so far as his finances are concerned, he can
be happy indeed that they are to have a
federal election, because he would not have
received any part of his $100 million if there
had not been a federal election in the offing.
The very way in which the payment was
made is intimation enough in itself. We get
along toward the time when we have to close
the books for the fiscal year. No money yet,
no telegrams, no conversation by phone, no
intimation at all and then as the days become
fewer, and we draw nearer to that place
where beyond it we cannot place it in our
estimates for the coming year, and more im-
portant still, after a decision has been made
that there is going to be an election and be-
fore the date is announced, he gets a telegram
from Ottawa saying he will get $22 million.
Now this must be the new day. This is the
new diplomacy. This is the new way of
negotiation as between the province and the
federal government. Now, if one must choose
which is the better of the two, then I will
take the old arrangement.
I want to pick up what some hon. member
said across here, that we are getting $22
million now when we did not get anything
before. Why, in the old agreement we got
what was worth $50 million, not $22 million.
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
91
Interruption by some hon. member.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I think this government
consists of pikers so far as being recipients
are concerned, there is no doubt about that.
I want to take this one step further. The
hon. Prime Minister has his $22 million or I
hope he has. He got 22 cents on the dollar.
Now that is pretty good, 22 cents on the
dollar.
I think there are two or three things we
might just examine about this $22 million.
I want the hon. Prime Minister to get all he
can from that government in Ottawa. Yes I
do, I am as fair as I can be in this regard.
I want him to get all he can get from them,
but I want to just analyze this $22 million
business for the moment.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that this $22 million
is a one-year payment, it is the first instal-
ment, as the hon. Prime Minister said. It is
good only for one year. Is that not right?
Yes, it is. This is an interim payment. This is
on a year-to-year basis, there is no question
about that, and not only is it on a year-to-
year basis but I want the hon. Prime Minister
or the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Mac-
aulay) who was working so energetically up
there— or whoever speaks next— I want him
to tell the House, whether the stabilization
clause applies to this $22 million. This is
actually not a part of the agreement, it may
certainly be a graft to it but it is not actually
a part of it, and because it is not, I suggest
to the House that the stabilization clause will
not apply, and if it does not apply then I
suggest further that if we move into a period
more with greater economic depths than we
have—
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out to the hon.
member that the statute upon which this was
based and the authority for this payment was
amended, and that it was unanimously
adopted by the House? The hon. member's
friends down in Ottawa voted for it, therefore
it is the law of the land and will remain
such until it is changed.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I read, as carefully as I
think the hon. Prime Minister did, the debates
that took place in relation to this matter in
the federal House and I, in spite of what the
hon. Prime Minister said, suggest to him that
it is not a payment that goes on from year
to year. Unless it is renewed, he will have
to wait for a telegram next year. The way it
stands now, it is a yearly payment and on a
yearly basis only, and what I wanted to add
further in respect to that matter was this,
that our general revenues from corporation
and income tax are not climbing as they used
to, and there is not the buoyancy in the
economy that would give rise to a continua-
tion of the upward trend that has been ap-
parent for the past number of years.
It might well be, mind you I hope it is not,
but it just might well be, that the revenues
from these fields will not only stop climbing
but will start to fall, and if they do, and it is
possible that they will, then our $22 million
is not worth $22 million. It is just as much
less as the fall that takes place in these
basic revenues.
Now, I do not want to say much more on
that except to repeat what I said a moment
ago, that this was certainly a new kind of a
conference, and I hope that after the election
is over we will get back to the old kind of
conference, because I think it is better for this
province and better for all concerned.
I want to deal for a few minutes with the
problem of unemployment. I want to say at
the outset that I am not going to suggest that
it is more than a coincidence that there is
a Tory government in power in Ontario and
in Ottawa. I will leave that for others to argue
who are in possession of the full facts, and
are able to argue it better than I am. It may
not be more than a coincidence. It is, of
course, an actuality, we must admit that.
In Ontario as of January 9, 1958, and ac-
cording to a return made in the House of
Commons by the hon. Minister of Labour,
the following number of people were regis-
tered as unemployed with the employment
service; they were registered for unemploy-
ment insurance. I do not want to quibble
over the term for I do not think it matters
particularly, but on January 9, in Ontario,
there were registered 241,926 people and on
January 10, 1957, some 151,000.
Now, in the city of Toronto there were
registered almost 56,000 people as against
38,000 in 1957, and I have on my desk here,
somewhere, a clipping that suggests that in
the last couple of weeks, those figures have
gone well beyond the 60,000 figure. I heard
just before I came up to the buildings, this
afternoon, a commentator on the radio say-
ing that in the last week the figure had risen
some 1,100 in the city of Toronto.
So it is fair to assume, and I want to put
this picture not graphically but as statis-
tically and as fairly as I can— that so far as
the city of Toronto is concerned, there are at
the moment well over 60,000 people classi-
fied as unemployed.
Those 60,000 people, I suggest, are the
greatest number that we have had as unem-
ployed in Toronto since the 1930's, and
because that is a fact, I suggest it should
have a sobering influence on legislators as
they look objectively at this great problem.
92
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In Hamilton on January 9 there were
19,000 as against 9,000 a year earlier. In
Windsor, according to these figures, 16,000
as against 8,000 and I would venture to say
to the hon. member for Essex North (Mr.
Reaume) that if the latest figures were
known for the city of Windsor they would
be crawling quite close to 20,000 in that
medium sized city. Perhaps over.
North Bay has 3,000 as against 1,800;
Pembroke, 2,500 as against 1,600.
I want to say something about this prob-
lem of unemployment. I have never been un-
employed, and the hon. member for Renfrew
South (Mr. Maloney) has been unemployed,
I can tell by the way he makes those remarks.
Mr. Maloney: The hon. leader of the
Opposition may be after April.
Mr. Oliver: I think I can say this to the
hon. member in answer to that query, that
whether or not I am unemployed after that
particular date rests pretty well with myself
and not with him.
Now I want to deal if I can with the prob-
lem of unemployment and I want to get
back for a moment or so to a serious thought
on this very important problem. It is clear, I
think, that this unemployment situation we
have at the moment is not and cannot be
classed as seasonal unemployment. We have
long since passed the place where we could
mark it down as seasonal unemployment. The
figures that I have read which pertain to the
unemployment picture are such as to suggest
that there is something quite wrong with the
whole set-up in this country, and it is caus-
ing the unemployment situation.
Now, it may be that this will be temporary
unemployment, it may be that it will clear
up in a few months, but certainly at the
moment it is of such magnitude that we
must, in this Legislature, pay attention to it.
No government, whether it is federal or pro-
vincial, has the right to stand idly by as the
lines of unemployed grow longer in this
province. Not only has it not the right but
it has a solemn duty, in my judgment, to use
the resources that lie within the command of
this province to meet this problem head-on,
and to give these men who are temporarily
out of work some employment and let them
again support their families in the way that
they want to. There is nothing more
deteriorating to a man, I am sure, than to
want to work and be unable to find it.
Then, of course, the question comes up
"how do we meet this problem as a Legis-
lature and as a government?" Now, in 1954,
and the hon. Prime Minister will recall, there
was a bit of a recession, and the hon. Prime
Minister is on record as saying at that time
that he was ready and willing to move into
the picture with all the resources of the
province in order to alleviate the condition
that was present in those days. Now, I
imagine that the shelf of public works that
he talked about in 1954 is still on the shelf.
I imagine that if the emergency is considered
serious enough these public works could be
taken down off the shelf.
I am here to say to the House this after-
noon that the public works in themselves,
unless the projects are considered carefully,
may well not be the full answer to our
obligations in respect to unemployed. There
are those who say that, to meet the unem-
ployment problem, we should lend money to
the cities that are distress areas, and allow
them to go ahead with slum clearance or
with low-cost housing or with some project
that would give the most man-hours per
dollar spent.
I want to say that I doubt if any city is in
the financial position or condition to meet
this challenge unassisted. The provincial
government has a duty and a responsibility
to sit down with the municipalities that are
affected the most in respect to unemployment
and talk over with them what could be done
for the unemployed, and out of it, erect a
formula and a programme that could be car-
ried out.
The first duty of this government is to con-
verse with the municipalities, to sit down and
talk with them and find out what could be
done that would assist most. Up until now I
do not think that has been done. It certainly
should be done as a first step in meeting
this obligation.
I do not think it is of any use saying to a
municipality, for instance to the city of
Windsor or of Toronto, "if you want to spend
$100 million or $10 million, we will lend it
to you." There is not much use in meeting
the problem that particular way. There is no
use in saddling onto these municipalities that
are already suffering, because of the condi-
tion, a financial burden that they will be 20
or 30 years getting away from.
The province could well sit down with the
municipalities and work out a financial agree-
ment or an arrangement that would be satis-
factory from everybody's point of view. I say
again that the problem of unemployment is
one that we cannot just fool around with, it
is one that we have to meet head-on before
long. We are really in the midst now of a
very serious situation that cannot be allowed
to deteriorate.
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
93
I want to speak for a few minutes about the
subject of commissions, and right at the out-
set I want to say that the hon. Prime Minister
yesterday — and I believe in giving credit
where credit is deserved — was at his artful
best when he presented that statement to the
House before the orders of the day. I thought
at the time this again may be a coincidence,
but when one gets a whole group of coincid-
ences that seem to point in one particular
direction, one is entitled to get a little sus-
picious.
But in regard to this matter, the hon.
Prime Minister made his statement the day
before he knew that I was to speak in this
House, and knew quite well that I would be
discussing this particular question on com-
missions.
Well now, I do not have the disease that
the hon. Prime Minister has, not to the same
extent of wanting to get credit for all that
is done. I am willing to give the credit for
the move made by the hon. Prime Minister
yesterday, if he is so anxious to have it around
his shoulders. All that I am anxious for is
that the job which needs doing should be
done.
There has been some indication on the part
of the hon. Prime Minister that he is going to
move to meet this very real problem as I
suggest it is. Now I am not one, and I hope
I never have been, who said there should
be no commissions or boards. I am not naive
enough to believe that the government can
be run economically and administratively
without boards and commissions. But I am
one who has been alarmed for a number of
years about the great increase in these boards
and commissions without what I think is the
proper relationship to the Legislature of this
province.
I believe that these boards and commissions
should have a relationship to this Legislature
as a child to his parents. There should not be
a severing of all links between the Legislature
and the boards and commissions which it
creates.
There should be a liaison, there should be
an understanding, and an appreciation on the
part of all that the functions of these boards
and commissions are vital. They are serving
a public purpose, but that public purpose
cannot be fully and adequately discharged
unless these boards and commissions have a
better relationship with the Legislature than
they have at the present time.
Now, I had to agree with the hon. Prime
Minister yesterday when he said there were
all kinds of boards and commissions. Of
course there are. There are different types, a
great many of them, and one of the things this
commission or committee can do is determine
which types can be pretty well divorced en-
tirely from the Legislature and which should
have a closer relationship than presently exists.
I believe in the hon. Prime Minister's state-
ment yesterday; I appreciate what he has done
so far in this regard, and knowing him as I do,
I believe that he is seized with the importance
of the subject matter and will move with dis-
patch to set up a committee in this province
with full powers to go into these matters and
make recommendations to this Legislature.
We are a growing province. The whole
economy, the money that is coming in, the
amount of money we handle each year, gets
bigger and bigger as the days go on, and the
necessity for transferring some of the respon-
sibility to boards and commissions becomes
all the greater as our revenues and our respon-
sibilities increase.
I do want to say that nothing I suggest
today is more important at the moment than
seeing to it, now that we have embarked on
this new method of government by commis-
sions and by boards, that we do it properly,
and that it have the responsibility that it
should bear to the parent body, this Legis-
lature of the province.
I have other notes here on this. I was
prepared to argue this matter at length. The
hon. members have been spared this long and
complicated argument by the announcement
of the hon. Prime Minister yesterday after-
noon.
I want to deal with one question, Mr.
Speaker, before I conclude. I said to the hon.
Prime Minister that I was going to say some-
thing about the election. I am not going to
argue at length. I am going to allow my hon.
friend and his colleagues to set the pace in
this respect so far as this Legislature is con-
cerned.
It is interesting, I do not know how it
could be anything else but interesting, that
this Legislature coincides almost identically
with a federal general election. I do not know
that I recall in my time a similar situation. I
have no doubts myself but that we can both
run our own show. We have a job to do here.
Also, there is a job to be done outside, a
quite sizeable job. The people outside will
look after the job outside if we pretty well
give our attention to the job inside.
The matter I have to discuss has a relation-
ship to the election. One of the arguments in
this election upon which there has already
been a lot of discussion is the idea of the
federal government to divert 15 per cent, of
our trade from the United States to Great
Britain. That, of course, is always open for
94
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a good argument. It can be argued both ways
and with some effect.
There are those who say that, rather than
pursue that course, we should bend every
effort to increase our total trade and out of
that increase in total trade Great Britain
should get the lion's share. There are those
who say that an arbitrary goal of 15 per cent,
cut in imports from the United States might
very well upset the great people to the south
of us insofar as trade arrangements are con-
cerned.
As to which is the right course to pursue,
the people will decide on March 31.
I want to make mention of this fact that
bears very close relationship to what I have
been saying: The government sent over a
commission or a committee to England to put
this germ or this idea into being. It was
headed by the Minister of Trade and Com-
merce — and I trust this meets with the
approval of the hon. Attorney-General, I
would not want to do one thing that did not
meet with his complete approval. The Mini-
ster of Trade and Commerce was, of course,
the head of the committee. The vice-chairman
of the committee, according to information
that we have, was one James Duncan, Chair-
man of the Hydro Electric Power Commission
of Ontario.
I want to say just as deliberately as I can to
this House that that was no place for James
Duncan, the head of the Ontario Hydro Elec-
tric Power Commission. I thought when he
went over there in the first place that it was
certainly no place for the chairman of the
Hydro Electric Power Commission to go over
to England on a political mission, and it is
a political mission and nothing else.
One might have been persuaded to overlook
that first inadvertence on the part of the chair-
man of the Hydro Electric Power Commission
if it were not for subsequent events. On Feb-
ruary 6, which I think was last Thursday, Mr.
Duncan spoke to the Empire Club, and his
speech was relayed by radio to the people of
this province and the subject matter of his
speech was the trade mission to Great Britain.
I want to say as strongly as I can that Mr.
Duncan's position in this regard is completely
indefensible. Here we are in the midst of a
federal election campaign; here we are after
the campaign has been started, and one of the
main issues in this campaign will be whether
we are in favour of diverting 15 per cent, of
the United States imports to the United
Kingdom. Battle lines will be drawn, in fact,
they have already been drawn, between the
two great parties in respect to this throbbing
interest in a federal election campaign.
Now, into this scene, when the election
campaign is on, steps the chairman of the
Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission
and defends one side of the argument as
against the other. I say to this House this
afternoon that his position is untenable, he
had no right whatever to go on the trade mis-
sion in the first place and, worst of all, he
had no right to fire the opening gun for Dief-
enbaker in a federal election campaign.
He should not be the hatchet man for the
federal Tory party, and that is the position
he has put himself in. He has got into such
a position in relation to this whole matter
that I say without hesitation to the House that
his resignation should be requested, and that
he should no longer continue to be chairman
of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
this province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by
Mr. Nixon, that the motion for an address in
reply to the speech of the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor now before the House
be amended by adding thereto the following
words:
But this House regrets the government
has failed to:
1. Take any effective action to meet the
rising unemployment in Ontario.
2. Correct the ever worsening condition
of our agricultural industry.
Hon. L. M. Frost ( Prime Minister ) : Mr.
Speaker, it is a very great pleasure to join in
the kindly expressions extended by the hon.
leader of the Opposition to yourself, your
occupancy of the chair, and your treatment
of the important affairs of this House.
I also am glad to join with him in the
kindly expressions and sentiments he extended
to our old friend, the hon. member for Peel
( Mr. Kennedy ) , whom he treated very gently,
but I would expect him to treat the hon.
member for Peel gently because he is indeed
a very formidable individual.
I would like to join in a fuller way in ex-
pressing my appreciation of the address of the
seconder, a very able address by a new hon.
member of this House, and I would say to
him that he should not feel embarrassed at
all by the remarks of the hon. leader of the
Opposition. The hon. leader of the Opposition
for years has been giving advice to the mover
and seconder of the address.
I would say that perhaps after all of these
years— and I say this to him as one of my
favourite statesmen in this country— I say this
to the hon. leader of the Opposition that
perhaps it would be better if he listened with
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
95
a more open mind to what the mover and
seconder say— not only on this occasion but
on other occasions— about the affairs of this
province. Perhaps it would be better than to
adopt rather an ostrich-like attitude of burying
his head in the sand.
I would like to refer to just a few things the
hon. leader of the Opposition has said. The
speech from the Throne is a very large and
important document. Every sentence is packed
with things of interest for the people of
Ontario, and it is not possible for me to make
mention of more than a very few things.
May I refer to the matter of Metro, and
point out to the hon. leader of the Opposition
again that the metropolitan committee was not
appointed by this House, it was appointed by
the government as an advisory committee.
Now I point out that the problem of Metro
is very simply stated. We have two very
definite sides to that problem: the problem
represented by the city of Toronto and the
problem represented by the suburbs. One
purpose of the committee was this, to appoint
those who had the municipal experience and
the experience in the problem representing
those two sides, appoint them so that they
might present to the government, or might
survey for the government, the problem as it
now exists after some 5 years of operation.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a very happy
thing for myself to be the leader and head of
a party in this province that is so broad as to
make a political home and a place of oppor-
tunity for both sides of that question.
As a matter of fact, to get municipal people
who are versed, skilled and experienced in the
problem of Metropolitan Toronto outside of
the party I lead is almost an impossibility,
and I would say that it is natural that I should
turn to these 4 gentlemen with the chairman
of the municipal board, because I don't think
there are people who are more experienced
anywhere in greater Toronto than are those
gentlemen.
I say to him it was not a matter of appoint-
ing a committee of the House, it was not a
matter of appointing a committee that was
representative of the parties in this House, it
was a question of appointing people who were
representative of the two points of view, I
would say at one time conflicting interests,
which now have become to a very great
extent partnership interests.
In dealing with the farm problem, I would
do so very briefly and make certain references.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has used
the expression "hewers of wood and drawers
of water." May I say to him that no govern-
ment or no party has done more to remove
the farmers of this province, indeed the
farmers of Canada, from that task than has
the party that is represented by this govern-
ment over here.
Now, there are one or two things, of course,
in passing that I might mention. Some hon.
members will recollect that years ago a very
colourful member of this House by the name
of Dempsey sponsored what became known as
the "Dempsey bill," having to do with white
pine growing in certain parts of the province.
Now we have the adoption of what we might
term the "Maloney formula," that is, that the
one-third of a mile be extended to two-thirds
of a mile benefiting the farmers of this prov-
ince in a very big way.
There was a headline in my old friend,
the Toronto Daily Star, the other day about
another of the Maloney, family coming into
this House, and may I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, that I would not want to trade our
Jim for their Arthur at all.
Mr. Speaker, might I just mention the
tremendous advance made in this past year
in farm marketing. That is a very great sub-
ject indeed, which time would not permit me
to develop— other than to refer to the situation
which has been facing the tobacco growers in
this province.
In that, I now come before the House with
a very considerable experience for this reason,
that for a week or so I sat daily and almost
hourly with representatives of the planning
board, of the growers, of independents and of
certain of the objecting groups. I had the
opportunity of visiting one of the fine plants
of this province down in Aylmer, and also
visiting one of the marketing places that have
been constructed by the marketing board, the
warehouse. There I had the opportunity of
talking to farmers, who were there selling
a portion of their tobacco crops by the auc-
tion system.
And I would say that I came to the con-
clusion that the people there were overwhelm-
ingly in favour of the bale auction system and
they wanted it, and I spoke to people who had
sold a portion of their crops and they all
assured me of their enthusiasm for that sys-
tem.
The matter of working out marketing plans
is a very great problem. One of the things,
I think, that has made possible the operation
to date of the bale auction system in tobacco
growing in Ontario, is the fact that it was
supported by an overwhelming proportion of
the growers.
Now I say to my hon. friends opposite, who
have on various occasions intervened in that
96
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
matter, that I do not think any of them have
ever been faced with the crisis that I person-
ally have been faced with in that particular
matter. I would say that I have listened with
interest, with very great interest indeed, to
the representations which have been made
in that regard.
When the chips are down, the thing that
really counts is the overwhelming strength of
public opinion that if it had not been for that,
this plan would have been demolished, I can
assure hon. members, because it faced very,
very rough seas, and is facing difficulties at
the present time.
All of the opinions as regards the over-
whelming requirements of the growers is not
on one side. I was very much interested in
listening to the deputation from the farmers'
union, which came out very strongly asking
that the majority needed to carry a vote
should be at least 66yi per cent. Mr. Speak-
er, that is a different point of view, and I
would say to the hon. members that in the
light of the tremendous problem, and the
tremendous upsurges of opinion there has
been in the tobacco matter, that overwhelm-
ing opinion is an absolute necessity if we are
going to carry these things through success-
fully.
I would say this, that in my dealing with
that problem as a layman, and after all I made
no profession about knowing the difficulties
and the problems of that very complicated
type of farming, I learned a very great deal
about it in the 10 days or so that I was deeply
engaged in it.
But I would say that co-operation has con-
tributed more than anything to what I think
is the solution of the problem. It is bringing
about an understanding first of all that the
bale auction system is wanted and is going
to prevail. Perhaps there may be amend-
ments in the form of the system, there may
be things that will come about by experience,
but experience will show that the people want
the bale auction system and after all it is
eminently fair and just.
I would say first of all there is this, the
acceptance of the propositon, that this is the
type of sale the producers want. The second
thing is, a recognition of this very simple fact,
that the producers of course desire to sell, and
the processors and manufacturers of course
desire to buy. And there is, therefore, the
requirement of co-operation and understand-
ing.
I would say that in those very simple words
of co-operation and understanding, and the
acceptance and understanding of the point of
view of the two parties, therein lies and has
been the key to the situation.
When I came into this picture as of Decem-
ber 31, some 2,600 pounds of a crop totalling
nearly 150 million pounds had been sold.
The sales were varying between 500,000
pounds up to perhaps 850,000 pounds a day,
with the exceptional case in the 3 days ending
January 13, going up to 1 million pounds.
W7ith the meetings that were held, getting
these people together, and I want to pay
tribute to all of them— the marketing board
and the growers— the growers who came in
here and made the situation with the market-
ing board.
On January 20, a new system was intro-
duced. The objective was this, to bring the
sales from 500,000 or 600,000 or 800,000
pounds a day to something between 2 million
and 2.5 million pounds a day.
On February 7, that objective was achieved
and there was sold in the bale auction markets
of this province in that area, no less than
2.3 million pounds. I am glad to be able
to state that to this House as a constructive
fact.
On the first day of the new system the
sales jumped to an unprecedented level of
1.465 million pounds and gradually it rose
until on February 3, the 2 million mark was
passed by quite a handsome margin, and on
February 7 it went up to 2.3 million pounds.
I would say that the deadline date for the
sale of this crop would, I think the hon.
Minister of Agriculture will concur, be
about April 30. An average of 1.9 million
pounds daily would be required to move the
crop in that time. We have reached now, as
I say, sales amounting to 2.3 million pounds
in one day, which indeed is very heartening.
I would also like to say that the tobacco
companies have been giving the fullest co-
operation. The Imperial Tobacco Company
has opened its Leamington plant, which has
been closed for several years, and in addi-
tion to that the main plants at Delhi and
Aylmer are working full-time, and as a mat-
ter of fact, over-time. So I would say that we
have been faced there with one of the most
difficult problems that has been faced in
farm legislation in this province. I think that
it is being surmounted by the common sense
of the producers and processors and I think
that will be the case as things move along.
I might mention to the hon. leader of the
Opposition his reference to Hydro and to the
great work, the great patriotic work, of the
chairman, Mr. James Duncan, and his ser-
vices overseas in the betterment of trade
conditions between ourselves and the United
Kingdom. I agree entirely with what Mr.
Duncan has done. Mr. Duncan is not a poli-
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
97
tician, he was for a long time in the service
of the government at Ottawa which relin-
quished office last June. He is a patriotic
citizen who has long been interested in the
furtherance of trade with the United King-
dom.
Hydro is, of course, interested in business.
Hydro is part of the life blood of this prov-
ince, and I point out that this fact was not
recognized by the hon. leader of the
Opposition, party or his government when in
office. As a matter of fact, if their policies
had been followed, Hydro would have been
destroyed.
We have a new vision, a new look, we
have a new deal at Hydro, and have a chair-
man there who is looking to the expansion
and the development of this province from
an industrial and a power viewpoint, and
from the standpoint of the farmers.
This man accepts, for instance, the
Maloney policy of two-thirds of a mile to
a farmer. I would point out that this man
is interested in trade, and in providing a
place where our farmers may sell their goods
to the overseas countries.
It is all very well to talk about unemploy-
ment and trade conditions, but I say to the
hon. leader of the Opposition I had no inten-
tion at all of embarking into federal politics;
he knows I would not do such a thing unless
I was aggravated or invited into it, but I
ask the hon. leader of the Opposition who it
was that created this situation, who, for over
20 years slapped our best friends in the face
and took the trade away from them and put
all the eggs in one basket? I would say it
was his party that did that. Perhaps that is
one of the reasons for the decision, the great
decision of last June, that very fact.
There are a lot of academic arguments as
to whether it is a good thing to say we will
transfer 15, 10, or 25 per cent, of trade from
one country to another. I say that is purely
academic. I think that the position of our
country and our government and our farmers
and individuals is this, to give the people of
the United Kingdom a fair deal and a fair
share of our trade. I think that is the prob-
lem, and I would say that Mr. Duncan, in
his endeavours, is representing the non-parti-
san views of the people of this province.
I did not have the opportunity of listening
to his address before the Empire Club, as a
matter of fact, I doubt if I knew it was going
to take place or I might have listened in on
it. But I would say to the hon. leader of the
Opposition that, from what I read in the
paper, I think it was a sane, sensible ap-
proach and that our people will regard it as
such.
When we look at the tremendous adverse
balance of trade with our good American
friends, I think it is time that we took steps
to correct that situation and take steps to do
business with other countries in the world.
I say that as one who perhaps in many
regards has very pro-American feelings, and
I say that anything that can be done to better
the situation at the present time, which was
altogether created by the government and
the party my hon. friend represents, I think
anything that is done to correct it would be
in the interests of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to a few remarks
I should like to make in relation to the
speech from the Throne. I would say that
the speech from the Throne is not like those
of other years. If the hon. leader of the
Opposition would get down and read it he
would say that it is a speech designed to
meet requirements of 1958 and the chal-
lenges of these times, including a broad legis-
lative programme, a plan for the betterment
of our people.
There are things, to which I would like to
refer the hon. leader of the Opposition, that
are part and parcel of that statement. There
is the investment in development, for instance,
the investment in the future of our province,
in the building of highways, the extension of
Hydro, the extension of our power resources
and public buildings. That is a complete
reversal of his line of thought.
Let hon. members remember this, that the
hon. leader of the Opposition talks about
unemployment in Ontario today and wrings
his hands over that situation. Some hon.
members felt very keenly about that matter
and spoke about it a year ago when he scoffed
at the idea of speaking about it. He talks
about unemployment today. I would say that
it was written on the wall a year ago that it
was going to happen. Yes, we are faced, of
course, with what I might term, and I say this
advisedly, "the Grit depression." This was
caused by the attitude and the actions of the
people whom the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion followed in national affairs.
What did they do? In the face of the
advice of economists that there was a levelling
off, in the face of that advice, and I do not
think that it can be denied, as a matter of
fact it seems to me that was very amply
proved in Ottawa that the prediction there
was going to be difficulty was there to be
read by those who would take time to read it.
Interruption by an hon. member.
Mr. Frost: It is a good thing perhaps to
take a look at secret documents. Apparently
98
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the documents were so secret that the hon.
member's people paid no attention to them,
with the result that they "monkeyed" with
the money market, they "monkeyed" with
interest rates. Were not those things dis-
cussed in this Legislature just a year ago —
and disregarded?
Who cut down housing in this province and
throughout Canada? Who was it did things
to throw people out of work in the face of
the advice of economists who were there to
advise them?
When I say this is a "Grit depression," I
say it was developed and was increased by
the actions of the late government at Ottawa.
As I say, tremendous programmes are before
this Legislature, and are outlined in the
speech of His Honour.
Let me turn to the matter of education.
The hon. leader of the Opposition talks about
the new grants to education which have been
referred to and which will be dealt with more
fully by the government and the hon. mem-
bers of this House at a little later date. The
amounts that are put into education to assist
in this great problem are 5 times as much in
a year as his party, when in government, paid
altogether. The increases themselves are 5
times as much as they paid altogether.
Our plan for education assists from the
elementary schools to the universities, and is
designed to keep our province in the leader-
ship which it presently enjoys and which is
a leadership in America. I ask the hon. mem-
bers opposite to show me any jurisdiction in
America that can match or begin to match
what is being done here in the great province
of Ontario. In it is practical assistance for
our municipalities.
There are some things to which I should
like to refer in just a moment, but at this
time I would call to my side as a witness
what the Ontario mayors and reeves say about
this situation.
I would say to the hon. member for
Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer) who
probably has read this, that this is a matter
of importance. It is unnecessary for me to
stand here and argue as to the work of this
government in connection with the munici-
palities. I think the municipalities are in the
witness box themselves, and here is their
brief. It is very satisfying to the association
to realize that these efforts to obtain a better
deal have been fruitful.
Why? Because the association has advanced
sound proposals for the reform of the muni-
cipal position and the government of the
province of Ontario has recognized the
necessity of adjusting the circumstances of
the municipalities.
Now that is not all. There are many things
here that I could refer to. Let me take these
paragraphs. Here indeed is a great example of
the co-operation and understanding of two
levels of government successfully working out,
on a democratic basis, the adjustment of
problems originally. I ask, Mr. Speaker, to
take that word "originally" of gigantic pro-
portions but which now have been reduced to
mutual understanding. I ask the hon. leader
of the Opposition if that is not reform? And
if that is not reform from the level of gov-
ernment that is benefiting because of its
association with this government?
So there is no reason why the Association
of Ontario Mayors and Reeves, representing
the municipalities of Ontario, should not
gratefully acknowledge the various high
benefits which have accrued to the munici-
palities by reason of such co-operation and
understanding.
These matters have been referred to as
beneficial steps taken by this government:
the enactment of The Highway Improvement
Act of 1947 which provides subsidies from
the province for the municipal roadways,
construction and maintenance; the enactment
of The Ontario Municipal Improvement Cor-
poration Act, which provides for assistance to
municipalities in financing certain municipal
works; the enactment of The Municipal Tax
Assistance Act, which provides again certain
benefits; the enactment of The Unconditional
Grants Act, the increased contributions to
education, and the recent action of the pro-
vincial government in respect to assistance
to unemployed persons.
It, of course, makes me blush and I would
prefer to hand this over to the hon. leader of
the Opposition to read this portion.
Interruption by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Looking at what we have
done, one would wonder what there is left to
do. But we are still going ahead. The asso-
ciation, therefore, pays high tribute to:
the Prime Minister of the government of
Ontario for his consideration of municipal
problems and for the beneficial results
which have accrued to the municipalities
of this province, a recognition deserving of
the highest commendation and which gives
ample demonstration of the pursuit of Brit-
ish democratic processes to solve inter-
governmental relations between the pro-
vincial and municipal levels of government
in the best interests of the citizens of this
great province.
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
99
Mr. Speaker, I will spare the reading to the
hon. members of the Opposition of a similar
letter not couched in quite so glowing terms,
but nonetheless a very congratulatory letter
from the Ontario Municipal Association rela-
tive to the same thing.
I would say to the hon. leader of the
Opposition that, in reading this great docu-
ment, he will see that there is nothing ordin-
ary about it, it is extraordinary.
May I point out the great problem, or the
great matter, of hospital insurance which I can
assure him will come into being in this prov-
ince on January 1 next, and will be an
example to other jurisdictions in Canada and
America as a pattern of efficiency and benefit
to the people of this province.
I have been engaged in this since 1955.
In 1955 I went to Ottawa and placed this
matter for this government on the programme
or the agenda at that time, and the hon.
members of the Opposition laughed about it.
They said that it would not be, but I say
that it will be and it is going to be. It is going
to be of very great benefit to the people of
this province.
May I also speak of another matter that is
inherent in this great document and that is,
a renewal of the spirit of confederation and
perhaps I can refer back to the spirit that
the mayors and reeves talked about existing
between the municipalities and the govern-
ment of this province. May I say that this
spirit of confederation has been renewed again
in this year 1958 and in the last six months
of the preceding year of 1957.
In referring to that, of course, I refer to
the very far-reaching conference which was
commenced on November 25 last. I listened
to my hon. friend today and thought he was
very mild indeed in his castigation of myself,
in his references to me, because I had listened
to him once before on television and at that
time he was very much more positive as to
the failure of this conference.
I sat there and listened with very great in-
terest to the force and the vigour and the
personality that he put into that appeal to the
people to show that this government and the
government at Ottawa had fallen down and
had failed in this conference.
I want to say to my hon. friend that I have
now attended, I think, 4 federal-provincial
conferences starting in 1945, all of them lasted
upwards of 2 years, some of them longer than
that. As a matter of fact, the matter of
federal-provincial conferences is very involved
because we are dealing there with 11 govern-
ments, we are dealing with problems on the
Atlantic coast that do not exist on the Pacific
coast, and are dealing with the difficulties of
the prairies. Also, we are dealing with the
aspirations of the various groups of our coun-
try and it is a matter of patience and care.
May I say that this patience and care, how-
ever, by the other government was carried to
the extent that little was done. They used
the patience and care required to do nothing
to push the provinces off, to create the atmo-
sphere that existed in this House just a year
ago, an atmosphere of bitter recrimination,
an attitude of unrealistic dealing and an un-
just atitude, throughout this country a feeling
of dissatisfaction, a sense of deep injustice in
the maritime provinces.
I would say this, the old province of Ontario
has taken the view of supporting the position
of the maritime provinces and I think in 1958,
we should, and we are entitled, to correct the
injustices which arose at the time of the great
pact of confederation in 1867.
This new spirit that I refer to would have
been unbelievable in this House just a year
ago. This new spirit brought about the con-
verse of the situation that we were faced with
in this House, just a year ago; it is now sup-
ported by the Liberals, the people who for
22 years stood there and blocked the efforts
of our people of the provinces to bring justice
to themselves and to their municipalities.
Indeed it is a curious atitude, it is a curious
reversal which has taken place. I was quite
interested in my old friend the Toronto Daily
Star today. I always read the Star with great
interest and care, and I see on the editorial
page an editorial: A Pearson Policy with a
Liberal Conscience. I never knew they had
a conscience, they never acted that way
before.
If they have a conscience, that has come
about since the reversal, since the change,
since the disaster to them and the benefit to
Canada that took place last June. May I say
to the hon. leader of the Opposition and I
am not perhaps referrring to him from the
standpoint of his very mild address this
afternoon, or his reference to the federal-
provincia! conference this afternoon, but
rather from the stern appearance that he
made on television— I think it was in the
month of December.
My hon. friend appeared on two or three
occasions as it was a re-broadcast, and I took
the opportunity of listening very carefully to
that broadcast wherever I could get it.
Interruption by some hon. members.
Mr. Frost: I did it because I was unable
to believe my ears that my hon. friend would
take the attitude that he was taking. I
wanted to make sure of my ground.
100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, there is a curious thing about my
hon. friend. I listened to his address with
such interest this afternoon. He started off
immediately with a great blast against the
government in connection with farm policy,
that is my recollection. Then he made
another great blast in connection with the
handling of federal-provincial affairs and it
is interesting at this time, just a year ago,
that he had something to say on that subject
also.
At that time, hon. members will recollect,
an election was talked about, and at that
time he said: "It seems to me that we might,
in this House, well debate provincial issues
and leave those that are purely federal in
character for the attention of the federal
people and for the people at large when the
case arises, and it will probably arise in the
months ahead."
There has been a reversal in the attitude
of my hon. friends who felt that our discus-
sions of things that were basic to Ontario
were something that we should not discuss,
that we should leave strictly to this great
organization at Ottawa which was going to
see us safely through our trials and tribula-
tions. I recall that he said: "We have this sort
of an epidemic every time a federal election
is in the offing, and when the election is over
the epidemic subsides."
What a great change there has been in the
grand old Liberal party in these days! What
a very great change indeed! My hon. friend
went on to make certain election prophesies
which I would not want to bother him with
at this time. Yes, I think I will spare my hon.
friend that, but in relation to the new spirit,
the new attitude, that I came before you
with this afternoon, may I say this, supported
by the very people at Ottawa who said these
things could not be done. Why, yes, they said
that we— I should not say we, for after all I
am only a provincial politician— but they say
there is going to be a deficit there of some
$600 million and now they want to make it
$1 billion, we see by the latest figures.
We have these things that we come before
my hon. friend with today, arising out of a
conference which took place only a little
over two months ago. On November 25,
1957, the conference was organized. May I
say to my hon. friend that we have abolished
the iniquitous threshold provision of the .45
per cent, of the population of the province.
I would say to the federal government that
there was never a more iniquitous position,
a greater injustice to the people of this prov-
ince perpetrated in all time, than that one
—and done by the hon. Mr. Martin, who
argued, of course, that this was one of the
necessities.
I have discussed this with the hon. Minis-
ter of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) and I
know this, that it was impossible to make
that formula work here in the province of
Ontario. There was no way of distributing the
money.
How were we going to work things out, and
how were we going to distribute money on
the basis of .45 per cent, portal provision
which just continued invidious distinction be-
tween a person who is unemployable because
of health and the person in good health who
could not get a job?
Now that was the type of legislation that
these people were sponsoring. But today we
are able to come before this House not only
with the fact that this has been done away
with, but that we have reduced the municipal
contribution from 40 per cent, down to 20
per cent.
Interruption by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If this should be further
modified, it will be done by this party and not
by the broad-tailed Liberal party that has
been responsible for many of the difficulties
of this country.
As for hospital insurance, it is an assured
fact in this province, and I can tell the hon.
leader of the Opposition that it was not an
assured fact until that unworkable provision
about 6 provinces was removed. May I say
that we argued about that from about 1955
until 1957 and the hon. Mr. St. Laurent, hon.
Mr. Martin, hon. Mr. Pickersgill and hon. Mr.
Pearson when he was engaged in keeping
the Jewish people from taking the Suez
Canal-
Mr. Oliver: Careful now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, now my sympathies
were with the Israelis on that occasion.
However, may I say this to my hon. friend
that they told me that this provision could
not be removed and yet it never had been
applied in any welfare provision of Canada
before.
Interruption by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why was it there? I say to
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) that it was there for this reason, that
they figured that the time from 1919 to the
present time was not long enough, and that
was another way of extending the great period
of time between their promise and its per-
formance.
That was removed, and these very people
who said that it could not be removed, and
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
101
that it should not be removed, got up and
voted for it. Mr. Martin and all the rest
followed along and they voted for the things
that just 365 days ago, they said could not
be done.
Mr. Oliver: What great good did flow from
the removal of that provision? I understand
that there were at least 6 provinces that had
expressed a willingness to negotiate an agree-
ment. Now if there were 6, what necessity
was there for repealing it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let me point out to my hon.
friend that it is so very opposite. The prov-
ince of Ontario is engaging in a plan that is
going to involve something of the order of
$200 million a year. We have to start our
payroll deduction, and our arrangements for
the carrying out of this plan commencing
probably in the month of August. Now I ask
my hon. friend what he would do if he had 3,
4 or 5 provinces that agreed, and the 6th
province was holding back and they would not
sign?
Mr. Oliver: But that was not the case.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say that it
was very possibly the case, and I would say
that it was one of the things which could have
made the coming into effect of hospital insur-
ance on January 1, 1959, an impossibility. It
was a sumptuous provision that had never any
sense, any justice or any reason, and was
placed there for the purpose of delaying the
implementation of this plan. Now that was
the only purpose of it.
If it was valid, why did they vote against
it in Ottawa? They did not vote against it for
the reason that they knew that finally events
had caught up with them and that it was no
longer valid to raise that point of view.
I may say that hospital grants have doubled.
We wanted that for a long time. That point
was raised at the conference. It is food from
the conference, the doubling of hospital
grants. Could anyone argue against that as
a matter for the great benefit of our country
generally?
May I say to my hon. friend this, that again
I have placed before this House, and before
the people of this province, a very valid
argument for a decent deal in connection with
the tax resources which are common to both
the provinces and the federal government. I
have asked for the 15, 15, and 50 formula.
I would say that I have not retreated from
that position. I stated exactly that down at
the conference on November 25 last, and that
is the policy we follow. We come before this
House today, not with what my hon. friend
has referred to as an election bribe— we come
here with evidence of the acknowledgment of
the need of a just, decent and fair tax division
between the federal government and the
provinces, and we come with the first payment
on the table.
May I ask my hon. friend if he ever
recollects a conference in all his experience
in this House, going back to 1926, to have
so many things for the people, so many
benefits, so many corrections of injustices as
we do at this time?
I ask my hon. friend if, had he the time to
reflect in a calm sort of way, whether he
would have made that speech over tele-
vision last December, in which he criticized
this government for coming home empty-
handed?
May I say to you that this is February 11
—that event took place on November 25 last.
Let my hon. friend benefit from this. We
have accomplished so much in 3 months, just
wait until we have the opportunity of con-
tinuing the conference after March 31 and
see what will happen.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Prime Minister does
not get these benefits from the conference,
he gets them after the conclusion of the
conference, by telegram.
Hon. Mr. Frost: A matter of high impor-
tance to this country is the implementing and
the providing of the funds to pay $55 old-
age pensions. I ask my hon. friend where
that came from? I ask him if he recollects
the old-age pension, or the increase of $6
last year, the $6 pension which was brought
in just about a year ago now, and which was
counted by the electors anyway as a disgrace
to the Canadian people? Here we are today,
in a different atmosphere, bringing in legis-
lation and the provisions to implement that
pension.
Now I say to my hon. friend that these
are very, very great advances indeed. These
are very great things. I have just enumer-
ated 5: the portal matter, the majority of
the provinces, the matter of hospital grants,
the recognition of our fiscal position, and old-
age pensions, that is just 5. I may say that
his party at Ottawa got up after opposing
them for years and years and voted for every
one of them.
Now I would say that we, of course, look
forward to the new day with assurance. We
think we have reached a time when there is
to be a new deal for the people of this prov-
ince and for the people of this country,
because our province is not a selfish province
102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at all, it is a province interested in the
development of our great country.
There are very many other things to which
I should like to refer, but the hour of 6
o'clock approaches and, therefore, I will post-
pone anything further I have to say to another
time.
There is, however, just this, from a positive
standpoint. I think that it carries with it the
spirit of the party I represent and the govern-
ment I head in this province, and that is this:
We, of course, are faced with a levelling
off and a situation I have referred to that
certainly was aggravated by the actions of the
previous government at Ottawa. But if we re-
verted perhaps to the attitude of other times
we would have the attitude of pulling in our
belts, cutting down on public works, cutting
down on employment, balancing budgets
and that sort of thing.
I am a great person, of course, for a bal-
anced budget. I would say that in all the
period of time that I was the Provincial
Treasurer of Ontario I always balanced the
budget on ordinary account, which I do not
think was ever equalled in the history of this
province. I might also say that I have not
yet had time to get down to the problem of
this budget, but I hope we will be able to
balance it again.
Therefore, I am not decrying the desira-
bility of a balanced budget, but I would say
this, that one of the things surely that we
learned in the 1930's was this, that the atti-
tude on the part of governments and business
of belt-tightening in times of recession is an
attitude that can do very great harm. As a
matter of fact, that is a "sputnik" that can
really do harm if that attitude is followed out.
If we refer to it, there are some good things
in the green papers of 1945. The matter of
cyclical budgeting, and I think myself that
the time of falling business tempo is the time
to do things to level things off, and that is the
position we take here, and that is one of the
reasons for the Throne speech of today, which
I think draws a bold plan for progress in the
future.
I think at times like this we have always
got an overdose of the negative attitude, of
negative theories. What is needed in this
country at all times is an attitude of positive
confidence in the future of this country.
When we look at Canada and its opportuni-
ties—half a continent with such a small popu-
lation, only 17 million people, not enough
people to do the job— it has boundless oppor-
tunities. It seems to me that we should abolish
from our minds the negative attitude and we
should take the position in part that business
depressions as well as depression and down-
at-the-heel attitude of the individual is a
state of mind. There is so much to be done
that is bound to produce work, wages and
development in this great country of ours.
I was very much interested in a report of
the Prudential Insurance Company just re-
cently issued with its 1958 forecast. It says
this, that capital expenditures in Canada this
year will probably increase by $200 million,
that inventories will improve by about $300
million, that there will be a housing advance
of more than $100 million, and I think it is
very obvious it is going to increase by more
than that; that consumer purchases in this
country will be up by $1 billion, a thousand
million dollars, and that the gross national
product of this country very probably will be
about $1.5 billion greater than in 1957.
I mention those things as substantial facts
and a substantial basis upon which to base
confidence for the future, and I would say
if it were not for that, if those things did not
exist, still I would say: "Let us advance and
go ahead with the opportunity we have in
this country of ours to provide a better way
of life and work and wages for our people,
to avail ourselves of the opportunities that
we have."
It has been a pleasure to be associated with
the party that I am delighted to call the
people's party. I took that attitude when I
assumed the leadership, now nearly 9 years
ago, and I think that the attitude we have
taken has been endorsed by the people of
this province.
I should refer the hon. leader of the Op-
position to, I think, some 5 by-elections since
this House was elected, some of them faced
under quite difficult circumstances.
That was the case, for instance, in Elgin
where we were facing the great difficulties
that arose out of the farm marketing plan.
It has been a great pleasure to advance
the cause of what I have termed the people's
party, the party of progress and development.
I might say it is the party of twentieth-
century Canadianism. That phrase was given
to me by one who was not formerly a friend
of this party but is a man of discerning mind
and sees the trends of things in Canada today.
Interruptions by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say we are very
glad to have Liberals and others join us. I
think that is a great privilege.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Frost: As a matter of fact, we
have a lot of the CCF party join us. I
noticed down in Elgin with a bigger vote that
FEBRUARY 11, 1958
103
they got only half as many votes as before so
the adherents must have come over to our
party, the people's party.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the House will
reject the attitude and position taken by the
hon. leader of the Opposition and will sus-
tain and support the government when the
test comes.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving the
adjournment of the House, we will proceed
tomorrow with the Throne debate and for the
balance of the week.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock
p.m.
No. 8
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, February 12, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 12, 1958
First report, standing committee on education, Mr. Fishleigh 107
Town Sites Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading 107
Public Lands Act, bill to amend, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading 107
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 108
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. MacDonald 109
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Macaulay, agreed to 136
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 136
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
107
Wednesday, February 12, 1958.
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. H. F. Fishleigh
from the standing committee on education
presented the committee's first report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 47, An Act to amend The Ontario
School Trustees' Council Act, 1953.
Bill No. 48, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TOWN SITES ACT
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, "An Act to repeal The
Town Sites Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is removing
it from The Town Sites Act and putting it into
The Public Lands Act.
THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Lands Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, regarding The Public
Lands Amendment Act, 1958, section 1, the
present sections 9 and 10, which deal with
public land agents, are obsolete as there are
no longer such agents. The sections are there-
fore repealed.
Section 2: The purpose of the proposed
section 12A is to enable the surveyor-general
to require a survey to be made at the expense
of the purchaser before public lands are sold.
Heretofore these requirements have been con-
tained in the regulations made under the Act.
Section 3 : The purpose of the proposed sec-
tion 14A is to enable the Minister to zone
public lands for recreation use in line with
modern planning and administrative practices.
Section 4: The proposed subsection 1A
enables a Minister, in disposing of public
land, to call for tenders. This authorizes him
to dispose of land in which there is a marked
interest to the best advantage of the Crown.
Section 5: Under the present section 29,
employees of the department are prohibited
from purchasing public lands. Under the sec-
tion as re-enacted these employees may pur-
chase public lands with the approval of
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council.
Section 30 of the Act which deals with
public land agents is obsolete as there are no
longer any such officers. The section is there-
fore repealed.
Section 6: Subsection 2 of the present sec-
tion 57A which provides for the release to a
land owner of pine trees reserved to the
Crown is broadened in the interest of good
forest management. In cases where the owner
ships the trees divided, that is, where some
species are owned by the land owner and
others by the Crown, the new provision will
enable all species to be acquired either by
the land owner or by the Crown, thus bring-
ing to an end problems that arise from divided
ownership.
Section 7: Subsection 1 of the present sec-
tion 61 A, which provides for the release of a
reservation for roads contained in letter
patents upon application of the owner of the
land, is broadened to include the reservations
relating to the roads contained in section 61
of the Act.
Section 8: The proposed section 65 replaces
The Town Sites Act which has now been re-
pealed.
The principles of the Town Sites Act are re-
tained by the procedures; they are clarified
and simplified.
108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Section 9: The purpose of this section is to
remove the cloud on titles which exist in
cases where The Town Sites Act has not been
complied with.
Section 10: This section makes void an
obsolete reservation to the Crown.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Report of the commissioner of agricul-
tural loans for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1957.
2. Financial statement of the settlers' loan
commissioner for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day I would like to draw a matter to your
attention, and that of the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) as well, having to do with the
tape recording of speeches in the Legislature.
My speeches, I know, are a mess, but the
way they come out of that machine they are
even a much greater mess than I anticipated
for this reason. Apparently the order has gone
out, and I think you made reference to it, Mr.
Speaker, in the early part of the session, that
interjections are not to be recorded.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, you can imagine
the mess that you have in a situation such as
developed here yesterday, where there were
quite a number of interjections and I under-
took to reply at some length to almost every
interjection.
In the script as we get it from the office up-
stairs, every interjection is marked with a
question mark and that is all. There are no
words at all insofar as the interjection is con-
cerned, and then the hon. member who
attempts to answer what has been interjected
is made to look very foolish, I would say, and
I think the hon. Prime Minister will agree
with me.
The speaker starts off on a line answering
an interjection that is not recorded. I do not
know how we are going to correct this situa-
tion, Mr. Speaker, but certainly something
will have to be done.
Mr. Speaker: May I answer the hon. leader
of the Opposition. You only receive a rough
draft. It is rough but actually they were your
own words. The speaker will be the name of
the hon. member and, whatever was asked,
will be put in. We were just asking you to
correct what you had said, and that will come
back to you in perfect order.
May I also say this, that the man who
operates the machine took suddenly ill, and we
have had to put up with a new man in the
midst of the affair. I am quite sure, however,
that we shall arrange with the hon. leader of
the Opposition an amicable way to fix this to
his satisfaction.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask one further question
following what you have said? It would
seem to me that if the words of the inter-
jection, and the names of those who promoted
the interjection are going to be there in its
final form, what is the reason that they are
not there now? If the speaker does not re-
member just what the interjection was, it
makes it extremely difficult for him to edit
what he said in reply to the interjection, and
it seems to me that it is not quite adequate to
have you edit one's own words now, in answer
to an interjection that he will find later on
sometime. I think we should try to straighten
it out somehow if we can at the moment.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I must say that I think that the ob-
jection from a point taken by my hon. friend
is very valid. You can well understand that
this point might arise, that some hon. mem-
ber asks a question. He may not perhaps
observe the rules of the House and may not
rise in his place.
Now this House is composed of human
beings and that happens, yet the question is
there, and the hon. member makes some reply
to it, and it is perfectly plain that if that
question is not there, even though it was not
properly asked, it leaves the hon. member's
remarks or the speaker's remarks completely
in the air.
I would say this, that I am very favourable
toward the use of mechanical devices, but I
would not want it to destroy the spirit of the
House. I think that is a great mistake if
we destroy the spirit of the House for the
purposes of moulding ourselves into the re-
quirements of some mechanical device.
I have wondered, this last year, whether it
might not be possible to record what the hon.
members say, but nevertheless have the re-
porters here who would follow the debate
and take down the interjections and the names
of the hon. members, so that they might be
inserted in the record.
Those are only suggestions, Mr. Speaker.
I doubt if any mechanical device is going to
meet the requirements of what my hon.
friend said because there are very many occa-
sions where perhaps the hon. member may
be speaking, and perhaps there may be an
interjection by some other hon. member from
one side or the other, and the microphone is
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
109
not on and therefore the interjection is not
recorded, and that is just a blank space in
the debate. I think that we ought to look
at that.
I feel that an efficient procedure could
very greatly reduce the secretarial staff; it
would seem to me that there would be no
reason why perhaps one or two reporters
might not take down the entire afternoon
proceedings. You, Mr. Speaker, are expected
as the Speaker to sit here all afternoon, per-
haps longer than that. The hon. members
of the House are expected by the people
to be present as constantly as they possibly
can.
Actually speaking, if we have one reporter
sitting here from 3 to 6 o'clock to get the
interjections on both sides, and who can
follow out the proceedings of the House
sufficiently so that the matters of the steno-
graphic record could be corrected, then we
would still get the advantage of the record-
ing and save a great deal of the expense
accrued from having a large number of
stenographic reporters that have to take
everything down verbatim.
I think a combination is what is going to
be required, because I can quite see, in
a situation such as yesterday, that it is
beyond the capabilities of the operators of
a system such as this to get the spirit of
the House and get what is said and the
interjections.
Mr. Speaker: We are still in the trial-
and-error period, and we are quite ready
to accept the suggestions from the hon.
members of the House, and I am quite sure
that the whole matter can be ironed out
and we shall see that it is done immediately.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, it is traditional, in participating in
the Throne debate, to extend congratula-
tions to a certain number of people and I
want to say at the outset that I do so this
year with even more than the normal en-
thusiasm.
First, to you, Mr. Speaker, for the im-
partial way that you have conducted the
proceedings in this House, and the dignity
with which you have conducted them. A
number of hon. members have already said
that you have maintained the high standards
that some of your predecessors have set in
the history of this Legislature.
I am not really in a position to comment
on that, but my guess would be that you
have not only maintained them but en-
hanced them.
And now, despite the discussion which
we have just had, I am still going to add
another comment, and that is commendation
for your examination of the procedures of
this House, the traditional procedures of
this House, and the willingness to experi-
ment with ways and means of improving
them.
It is sometimes said that tradition can be
the dead hand of the past that frustrates a
more efficient and effective handling of our
business at the present time. If that were
the case, tradition is something that should
be dispensed with.
On the other hand, I think that you have,
on a number of occasions— including the one
that we have just discussed— been willing
to experiment. I confess to you that from
the outset I had some misgivings with re-
gard to the particular point that the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver) has
just raised, and I was waiting until I had
some evidence from my own experience be-
fore I commented on it. But, as you have
indicated, I think it is possible to work out
a compromise which achieves a better pro-
cedure than we had in the past.
Secondly, I would like to extend congratula-
tions to the mover and seconder, and particu-
larly, for obvious reasons, to the mover of
the address in reply to the speech from the
Throne. It is a very rare occasion that any
Legislature can have a man who has been
for some 38 to 39 years sitting in its halls, to
be able to rise and give of the depths of his
wisdom and experience in connection with
that Legislature.
I know that all hon. members not only en-
joyed what the hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy) had to say, but I suspect rather
secretly envied that early grasp that he must
have got of the basic values of life and, as a
result of that, the fact that he has been able
to lead a life that is not only full, but, as he
himself has said so often, was a very happy
life— one that he regretted very, very little.
In fact, at one point he almost— he did—
express and then retracted that he almost
wished he had another 50 years. On second
thought, he retracted that one.
I wish I could say I agreed completely with
some of his political philosophy. I cannot,
and some time later I may have reference to
that before I take my seat this afternoon.
Thirdly, I refer to the seconder of the ad-
dress in reply to the speech from the Throne,
the new hon. member from the constituency
of Glengarry (Mr. Guindon). I think he main-
110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tained the standards that have been built up
in the past of hon. members who are new-
comers to the House and were given this
rather rare opportunity of participating so
early in the debate.
I am rather interested, Mr. Speaker, and
I do not know if you have noticed this, that
as in the instance of the new hon. member
for Glengarry, and all those in this other group
who have come into the House as new hon.
members, that we are in the process of being
invaded by the Scots.
Now, as a matter of fact, I did not realize
the hon. member over there was a Scot, I just
noticed his tie and came to the conclusion
that perhaps he is— you may have noticed this
fact among the new names in our Legislature
this year starting with the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor (Mr. Mackay). Now
Keiller Mackay is obviously a name that has
the smell of the heather about it. As I
watched His Honour seated in that chair at
the opening of the House, I felt it would not
be disrespectful of tradition to wish that,
instead of wearing this regalia which had been
taken out of the mothballs, he should have
been in a kilt. I am convinced he not only
would be much more comfortable, but that
he would be maintaining a tradition that is
even longer than the tradition of the regalia
of the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor of
the province of Ontario.
But in addition to His Honour we have a
Stewart, a McNeil, a McCue. Now I have to
pause here because I have been informed by
the gentleman in question that he is not Scot-
tish, but Irish. This simply emphasizes the
fact that has been discussed many times down
through history, that the Irish are only ship-
wrecked Scots in any case.
Then finally we have the hon. member for
Glengarry. Now I have a soft spot in my
heart for Glengarry for perhaps obvious
reasons— if anyone examines my name— but
for more reasons, that when my paternal an-
cestors came out to this country, they and
their friends settled on each side of the river,
Glengarry, and on the Quebec side south of
the city of Montreal. I can remember as a
boy growing up there, the many contacts be-
tween relatives on each side of the river.
I mention this for another reason— in the
ethnic changes that are taking place in our
country, down in Glengarry today there are
many men who bear the name MacDonald
whose mother tongue has become French in
the process of the infiltration that has taken
place there. So conceivably it is not out of
place to include the hon. member for Glen-
garry among the Scots. I would think con-
ceivably that in honour, or respect, or ac-
knowledgment of the many constituents he
has, he might consider changing his name to
McGuindon.
There is one other change in the Legisla-
ture in the last few months that I would like
to refer to briefly, Mr. Speaker, and that is a
couple of cabinet changes. We in the Opposi-
tion, and I suspect the public, have watched
with interest in recent years when cabinet
changes took place; it has become something
of a cabinet duplicate of the old game of
musical chairs. There were shifts in the
cabinet, but it always happened to be shifts
among people who were in the group, the
music played and they moved around and
some of them came down in the same posi-
tion and some of them came down in a dif-
ferent position.
But there was something of a change this
year. A couple of newcomers stole in from
the wings, got in on the game in two of the
portfolios: Mines and Reform Institutions.
Now to the hon. Minister of Mines I
would, of course, like to express my hope
that he will have a very enjoyable — but
I warn him, a short — stay as hon. Minister
of Mines, because he happens to come from
a riding that went Conservative in the last
election only because there was a little col-
lusion.
I do not know whether there is going to
be the same collusion between the Liberals
and the Conservatives in the next election, but
I give the hon. member fair warning at this
point that even if there is, he may discover
that it was a short— an enjoyable, but short
—stay.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
May I assure the hon. member for York South
that I know nothing of any collusion between
anybody, and I live in the area which I have
the honour to represent in this House. Now
let us please stop at that, and cut out this bit
of nonsense of collusion.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not expect that I
would draw fire so early, Mr. Speaker, par-
ticularly on this point. I think the hon. Minis-
ter of Mines is needlessly aroused. All one has
to do is to move about his part of the country
to discover that this is a commonly accepted
fact. He may not know anything about it.
Perhaps it did not take place on his side of
the fence particularly, but it did take place,
and like the hon. leader of the Opposition,
conceivably he was kept in the dark.
Now the second hon. Minister to whom I
would like to extend congratulations and best
wishes— and he may have difficulty in believ-
ing this, but I assure him that I do so in all
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
111
sincerity— is to the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond). Let me say-
nothing more than this, that if the new hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions can reconcile
the conflict of personalities and pressures in
that department, and if he can resolve the
confusion of purpose within that department,
he is going to make a very major contribution
to public life of this province. I hope that
he can, for there is a desperate need to do
that, and I say no more at this particular
time.
With regard to the speech from the Throne,
Mr. Speaker, speeches from the Throne are
traditionally rather vague statements in which
one is left guessing. As a matter of fact, when
I read the speech from the Throne this year,
I was reminded of a comment which was
made with regard to the recent Liberal con-
vention in Ottawa, and the new Liberal plat-
form that emerged as a result of that conven-
tion.
This was a comment by none other than
Charlotte Whitton who said, when she was
told by some Liberal that this was the new
look: "It's the new look all right, the perfect
sack." Now there may be a few mere males
in this House who do not grasp the signi-
ficance of what the "perfect sack" is. This
happens to be the new garb with which the
fair sex are now clothed as the result of some
creation by a man by the name of Dior who
has since, I am convinced, gone to his reward
because of divine judgment after foisting such
a creation on mankind, or womankind.
But, in any case, Charlotte Whitton's com-
ment was: "It's the new look all right, the
perfect sack, covers everything, touches noth-
ing closely, and does not display one single
exciting feature."
That is just about as apt a description as
one could get for the speech from the Throne.
One will have to wait until a little later to
discover exactly what there is by way of ex-
citement in it, because in traditionally sedate
terms, it does not display very much at this
stage.
I want to touch briefly on education. I do
so briefly not because it is of minor impor-
tance; as a matter of fact, as the speech from
the Throne indicates, education, and I am
quoting, "is at once our greatest problem
and our greatest opportunity."
It is so much our greatest problem that I
found difficulty in trying to map out what I
wanted to say today and do justice to it, so
for the most part I am going to leave it until
some later point in the session.
But I do want to make this general
comment, particularly in light of what the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver)
stated yesterday. I think our problems with
regard to education might be divided between
the monetary on one side, and curriculum and
motivation problems on the other side.
Regarding the monetary side, Mr. Speaker,
if we really believe that education is our
greatest problem, all we have to do is give
education the degree of priority it deserves,
and when we do that, most of our monetary
problems are going to disappear.
I am not minimizing the pressures within a
cabinet or in a political party, as hon. members
try to decide how a given amount of money
is going to be divided amongst the various
departments, but I submit as I have done
many times before in this House that if they
continue talking about education being our
greatest problem, then they must act accord-
ingly. In the last 5 or 6 years we have not
yet doubled our expenditures on education—
or conceivably, if you include the grants for
universities, it has about doubled in the last
5 or 6 years. During the same period we have
not only quadrupled, we have come near to
increasing 5 times the amount on highways.
In other words, it is a matter of priority.
It is just like the demands of war, if they
are impelling enough, if the government wants
to give them the degree of priority they de-
serve, it can find the money, and the time
must come very soon when this government
must recognize that the money must be found
for education, because we just cannot let
its needs go begging in such a partial way
to the extent that we have in the past.
As for the second aspect of the problem,
I will confess at the outset that this is infin-
itely more difficult. I think the monetary
side has a relatively easy solution. It is
infinitely more difficult to attract teachers into
a profession which, for a variety of reasons,
has not been sufficiently attractive to draw the
number of persons we require for teachers.
Even more complex and more difficult than
that is this question of curriculum in our
schools, something I have touched on at some
length in considering the estimates in the last
couple of years. Why just this morning, for
example, I was interested in reading in the
Globe and Mail an article entitled The
Crisis in Education by J. Bascombe St.
John. In it he gives up-to-date figures with
regard to the whole of Canada, pointing out
that in the years 1955-1956, there were
213,000 pupils— I will give a round number
here — 213,000 pupils in grade 8; in grade 9
there were 182,000; in grade 10, 131,000; in
grade 11, 87,000; in grade 12, 57,000; and
in grade 13, there were 13,000.
112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I listened to a retired official of The De-
partment of Education speaking, no more
than a month ago, to a service club of which
I happen to be a member. He was analyzing
the situation in Ontario, in terms of the
drop-outs, in terms of what can be described
as the failure of our educational system in
maintaining the interest of, and providing
an education for, any more than a small
proportion of the people who enter our high
schools.
By the time students reach the end of
high school in the province of Ontario, only
one-quarter, at the most one-third, remain
from grade 9 through to grade 13.
Now, I do not think we can go on for
very much longer ignoring this. I am only
touching on this, and I assure the hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop) I will
come back and discuss it in more detail un-
der his estimates, and perhaps he can hold
his fire until that point.
It is not only the question of the curri-
culum—whether or not the curriculum needs
revision— there are other problems related
to motivation. For example, hon. members
may remember that within the past week we
have had news from the city of New York
where they had expelled some 600 pupils
from a certain school system because they
had become what one Canadian education-
ist describes as "educational bums," people
who are delinquent in the schools and were
disrupting the entire school system, and who
apparently are not willing to absorb educa-
tion.
In the city of Calgary here in Canada,
to come back home, this has been done in the
last few years. Now this may appear to be
an answer, but it seems to me pretty obvious,
on the surface, that it is an answer which
just creates an equally big problem. If we
are going to start to expel the so-called
"educational bums" from our schools, I say
to the new hon. Minister of Reform In-
stitutions, he had better start building more
reform institutions, because many of those
students who are expelled, turned out in the
street so that there is not even any attempt
to discipline and give them what they re-
quire by way of a training in life, are going
to enter this deplorable succession of boys'
training schools, then Guelph, and eventu-
ally the penitentiary— adding to the sad
stories that we have already discussed many
times in the House.
In fact, there is another aspect to this,
Mr. Speaker, which the hon. leader of the
Opposition did not touch upon, something
on which there is an encouraging amount
of research work now being done— and this
is the question of motivation.
Why is it that the children of our genera-
tion—perhaps in contrast to the happy days
of the generation of the hon. member for
Peel, of which he spoke of in the House-
do not seem to have that same impelling
desire for education? Is it the curriculum?
Is it the context of the society they are
living in, as we move towards a shorter work
week so that there is more time for pleasure,
a five-day week, and all its related prob-
lems?
We do not know the answers, but we
perhaps are moving towards at least some
basic material to try to come to a conclu-
sion—the work, for example of the Atkin-
son Foundation in conjunction with the
Ontario College of Education has brought
out a very significant study on what hap-
pened to the graduates of grade 13 in the
year 1955. That is, what has happened to
them in the intervening two years.
I was interested to note in the recent
newsletter of the Industrial Education Foun-
dation—the body that has grown out of the
business conference at St. Andrews-by-the-
Sea a couple of years ago— that it is now
in the process of preparing a study that deals
with this whole question of motivation.
But just in putting the picture in general
terms for the moment, Mr. Speaker, I want
to sum it up, that I think our problems of
finances, as far as education are concerned,
are the easiest problems. All the govern-
ment has to do is to accord education the
priority that they are willing to accord, for
example, to highways, and we can solve
that problem. And so can society as a
whole, including the business community,
if it is willing to do likewise. But the other
problems are tougher and we really must
seek their answers as we have moved into
a sputnik age, and all that the sputnik age
has done to remind the western world of
its failures in this connection.
I want to turn for a moment, Mr. Speaker,
to the question of committees; in two or three
connections they were mentioned both in the
Throne speech and in the debate yesterday.
One, I refer to the comment of the hon.
leader of the Opposition when he referred to
the fact that there had been no mention of
the select committee on labour in the Throne
speech, nor of a report from it because, appar-
ently, he expected or hoped that we would
be able to get from a report from this commit-
tee some guidance with regard to this whole
problem of unemployment.
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
US
Now, I expect the Liberal party to look in
the strangest places for the answers to unem-
ployment, but quite frankly this one "buf-
faloed" me more than I was willing to antici-
pate. I have sat on this select committee— I
think I have attended every single session that
has been held— and I am certain that there has
not been a single brief submitted by manage-
ment, labour or a disinterested body, that has
even raised the question of unemployment in
connection with what is the particular job of
this committee, namely, to examine The Trade
Union Act and any changes which we might
suggest.
I have no idea why the hon. leader of the
Opposition ever thought we might get the
answer to unemployment from the select com-
mittee. The only guess I can make is, the two
hon. members of the Liberal party on this
committee have been in and out of the Liberal
party so frequently during the past fall that
conceivably the lines of communication have
been cut, and the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion does not know what is happening in the
committee.
Mr. Oliver: I would not worry about that
if I were the hon. member. He has enough
troubles on his own shoulders without taking
somebody else's off them.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether the mechanical devices cap-
tured that blast.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I think they ought to
be made to catch it.
Mr. MacDonald: Secondly, I want to com-
ment briefly on this Metro committee which
the hon. leader of the Opposition referred to.
I am not going to repeat statements which I
made to the House a year ago; I can sum
them up by saying that this committee is
without precedent and without justification.
To argue as the Prime Minister has done—
as an excuse, or a justification or a rationaliza-
tion of his action— that this is only an advisory
committee does not meet the problem at all.
The proposition that municipal government in
the area of Toronto is a monopoly of the
Tories, and there are no representatives of
Liberals, CCF and other groups who could
be brought in on this to give advice to the
government, of course, is a preposterous
proposition on the face of it.
I suggest that maybe the hon. Prime Minis-
ter let the cat out of the bag, yesterday, by
some implications in his statement even if they
were not explicit, namely, that a pretty sharp
difference of opinion has emerged between
the suburban and the Toronto areas as to
exactly how we should move, as I think in-
evitably we are going to move, towards amal-
gamation. By this device that the hon. Prime
Minister has adopted of putting only Con-
servatives on the committee, what he is going
to do is to impose party discipline to keep this
free expression of opinion sufficiently under
control so it is not going to be embarrassing
to the government.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member, in dealing with that problem over a
number of years, that, of course, is one of the
problems of the differences of opinion be-
tween the urban and the suburban areas. I
would say that I fully recognize that. Now my
problem was this, to get a survey made by
individuals who had a knowledge of that
problem and who were acceptable to the
various sides. I can assure my hon. friend
that I have had the most commendary refer-
ences from municipal councils and others
concerning the committee and its capabilities.
Now, I can assure him that the matter as
to whether or not they were Progressive Con-
servatives did not enter into the problem
at all. In the matter of Metropolitan Toronto,
some of the very best contributions to govern-
ment there have been made by some who
have views that might differ slightly from my
own in relation to some of the problems of the
country.
I can assure the hon. member that, in the
matter of setting up that committee, it was
for the purpose of, first of all, permitting
persons to express to a body, like the one
there for that purpose, the problems to be
met and secondly, to enable an objective study
to be made by persons who knew about the
problem by reason of their experience in
that form of government.
I would say to the hon. member, that this
was one of the problems in the first days with
the chairmanship. It is very difficult to get
a chairman who has a knowledge of both the
urban and rural side, or the suburban side of
it, and today there are not so many who
have that knowledge which is all-desirable.
That is one of the problems of the government
of this community.
I assure the hon. member that it is not a
political matter, I do not view it as such
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
has the magnificient capacity of putting his
tongue in both cheeks at the same time and
that is where he had it when he made that
statement, because he has made it about 5
times already.
The hon. Prime Minister states that he
wanted an objective study. Now I do not have
114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to tell the hon. Prime Minister that within
the British Parliamentary experience, if a
government wants an objective study, it puts
members of more than one party on it. That
is what this government did not do— for par-
ticular reasons which I can only guess, but I
am entitled to do that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that I would not have the slightest
objection, the fact is, I would welcome it if
the hon. member or any of the hon. members
in this House, would go to the municipal com-
mittee and raise the question of government
of Metropolitan Toronto. I would be de-
lighted, and I would say that any representa-
tion or any view that the hon. member or
anybody else expressed on that would be
given the fullest consideration.
I would say that the committee was set up
only as a method by which the government
could get information which it desired, but
that in no way do I want to hamper the hon.
member, or hon. members of this House, and
I make this offer now that if they would care
to raise the question of the government of
Metropolitan Toronto before the municipal
committee of this House, I will give them the
fullest co-operation in giving them the facts
of the situation. I can assure the hon. members
of that.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
can assure us, but that is a very, very second
best; it is a third or a fourth best. What he
has done is to set up a partisan group of
people to study a very complex situation.
If he wanted to have an objective study
which he stated was his own aim, he would
not put one party exclusively on the com-
mittee, and there is just no point in argu-
ing it, for it is unprecedented.
Now, the hon. Prime Minister says that
it is only an advisory committee. If it is
only an advisory committee, I shall be in-
terested in seeing the kind of report that it
brings down, because one of the questions
which is in the public mind all the time
with regard to committees set up in Legis-
latures is the question of whether or not
the money spent on them is worth-while.
One of the reasons why that is the case
is that governments very often take the
recommendations of the committee, and put
them on the shelf and do nothing, but I
would say with regard to this committee that
it was money down the drain from the very
outset, because the hon. Prime Minister has
prejudiced the possibility of the public ac-
cepting this as a study that is really designed
to give full freedom to all points of view.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Actually, I do not know
whether this is possible but I say to the
hon. member that if it is possible for the
chairman of that committee to make recom-
mendations before this House rises, I would
be very glad to place them before the House
and let the whole matter be discussed before
the municipal committee.
Mr. MacDonald: We made these repre-
sentations last year and they were perfectly
valid at that point, and the hon. Prime
Minister would not move— whatever his rea-
sons. We look forward to the report which
I trust is going to be a public report and
not just something handed in to the cabinet
and hidden away from that point forward.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It will not be a secret,
anyway.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the whole
approach of the hon. Prime Minister is born
of the concept that municipal affairs in the
Toronto area are the monopoly of the Tories,
which, of course, is ludicrous. The idea that he
cannot get representatives of other parties!
Since it is an advisory committee, they
did not have to be in this House. The hon.
Prime Minister himself knows of Liberal
and CCF representatives who have been
active and who have made real contributions
to public life in the Metropolitan Toronto
area, and there was no excuse for establish-
ing a partisan committee. The longer he
talks, the more it proves the weakness of
his case.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The great trouble with
the hon. member is that he does not want
to be satisfied. He does not want that.
Mr. MacDonald: Certainly I will not be
satisfied with the kind of proposition that
the hon. Prime Minister has given in his
explanations now. However, Mr. Speaker, I
do not know if there is much point in pur-
suing this any further.
I hope that I can get, at this stage, the
hon. Prime Minister's reconsideration on an-
other development which has come in this
session, namely his statement made in the
House a couple of days ago, that the hon.
Prime Minister is going to refer, to the
standing committee on government commis-
sions, this entire question of the relation-
ship of government commissions to depart-
ments and so on.
Now, when the statement was made in
the House, I rose and asked a question
with regard to what I personally believe is
the most important aspect of this whole issue,
namely, ways and means of developing a
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
115
technique for adequate review of public
commissions by the hon. members of this
House, who in effect, are the shareholders
of this public corporation.
When I made this analogy the other day,
the hon. Prime Minister nodded his head in
agreement that he thought this was a valid
kind of analogy.
What I want to draw to his attention at
the moment, is this, that when I read his
words in Hansard, I noted that the key sen-
tence he quoted from the report of the
auditor-general was this: "Such a survey
could be expected to report upon the alloca-
tion of duties between departments them-
selves and between departments and boards
and commissions based on the principle of
the nature of the service rendered to the
community."
Now, I will not deny for a moment that
there is an area for investigation there.
Obviously, if we have 16, 18 or 20 public
commissions, it is necessary to re-examine the
particular duties that they have been given in
relation to the department to which they are
most closely related.
But I want to submit to the hon. Prime
Minister that, in the terms of reference that
he laid out and that are indicated in the
auditor-general's report, there is no suggestion
at all that we would move to this other, to my
mind, even more important, job.
It is one thing to have certain duties shifted
from a department to a commission, or vice
versa, but to my mind the important question
—and I think this is the kind of thing that is
in the minds of the hon. members of the
Liberal party in their various expressions of
fear with regard to the development of com-
missions—is: How shall we bring public com-
missions and their activities under some sort
of surveillance on the part of this House?
Now, I do not need to remind the hon.
Prime Minister, because he is aware of it, that
in the standing committee on government
commissions where we have these 18 or 20
bodies which theoretically can report, this is
the kind of thing that has happened: Last
year, we had a two-hour session one morning,
about an hour and a quarter of which was
devoted to Hydro. If one can imagine any-
thing more inadequate, more painfully inade-
quate—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, would it not
be possible to call the committee on govern-
ment commissions, say, tomorrow, and sit half-
a-dozen or 20 times during this session?
Mr. MacDonald: Has the government done
it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would be very glad to
arrange it if that is what the hon. member
wants. I would be very glad to do it.
Mr. MacDonald: Surely the hon. Prime
Minister is aware of the need for a more—
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out that the
hon. member for York South is a member of
that committee and if he requests the calling
of that committee tomorrow, to start and go
through these government commissions, I
would be delighted if he would.
Mr. MacDonald: If we met every day, I do
not know if we could go through them,
because now I come to a point which is
equally relevant.
It seems to me that a standing committee
of the Legislature is not necessarily the body
that can do this job. That is the reason why
I think the kind of directive that the hon.
Prime Minister has given is a valid one.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I raise it now
is that the hon. Prime Minister, while he
agreed with my interjection in the discussion
the other day, did not include this as one of
the questions that this survey might consider
when we meet in the standing committee on
government commissions. I hope that the hon.
members of the committee, perhaps with a
little help from the hon. Prime Minister, can
be persuaded when we meet first to tackle
this also, because I am certain it is fully as
important as the question of shifting duties
from commissions to departments and vice
versa. .
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member I will agree with that, and I will be
glad to do it.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not normally get that
kind of co-operation so quickly.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let him come around and
see me and I will co-operate—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want now
to turn briefly to a question which was raised
yesterday by the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion, and that is the position of Mr. Duncan
in the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro. Just
to give documentary evidence of the fact that
this was on our minds— I do not know whether
it is a case of great minds thinking alike or
not— I will refer hon. members to question 8
on the order paper which yesterday was in
Votes and Proceedings on its way to the
order paper. And the question reads as
follows:
What is the annual salary paid to the
chairman of the Ontario Hydro Commission
116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and secondly, during the calendar year
1957, for how many weeks was the chairman
on the job at Hydro and for how many
weeks was he engaged full time in other
activities?
Now, Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, I
think this is another important aspect of this
question which the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion did not touch on. The chairman of Hydro
is a new man in the job, and conceivably
there is no job in this province which is a
bigger one than that of chairman of an organ-
ization the size of Hydro, with the challenges
it has in terms of hydro-electric development,
nuclear power, and all the rest.
I submit to hon. members, that the possi-
bility that any man who comes in, as he
admitted frankly, as a novice into the field,
cannot do the job adequately if he is going
to be engaged in other activities, even though
they may be patriotic activities.
For example, the hon. Prime Minister said,
and I think he is historically accurate, that
trade matters are not a new-found interest
as far as Mr. Duncan is concerned. He has
been associated with, in fact I think he was
the founder of, the dollar-sterling group as far
back as 1949, but that does not alter the
validity of the charge that was made by the
hon. leader of the Opposition.
Now that this issue has become one of the
hot issues in the political arena, the active
participation of a man who is chairman of
a publicly-owned corporation, inevitably pro-
nouncing himself on one side of the discussion,
is something that cannot go on. As far as I
am concerned, it is even more important that
a man who is chairman of a body of this size
and who is coming to it as a newcomer, should
not treat his position as a sideline. He is off
for a couple of months to England, and comes
back merely to become the spokesman for
some new statement of policy, on nuclear
power, for example, which has been prepared
in the public relations department of Hydro.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the job as
chairman of Hydro is a full-time job, and if
Mr. Duncan wants to engage in patriotic
activities, it is his right, but he cannot be at
the same time chairman of the Hydro Com^
mission.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to the hon.
member for York South, Hydro is one of the
biggest and most fundamental businesses in
Ontario, and Hydro must be and is interested
in the development and the expansion of this
province. Now I want a chairman, as far as
I am concerned, a chairman and a commission
who are going to devote themselves to ex-
pansion within this province. I would say
this, that I myself regard— and I think that
business, and the people generally do— that
one of the greatest things that can be done
for the development of Ontario and this
country, for the benefit of the western farm-
ers, the wheat growers and others, is to
re-establish our relations with the United
Kingdom and the countries overseas in the
sterling areas, so that we can do business
with them. And I would say, without hesita-
tion, that the chairman of Hydro, Mr. Duncan,
who is the head of the dollar-sterling commit-
tee—an organization which as a matter of fact
had its origin probably in Ottawa— has my full
blessing, and I take responsibility that he
helps to further that end. I think he is helping
this country.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would
have to say that I agree with the hon. Prime
Minister that these are important tasks, but
the point that he is missing, and missing
deliberately because I know he has grasped
it, is that a man who has a job as important
as chairman of Hydro cannot do these other
things without neglecting his responsibilities
in Hydro. It is just about the equivalent of
the hon. Prime Minister going out and be-
coming the manager of the Maple Leafs
or some other similar function.
I have expressed my point of view, Mr.
Speaker, and I am not going to discuss it
any further, but I submit that if the hon.
Prime Minister is going to bull-headedly
proceed with this kind of argument, that he
is accepting on his shoulders the responsi-
bility for the chairman of Hydro being a
part-time chairman in a position where we
must have a person giving his full time, and
some day the consequences of the kind of
neglect— that is inevitably going to flow from
having only a part-time chairman— will come
home as chickens to roost, and the hon.
Prime Minister will have to deal with them
then.
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss briefly
another issue which was raised yesterday
in the exchange between the hon. leader
of the Opposition and the hon. Prime Minis-
ter, and that is the new day that has emerged
with regard to the tax-rental agreements.
I will have to agree that there is a new
day— whether it is a better day, we will
let events prove.
The new day, of course, emerges from the
fact that during the last election campaign,
hon. Mr. Diefenbaker and the other leaders of
the Conservative party made very explicit
promises in regard to what they would do
in the revision of the tax rental agreements.
In fact, the hon. Prime Minister assisted,
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
117
he gave them a pretty clear idea of what
he wanted. He wanted $100 million more.
Mr. Oliver: He prompted him.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minis-
ter of Ontario prompted him, I do not doubt
for one moment. In fact, there were news-
paper stories that they holed up in the Ren-
frew area at one point before the election
campaign to map out the strategy.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If the hon. member for
York South would hole up there for a little
while, he might have a few of his ideas
straightened out.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, at least, I will
have to concede Mr. Duncan the credit of
having brought a little bit more light into
the dark recesses of Renfrew.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker,
is that when the hon. Prime Minister gets
up and says that normally federal-provincial
conferences are events that go on for about
two years, that this is really an irrelevant
kind of excuse rather than an explanation
at all. What Mr. Diefenbaker said, in his
election promises, was that the tax-rental
agreements were not generous enough, that
he was willing to revise them. Yet what
happened? He called the November con-
ference together in a way that the hon.
leader of the Opposition described yesterday.
When the provincial delegates got there,
they discovered that the present hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was indulging in
exactly the same kind of tactics that the
Liberal government did before, namely pro-
crastination, because having brought them
together, he offered nothing. He merely
wanted to hear what they had to say, and
then he sent them home empty-handed.
Now, a year ago, in the old days, when this
kind of thing happened, as it did happen,
what did the hon. Prime Minister of On-
tario do?
Well, figuratively speaking, the hon. Prime
Minister was on the rooftops of Queen's
Park screaming so that he could be heard
not only to the 4 corners of this province,
but the 4 corners of this nation. In fact,
it immediately became an issue in which he
was willing to fight, and the fire and the
brimstone that was poured out into the
political atmosphere of Ontario was some-
thing to behold.
Yet what happens this time? I picked up
the paper and discovered that the hon. Prime
Minister came away from Ottawa empty-
handed, yet publicly he said nothing. He
was as meek and as quiet as a mouse. A
few weeks later, as a part of this mass
bribery that Mr. Diefenbaker is indulging
in on the eve of an election, we get a sop
thrown to us, $22 million of the $100 mil-
lion the hon. Prime Minister wants.
Does he protest? Does he say that this
is the kind of thing that he would expect
from governments at Ottawa, who would
not meet our needs? No. He says never
in the history of federal-provincial confer-
ences has so much been done in so little
time.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there is another
aspect of this new day. Last year when
the people who were sitting in the Liberal
ranks of this House rose and made excuses
for the government at Ottawa, they ex-
plained why Ottawa could not do more,
that they had national views to take into
account, they had the Maritimes and the
other poor provinces, and so on.
When they made all these excuses and
tried to put the best front on what the
Liberals were doing at Ottawa, the hon.
Prime Minister rose and said, "Stand on
your hind legs, you are elected to represent
the people of the province of Ontario. Do
not make excuses on behalf of this nig-
gardly kind of treatment."
I invite the hon. Prime Minister to do
precisely the same thing now. Let him
stand up and speak for the province of
Ontario, if it needs $100 million.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is what I have done.
Mr. MacDonald: Do not suddenly get
very, very coy and cosy, and play politics
on this for the benefit of the Tories at
Ottawa, because in doing so, the hon. Prime
Minister, on the basis of his own demands,
is sacrificing the needs of the people of
Ontario.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is the old
game of the pot calling the kettle black,
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, one is in and
the other one out, and when they get in
they act just exactly the same way. As
Gratton O'Leary said, the only difference
between the Liberals and Conservatives is
a difference of mood and bias. They are
not really two different political parties, as
Mr. O'Leary, a good Conservative, ought
to know. They are just administrative alter-
natives. And if we want a living proof of
that-
Hon. Mr. Frost: I listened to Mr. O'Leary
and that was not what he said.
Mr. MacDonald: That is exactly what he
said. It is not only what he said this year,
118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but he was repeating it from what he said
last year. And if we want to see just how
intimate is the relationship, we have it sym-
bolically in this House now in the person
of the new hon. member for Elgin riding
(Mr. McNeil), for he has to his record the
achievement of being a Liberal nominee at
a convention at the beginning of the year,
and is sitting Tory at the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say this to be em-
barrassing to the new hon. member for Elgin.
This is one of the facts of political life in
this country today. The only difference be-
tween the Liberals and the Conservatives is
one of mood and bias, the mood is that
they do not want to be on the losing side
so they climb on the bandwagon with the
winner.
And exactly the same problem presented
itself when the Liberals were in power in
Ottawa— the Conservatives losing men to
them. Now it has reversed, and conceivably
in the process perhaps the Liberal party will
die. Under the leadership of "Mike" Pearson,
like Lloyd George in Britain, it will move off
into historic oblivion so that we can get back
to a genuine two-party system in this country.
Mr. Child: How many votes did the hon.
member get down in Elgin?
Mr. MacDonald: It was not as big as it
should have been, I will admit that.
An Hon. Member: He was down there
speaking for him.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member can bet
I was. I will not deny it one bit, but the day
will come. At least, we have the inner convic-
tions and the strength with which to live until
the day comes, too, and I warn this House of
it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to something
that I know the hon. member for Essex North
(Mr. Reaume) will not be interested in, so
he can lapse into silence. I want to say a little
about agriculture. His is a major contribution
to agriculture, normally.
Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the
developing picture with regard to the crisis
in agriculture, that the hon. leader of the
Opposition touched on yesterday, and I am
tempted to follow his lead. But my great
difficulty is to keep my remarks short so that
the hon. member for Essex North will stay
with me and not go out to the telephone, so
I am going to leave it until some time later.
I refer to the efforts of the government at
Ottawa, and the version of the hon. leader of
the Opposition of those efforts, to meet one of
the basic needs of the agricultural community
—an adequate income at something other
than depressed levels.
That, I say, Mr. Speaker, I am going to
leave until a later point.
I presently want to get around to an issue
of the agricultural situation which is strictly
provincial, and that is the crisis in farm
marketing. And I want to start with an event
of rather recent vintage, namely the Ontario
agricultural council meeting which took place
within this building a week ago, at which 3
hon. members in this House were invited as
guest speakers.
I was placed in the position of having to
substitute momentarily for the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow). That must
give the Tory back-benchers really something
to shake about, to think that I was pinch-
hitting, even momentarily, for the hon. Minis-
ter of Agriculture.
Because of other business, the hon. Minis-
ter was not able to be there at 11 o'clock, so
I was put on first and he heard the latter part
of what I had to say, and he did not like it.
It was obvious that he did not like it. The
hon. Minister of Agriculture is a mild man
who does not anger very quickly, but it was
obvious that he had built up quite a "head of
steam" by the time his opportunity came to
speak.
And what did he do, Mr. Speaker? He re-
sorted to an old, old dodge— instead of deal-
ing with the issues on which he had every
right to disagree, he resorted to the old tactic
of very quietly saying, "Now look," and this
is a paraphrase, "this is only a city slicker,
don't pay any attention to him, he knows
nothing about agriculture, we have had the
city slickers before who come down and give
us new ideas."
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that my
days of working on the farm are very much
further back than the hon. Minister's days on
the farm— I will not argue that point— but cer-
tainly I can assure the hon. Minister that not
only are my roots in the farming community
where I grew up, but I have a very great and
continuing interest in it, and if the hon. Minis-
ter has any doubts either now or later during
this session, let me assure him that I am not
going to rise in this House and make any pro-
nouncement with regard to agricultural poli-
cies unless I have checked and double-checked
with folks in the agricultural communities and
in farm organizations.
Further, I can say, and there is docu-
mentary proof if he wants to seek it, that in
the last two or three months I have spent a
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
119
very good proportion of my time in going to
meetings of agricultural organizations, com-
modity groups, the farmers' union, the Federa-
tion of Agriculture, and discussing with indi-
vidual leaders of different organizations, to
make certain that the kind of thing I am
going to say is valid.
If I am wrong, it is an honest error, because
I have sought the information from people
who are in the day-to-day batde.
Now, the second thing I want to say,
with regard to the hon. Minister's comments,
is that it would be just as nonsensical and
as unfair for me to dismiss everything that
Dick Bell said at the luncheon speech to
the Ontario agricultural council because he
happened to be a lawyer who came from
Carleton— just about as unfair as the kind
of tactics he received.
Mr. Macaulay: He was a farmer too.
Mr. MacDonald: He was a farmer.
Mr. Macaulay: He is. He has been on
the homestead since.
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, I know, he is a
lawyer but has been in full-time politics for
quite some time.
The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley)
comments periodically that I am still hold-
ing the bag since my farm days and this
is proof of the matter.
But what I want to say, just before leav-
ing this aspect of the matter, is that one
of the things that saddens me about the
kind of tactics which the hon. Minister of
Agriculture adopted is, that I think our
agricultural community is facing difficulties
today so great that they need the interest,
the sympathetic interest, of everybody, even
the so-called city slickers, and I do not
think the hon. Minister of Agriculture is
contributing one iota to the basic needs and
interests of the agricultural community, be-
cause he happens to differ with what is
said, to dismiss the comments of a speaker
as something coming from a person in the
city who allegedly knows nothing about it.
The second comment I want to make on
the hon. Minister of Agriculture's speech
is that I have heard him on a number of
occasions now— at federations of agriculture
and farmers' union conventions— and I am
rather impressed with the consistent pattern.
He comes before the audience and in a
very skilful way— he is a smart politician
though he poses as no politician— he evades
dealing with the issue and resorts to a sort
of folksy pose as the rural philosopher. He
reminisces about his days on the county
council and back on the farm. But he
reached a new high— or low, depending on
how one wants to view it— in his speech the
other day. He told his audience that "you can-
not find two ideas to rub together around
Queen's Park, for at Queen's Park you can-
not see the woods for trees." "If I want
to get an idea," said the hon. Minister of
Agriculture, "I go back to the eighth con-
cession line in Brighton township and there
is where I pick up the ideas."
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I ever heard a
ludicrous statement, that is it. Sure, there
are good ideas back on the rural conces-
sions. I would not deny for one moment
that there are not good ideas back in the
farming community. But to indulge in this
cheap kind of politics, of setting country
against city, of suggesting that in all the
accumulated personnel in The Department
of Agriculture, originally from the farm
community, with educational training and
long experience, from among them there are
not "two ideas around Queen's Park" that
can be rubbed together— that is absurd.
This is the kind of folksy pose which,
let us fact it, is phoney. It is just about as
phoney as the hon. Minister coming before
farm groups and saying, as he did, "I am
no politician, I am not interested in the
ways of politics."
Let us face it, next to the hon. Prime
Minister he is the cutest political fox in
the Tory den. And, let us face it, in a very
skilful way what the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture is doing is gearing activities of The
Department of Agriculture to serve the in-
terests of the Tory party. Oh yes, he is.
If one goes around the farm community he
will find out just how some of them see it,
and if the hon. Minister thinks he is "kid-
ding" anybody, sometime he will learn that
he is not.
Another aspect of his speech that I enjoyed
and this is getting down to the basic problem
of marketing at the moment— was his account
of what happened in connection with the
recent government announcement. Hon. mem-
bers will recall that last December, suddenly
there was an announcement— a kite, an inspired
story, call it what you will— out of Queen's
Park to the effect that the Frost government
was considering getting out of farm market-
ing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I can assure the hon. mem-
ber that there is absolutely nothing to that at
all.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
has not even heard what I am going to say.
120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: I know, but I know what
the hon. member is inferring.
Mr. MacDonald: He has no idea what I am
going to say. Let him wait until he hears the
whole story. Just let him not get so anxious.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to the hon. member,
that if he wants to get the truth of it, let him
read what I said down in Elgin.
Mr. MacDonald: When I went down to
Elgin in the by-election, I was shown, for
example, a streamer headline on the front of
the St. Thomas paper which said: Frost
Government Considering Withdrawing
from Farm Marketing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I am not responsible
for that.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. Now, how did
this all come about? It is rather interesting.
Let me relate the account of the hon.
Minister of Agriculture. He started out, in
effect, maligning the newspaper men. From
where these "boys" get their stories, he did
not know. They operate in a wonderful way,
he said. They dig their information out and
suddenly it appears. But the hon. Minister
had no idea where they got it. In fact, he
was so worried about it that it spoiled his
Christmas holidays, Mr. Speaker. That was
his line of argument. But, said he, in stage
two of his case— and let hon. members follow
the logic of this, because it is rather good—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I was so worried that I did
not take any Christmas holidays.
Mr. MacDonald: Stage two of his account
of how this happened was that, once the story
was out, he was glad about it. That was
really making a virtue of necessity. He was
glad it happened, because, he said, he dis-
covered that the farming community is really
most happy with the present situation— the
present set-up of the farm products marketing
board.
After about 5 or 10 minutes after the hon.
Minister's folksy account, he actually made
this statement, which I copied down:
It ended up that we are glad we flew
that kite because we have discovered that
the farm community is happy.
In short, he started out decrying the
mystery of where this announcement came
from, and he ended up with saying that he
was glad he had flown the kite because now
he had discovered that the farm community
is happy with the present situation.
Having given the hon. members this run-
ning account of the hon. Minister's speech—
which is, I assure them, second best to having
heard the hon. Minister— I want to get down
to the heart of this matter, the question now
in the minds of the farming communities in
the province of Ontario: "Should the govern-
ment be in farm marketing?"
The government-inspired stories, in the
hon. Minister's words for it, the "kite" they
flew, raised this whole question. Should the
government be in farm marketing? If so,
why? And to what extent?
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to the hon.
member that I know that he wants to be on
correct grounds, I would not want him to get
removed from the proper basis.
Now the situation was merely this— in re-
gards to the newspaper story, I know nothing
about that and I am sure my hon. friend ( Mr.
Goodfellow) knows nothing about it, but this
is a fact that we have discussed. Should the
farmers be given total self-government?
Now, it is not a question of getting out of
farm marketing at all, all it is is this. Should
the board, instead of being a board which is
civil service and arguably dominated by gov-
ernment, should it be a board composed of
the leaders of the farm community itself?
That is the question.
I think the hon. member would say that
ultimately that is, I think, the real objective.
I think we have reached that point probably
in the milk business, have we not, or virtually
so in the milk business, where there is pretty
well self-government?
The problem is this: should that be done,
should we go that rapidly in farm marketing?
I say to the hon. member that he has probably
read the brief of the farmers' union. Now the
farmers' union counselled delay in it. They
say, in effect, that the idea is all right but this
is not time to do it. That is the only issue
there is in the matter at all.
Mr. MacDonald: I want to suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, that this is not the only issue.
This may be a sort of mechanical expression
of the issue, but it is not the real issue. I saw
the issue put in a very dramatic way at the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention
at the King Edward Hotel last November.
The hon. Minister had spoken, and after the
speech was over, questions were entertained
from the floor.
A man by the name of J. C. Broderick, who
is well-known to hon. members— and incident-
ally, in this connection, because I think it
is of some significance, his political affiliations
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
121
are also well known— asked this question of
the hon. Minister. He said: "We thank the
government for having put farm marketing
legislation on the statute books of this prov-
ince. We are grateful for your help so far.
You went that far with the farmers, but my
question to the hon. Minister is this. Are you
standing with the farmers as we proceed to
put this legislation into effect?"
Hon. Mr. Frost: The answer is yes, indeed
yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Now just a minute. We
will come to a few instances. I hope that the
answer is yes. I am going to plead that the
answer be yes, but there are some instances
at which I want hon. members to take a look,
and then they will know why there are some
citizens of the farm community who are not
so certain.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture replied to
Mr. Broderick. But Mr. Broderick got up and
he said, "Mr. Minister, in all deference, you
have evaded the question, you have not
answered it." And he put the question again
to the hon. Minister who in his folksy, rural-
philosopher fashion, gave another reply,
which, quite frankly, I do not think was much
more explicit.
But there was the issue. There was the
issue put by a man who is a leader in the
agricultural community in Ontario, a former
president of the Ontario Federation of Agri-
culture. The government has put farm market-
ing on the statute books, but is the govern-
ment going to be with the farmers, as the
government must be, when they move to im-
plement that legislation and build effective
farm marketing machinery?
Now, the reason why the government must
stand shoulder to shoulder with the farmers
is this: our economy today has ceased to be
a free-enterprise economy, particularly with
reference to the agricultural community. I will
not take the time to document this from briefs,
such as that of the Ontario Federation of
Agriculture a couple of years ago, that free
enterprise, as we used to know it, or were told
it existed, is now a myth.
Secondly, let me cite the warnings of
Lloyd Jasper, when he was president of the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture at the
convention last fall. He made the observa-
tion—and perhaps it is well that I do quote
it— he said: "Farmers as individualists simply
cannot cope with the immeasurable steam-
roller pressures which these other groups
successfully create." And then he put it in
very strong words. He said: "Any farmer
who believes other than this is actually a
menace to our agricultural community."
In other words, no farmer can cling to
the illusion, whether it be an honest con-
viction or an illusion subsidized by the pack-
ing companies, that they are going to be
able to build a marketing scheme against
the power blocs of the economy, as rep-
resented by the packing companies, and by
the fruit and vegetable processing companies,
or by the tobacco companies. They just
simply cannot do it if they have not got
a marketing organization, and that organiza-
tion is not going to be as effective if the
government is not willing to back it with
all the prestige and weight of the govern-
ment, to let the "big boys" know that they
must live up to the law of the land.
One of the things which was very dis-
turbing about this kite-flying effort of last
December was that, no sooner did the story
get out that the government was considering
getting out of farm marketing, than what
happened in the Tory press? What hap-
pened among the friends of this government
in the newspaper world? Just let me read
a couple of quotes. Here was the Globe and
Mail. This is what they said:
Unfortunately it is still not clear how
far Queen's Park is prepared to go. Offi-
cial spokesmen have indicated that the
government wishes to dissociate itself with
enforcement of farm marketing regula-
tions, and leave this task to the farmers
themselves. Does this mean that the com-
pulsory features of existing legislation will
be eliminated?
Are individual producers to decide for
themselves whether to join any market-
ing schemes, or does it merely mean that
the provincial authorities will withdraw
from the checking and investigating work
which is necessary under these schemes,
but leave the board with the power to
bring defaulters into court?
This newspaper strongly urges the gov-
ernment to go the whole way in restoring
free trade in agriculture. The farmer
ought to have the same liberty enjoyed
by producers to sell his product himself
or to join in co-operative arrangements
as he chooses. That indeed, is one dis-
tinction between a free man and a serf.
Mr. Foote: That is right.
Mr. MacDonald: Now Mr. Speaker, who
said that? It would be very curious to find
out who is lined up with the Globe and
Mail and opposed to the farmers. Very
curious. Oh, was it the hon. member? Well,
122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I must say I am surprised, because any-
body who has the idea that a farmer is
going to be a free man when he has to go
and face alone the power interests in our
economy today, and feels that the farmer
is reduced to a serf if he joins collectively
with his fellows to try to get some bar-
gaining strength, just does not have any
conception as to what makes the twentieth-
century economy tick.
Mr. Foote: There is more to be said than
that.
Mr. MacDonald: There is not more to
be said than that. That is the nub and the
kernel of it and if the hon. member cannot
see that, then he cannot see the rest of it.
Now let me go on to the Ottawa Journal.
Here we are, Gratton O'Leary, the Conserva-
tive, two paragraphs from the editorial of the
Ottawa Journal. Referring to the proposed
government withdrawal, the Journal said:
This, should it happen, might be a retreat
from what many looked upon as a danger-
ous trend, a trend toward government-spon-
sored dictatorship in the field of farm
marketing.
Think of it. Here is the good Tory spokes-
man, and as far as the Journal is concerned,
the farm commodity marketing schemes are
government-sponsored dictatorship which they
want to get rid of, because, the Journal con-
tinues:
The question will be asked and the
Journal thinks rightly, whether the retreat
goes far enough, whether it would not be
a good thing if it goes to the point of
repealing all and most of these marketing
schemes imposed within recent years upon
the farming community.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I want to set
the hon. member right-
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I hope he can set
his fellow Tories right. Now let the hon.
Prime Minister proceed. I will give him a
little time now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to set the hon.
member right. If I can keep him right, that
is a desirable thing. May I point out to the
hon. member, and I think that in his calmer
moments he will agree with this—
Mr. MacDonald: I am quite calm now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right. May I point out
to him, that this government pledged itself
to do what no other government had done, and
that is, to fight the case of the farmer for
the farmer, and on behalf of the farmer,
through to the highest courts of the land and
we did that and won his case.
I want to say to the hon. member that I
do not want him, by implication, insinuation
or anything else, to think this or to leave this
with this House or with the people, that we
are not going to stand by the farmer. We are
going to strengthen the legislation we now
have and I would say to the hon. member
if he doubts that, let him examine what we
did in the tobacco matter-
Mr. MacDonald: All right, I want to do just
that but the hon. Prime Minister is making
his speech instead of letting me make mine.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say this, that if the
hon. member wants any evidence on that,
with me, by my side and by the side of the
hon. Minister of Agriculture, sit representa-
tives of the Federation of Agriculture through-
out all the negotiations, and they can tell him
how we helped to carry through the prob-
lems of the farmer.
Mr. MacDonald: I am very glad to hear
the hon. Prime Minister reiterate this deter-
mination to stand back of the farmers, but
what I want to say to the hon. Prime Minister
is this. This is not a new statement. The
hon. Minister of Agriculture—
Hon. Mr. Frost: My hon. friend, we are
fighting an injunction of the crux of this
problem right today, in connection with that
matter.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me proceed. If the
hon. Prime Minister's words are going to be
backed by actions, and he really means it,
he does not have to be so disturbed about it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: They have been.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, what I want to do
now is have the House take a look at a couple
of experiences we have had at farm marketing,
just to show the deficiencies of government
action. Let me cite the tobacco marketing
experience, for example— and it is not so much
the deficiencies of government action in this
instance as the belatedness of it. Moreover,
to my mind, a lesson emerges from the
tobacco-marketing experience. The hon. Prime
Minister yesterday gave us the details of what
happened, and I do not need to recount
them.
But I want to submit to the hon. Prime
Minister that one of the reasons why the
tobacco companies engaged in what ulti-
mately became an outright economic boycott,
flaunting the law of this province and the
majority decision of the tobacco producers
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
123
—one of the reasons why they were encour-
aged to do that was because for the very
two months that they were doing it, every-
body was asking, is the government really
in farm marketing or are they going to pull
out? And when the government was willing,
finally, to sit down with both the growers
and the companies, so that the prestige and
the weight of the government was brought
to the bargaining table, and they were com-
pelled to sit there for 5 days, who were the
people who eventually capitulated?
In spite of all the window-dressing in-
volved in the settlement, the people who
capitulated were the tobacco companies.
They recognized that the government— and
I give them credit in this instance— that the
government in effect said, at the end of
the fifth day— whether they said it directly,
or whether it became obvious because of
the presence of the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. Minister of Agriculture— that
the tobacco companies simply cannot get away
with defying the law of this land.
And that is what the tobacco companies
were doing. In fact, they were not only
defying the law of the land, the incredible
thing was that they were refusing to
accept even the bale proposition. The idea
was that we sell eggs by the dozen and
maple syrup by the gallon, and that we
should have a unit of sale for tobacco. They
wanted to keep it in an indefinite, vague
business so that they could continue to ex-
ploit the farmers as they had exploited them.
They even refused to accept independently
government inspected bales, they reserved
the right to open the bale and decide
whether or not they agreed with the grade
which had been put on it by the govern-
ment inspector. They capitulated on this,
and I give the government credit for mak-
ing them.
But what I am saying to the government
is, that the lesson in the tobacco experience
is a clear lesson, that if the government is
not, particularly at this critical stage, stand-
ing shoulder to shoulder with the farmers,
instead of flying kites that they might be
getting out of the farm marketing, these
ruthless corporations will smash these mar-
keting schemes, as indeed some of them
have attempted down through the years
to do.
Now, I want to cite a second example,
and here the deficiencies of this govern-
ment's action are very, very much more
obvious.
I want to refer for a moment to the hog
marketing scheme, which is perhaps the key
marketing plan in the whole set-up, and
which is today faced with an atmosphere
of uncertainty— with a sort of Damocles
sword held over their heads regarding what
is going to happen.
And what is the story, Mr. Speaker, in
the hog marketing scheme? I hope the hon.
Prime Minister will listen to this historic
recapitulation, some of which he will be
familiar with, but some details he may
have forgotten. In this story is implicit some
of the failure of this government to do the
necessary job in farm marketing.
The hog marketing scheme was set up
in 1945 after a vote. Do you recall what
the vote was, Mr. Speaker? Some people
may have forgotten. The vote was: 29,353
farm hog producers said "yes" and 205 said
"no". This plan was armed with regula-
tions which gave the hog board the power
to establish minimum prices, gave them the
power to establish conditions of sale, and
if necessary, to establish a marketing agency.
Now we enter stage one in the hog mar-
keting scheme, during the years 1945 to
1951. This was a stage in which the hog
producers established a committee, a nego-
tiating committee, to negotiate a minimum
price, and for a period of 5 or 6 years they
struggled to work out a procedure with the
packers so they could establish a minimum
price. That stage in the struggle came to
an abrupt end, and how did it end? I
want to remind the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. Minister of Agriculture how
it ended.
It ended in 1951 when suddenly the hog
producers' association received a letter from
the council of packers saying that they were
willing to continue to meet with the negotiat-
ing committee, but they refused to discuss a
minimum price any further. Just a boycott, a
blanket refusal. They refused to discuss mini-
mum price.
What were the rights of the hog producers
under those circumstances? Their rights were
to ask for the setting up of a board, so under
the regulations they set up an arbitration
board with a government-appointed chairman
and with a representative of the hog pro-
ducers.
Then what happened? I will tell hon.
members what happened. The packers of this
province thumbed their noses at the hog pro-
ducers, the government, and everybody else—
they refused to appoint their representative to
the arbitration board, and this government did
nothing. In other words, the packers just said:
"To heck with the law of the land, we are not
going to negotiate minimum prices," and the
124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
law of the land went down the drain. That
was stage one in the hog producers' story.
Let us move into stage two. The producers
then started to establish, to try to establish, a
marketing agency, the United Livestock Sales,
which was a company of the agents who had
been operating in the stockyards. Experience
proved that the farmers were not happy with
this because it was a private incorporated
company and was making profits.
So very quickly, by 1954 or 1955, they
moved to the next stage of establishing a hog
marketing co-operative so that all of the pro-
ducers became members of the co-operative.
But out of the experience, both under the
United Livestock Sales and under the hog
marketing co-operative, the hog producers
faced this continuing problem, that the
packers were able to maintain control of 90
per cent, of the deliveries directly to the
packing company, and they maintained this
control by under-the-table deals in many in-
stances with truckers to make certain that the
hogs went directly to the packing companies.
As a result, the producers had very little
control over price altogether. Furthermore, it
was as a result of that experience that the hog
producers' association came to the conclusion
that the only way they could get control of
marketing was to get the hogs from the
farmers' pens out into assembly points where
the packers would have to bid for them. The
packers would have to make their purchases
from these assembly points, and from these
assembly points only. In other words, the pro-
ducers would establish physical control over
the hogs in order to secure some genuine con-
trol over the marketing of their product.
Now I come to a point which I hope the
hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of
Agriculture will ponder carefully, for this is
the kind of thing that went on down through
the years.
For example, in 1951 or 1952, the United
Livestock Sales, in accordance with regula-
tions, was set up as the marketing agency for
the hog producers. Such a marketing agency
becomes an official body only when it is
gazetted in the Ontario Gazette. Normally,
when such a marketing agency is set up, The
Department of Agriculture— and surely this is
just plain common decency— will put the
advertisement in the Ontario Gazette to indi-
cate that this is the officially recognized mar-
keting agency for the hog producers.
What happened? The Department of Agri-
culture refused to "Gazette" the United Live-
stock Sales as a marketing agency, and the
solicitor of the hog producers' association had
to go down, as was his right as a free citizen
in this province, and buy a paid advertisement
to be able to get the United Livestock Sales
officially "Gazetted" to the province of Ontario
as the agency of the hog producers.
Now, why there should have been this
kind of dog-in-the-manger refusal of full
co-operation with the hog producers, I just
do not understand, but there it is— a record
of historical fact.
The second thing of which I want
to remind hon. members is that about
1954 the hog producers ran into another
difficulty. The difficulty arose from the fact
that they were informed by Department of
Agriculture officials that the hog producers'
regulations, the regulations covering their
sales, were not in accordance with the new
Farm Products Marketing Act.
Now this is part of the complex difficul-
ties of keeping regulations conforming with
marketing Acts, but I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, that this was not the problem of
the hog producers, this difficulty was no
creation of theirs, this was part of a con-
tinuing difficulty at the legislative level, and
if anything, the problem and responsibility
rested with The Department of Agriculture.
Again in 1955, rumours began to get
around the province that the "hog co-op"
was not legally constituted. Thus the dif-
ficulties in building an effective marketing
scheme were compounded by the public
rumours that the "hog co-op" was not a
legally constituted body. Finally these
rumours were nailed down when Mr. Frank
Perkins, the chairman of the Ontario farm
products marketing board, made a public
statement in which he said that the hog
co-operative was not legally constituted.
There were months of argument and un-
certainty arising from this.
Now comes the next chapter, and the
hon. members from up in the Grey-Bruce
area will remember this rather vividly. In
1956, as the hog producers' association
moved towards the establishment of a direc-
tional programme, it issued orders that all the
hogs in the Grey-Bruce area must be de-
livered to certain assembly points.
Suddenly, the decree came down from
The Department of Agriculture— or let me
not exaggerate and say decree, the judg-
ment, the opinion— was handed down by
The Department of Agriculture, with the full
authority and prestige of the chairman of
the Ontario farm products marketing board,
Mr. Perkins, to the effect that these regula-
tions, these orders, in connection with the
directional programme were not legal.
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
125
Now just to show how ludicrous this be-
came, the solicitor of the hog producers came
down and raised and discussed this whole
matter with Mr. Clifford Magone, then
Deputy Attorney-General, and Mr. Magone's
conclusion was that the orders, the regula-
tions, for the direction of them were legal.
So what did we have? We have a situa-
tion in which the chief law officer of the
Crown said they were constitutional. That
was in 1956, and the point I am trying to
make—
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member is
creating a misunderstanding on this point.
The situation is this, at least this is my
recollection of this matter, that the action
of the hog marketing board or the market-
ing scheme was challenged by certain in-
dividuals, notably a farmer in southwestern
Ontario. Now, I would say that the govern-
ment took the position that the action taken
by the marketing board was legal. We never
departed from that position. It was a fact,
and it was arguable, and the point was of
course advanced by very eminent author-
ities on the other side, that the action was
illegal. But, as a matter of fact, we took
the position that it was legal, and the mat-
ter by arrangement with the then Ottawa
government was referred directly to the
Supreme Court of Canada, and our conten-
tion was substantially sustained by the Su-
preme Court of Canada.
Now, that was the position, and we never
departed from it, but it is fair to say this,
that there were, of course, substantial
grounds on the other side. If I remember
correctly, the opinion of the Supreme Court
of Canada was not unanimous. It was a
divided opinion in the Supreme Court of
Canada. It was fair to recognize this, that
while we were arguing that it was valid,
nevertheless there was the point of view
which was very substantial that it was not
valid.
Mr. MacDonald: The thing I wish to draw
to the attention of the hon. Prime Minister is
that I did a bit of digging around in constitu-
tional cases back in university days, and I
know that there are two sides to every one
of these stories.
But what puzzles me is this, why should
the farmers of the province of Ontario find
themselves in the position that the man who
is arguing that their powers were not legal
was the chairman of the farm products mark-
eting board?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh no, he did not say that.
Mr. MacDonald: He did say it, and there
are records to the effect that he did say it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would point out to the
hon. member that this was the situation, it
was pointed out that the position was chal-
lenged. I had dealings with that from the
conference of 1955, and I took Mr. Harris,
who is from St. Catharines, with us, along
with Mr. Magone, and we carried it through
in the conference at Ottawa, and the subse-
quent references to the course— it is fair to
the people to say this, that the point we were
dealing with was an obscure point which was
on the borders of federal-provincial relation-
ships.
While we contended that the marketing
legislation and the action of the hog producers
was within legal limits, nevertheless it was
fair and proper to tell the people that there
were ambiguities about this matter and it de-
pended upon the decision of the court. Now
that was the situation.
Mr. MacDonald: I am aware of all that,
but I repeat that it strikes me as passing
strange that the person who was emphasizing
the unconstitutionality, or the illegality, hap-
pened to be one of the officials of The De-
partment of Agriculture. I submit to the hon.
Prime Minister that, if he wants to check the
record, he will find that for a period of weeks
and months, while the case was going through
the courts, the same view continued to be
advanced from department officials even while
the chief law officer of the Crown was saying
the opposite was the case.
Now, it seems to me that the farmers of
Ontario should be entitled, in their efforts
to build farm marketing legislation, to have
the fullest co-operation from the department.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We fought the case through
the courts for them and we won it. I point
out to the hon. member that it would have
been a disastrous thing if we had taken the
position that, without the shadow of a doubt,
the legislation was valid, and the Supreme
Court had rejected that point of view.
Now, I can assure the hon. member that
that point was a very debatable one dealing
with indirect taxation, and we were very glad
indeed to get a favourable decision.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not for one moment
say it is not a very obscure and debatable
point. I will concede that eventually this
government did take it to the Supreme Court
and got it resolved. But I repeat, and I refuse
to withdraw from this position, that the farm-
ers of Ontario surely are entitled, if there is
going to be any raising of legal difficulties,
that the raising of those difficulties should not
126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
come from top officials of The Department
of Agriculture, and that it what went on for
years.
However, let me move on, because all down
through these years, from the early days when
the department refused to "Gazette" the
United Livestock Sales as a bargaining
agency, there were technical and legal difficul-
ties. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that
after all those years of difficulties the hog
producers did get to the point where they
were trying to establish their directional pro-
gramme last fall. In fact, in the month of
September they moved with the setting up
of directional assembly points in about 7 coun-
ties, and in October they moved to another
5 or 6, and I think at the present time they
have something like 15.
While they were in the midst of this, and,
after all these legal difficulties, what happens?
The government catapulted them into a pre-
mature vote.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member is unfair
to say that, because they have not been
catapulted. We have extended the time to
vote to assist them.
Mr. MacDonald: There has been no public
announcement of the postponement to vote.
All we know at the present time is that, as
of last October, the hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture has indicated that there will be a vote
and that it will likely be held in March. That
is all we know, and I want to come in a
moment to a plea that it is about time that
if the government is not going to hold that
vote, that it announce the fact publicly and
remove all these difficulties.
I happened to attend one of the hog pro-
ducers' meetings and it was a very illuminat-
ing one. I will deal with the point the hon.
Prime Minister is trying to raise in a moment.
I attended a meeting—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think the hon. member
is dealing with the matter of the vote that
was taken by the marketing plan scheme itself.
I think it was two years ago, or perhaps it was
three years ago, asking that a vote be not
taken for a period of a year. I would say that
two-and-a-half years have gone by.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
happens to be inaccurate on a very key point,
namely, the request of the hog producers in
1955 was that there should be no vote held
until one full year after the full operation of
the scheme. Well, they started to establish
their scheme in September of 1957— in terms
of their assembly points.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That was under a new Act.
Mr. MacDonald: That was not under any
new Act at all. The fact of the matter is that
they were finally trying, after all the resolving
of the legal and the constitutional difficulties,
to set up their scheme, and when they were in
the midst of setting up their scheme, and in
spite of their plea that it should be left for
one year afterwards, they were catapulted into
a vote.
Well, let me assure hon. members that the
hon. Prime Minister might be singing a dif-
ferent tune if he had been able to sit on the
sidelines at the meeting of the hog producers
at the Lord Simcoe Hotel last November 4 as
I did. And I can assure hon. members that
I never sat in on a meeting in which farmers
were more angry. And what did the farmers
ask? Please let the hon. Prime Minister not
get so excited.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think it was in the spring
of 1955, under the Act that existed then, that
the board asked that there should be a year's
grace given to work out and carry on and to
give effect to the plan they had in effect.
Now may I ask the hon. member this, how
in the world would anybody in 1955 know
that there was going to be a favourable deci-
sion of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1956,
and that there was going to be a new Act in
1957? They could not have known. They
asked for an extension of time and got it, and
as a matter of fact, we have carried them
along since that time without any vote at all
under an entirely new Act. I think the hon.
member will agree that—
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
can tell that to the hog producers, because
they do not believe it. I listened to them down
at that meeting in the Lord Simcoe Hotel,
and the two or three requests they made were
these :
That in 1955, they requested there not be a
vote until one year after the plan was fully
in operation.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But a new Act has been
passed.
Mr. MacDonald: If the government
brought in a new Act, that does not mean
that it is absolved of the good faith in
living up to a previous commitment— that
they would not hold the vote for one year
after the plan was fully in operation.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
that at the present time, of the 42 counties
in the province of Ontario, only 15 of them
have their assembly points organized, and
those were organized in the months of Sep-
tember, October and November. Now, right
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
127
in the midst of organizing what is now
only one-third of them, this government
catapults them into a vote so that their
energy-
Mr. Robson: Where does the hon. mem-
ber get all his information?
Mr. MacDonald: Let him never mind
where I get my information. He was at the
November meeting and he should know
about it. I was at the meeting at which
the hon. member who is now interrupt-
ing-
Mr. Robson: I was there as a delegate.
Mr. MacDonald: So the hon. member was
there as a delegate. Well, he was there as
a delegate, he was one of a group who unani-
mously voted that the hog marketing vote
should be postponed for a year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If there had not been
one or two fellows like the hon. member for
York South inciting it, it would have been
done.
Mr. MacDonald: This is a very flattering
comment— that I was inciting all these solid
hog producers from the 8th concession of
Brighton township and so on. This is "hog-
wash." The fact of the matter is that at
that meeting, with the hon. member for
Hastings East as a delegate— so he now says—
they sat there and voted unanimously that this
vote should be postponed for a year, and
that a request should be put to the govern-
ment. Furthermore, about two days later,
the whole proposition came before the On-
tario Federation of Agriculture and they en-
dorsed the request that it should be left
for a full year. They also made a request
to the government that it should change
the voting procedure. This iniquitous propo-
sition that the farmers are now greatly aroused
about, and are besieging the hon. members
of this House for changes on— involves the
question of whether or not they are going
to be burdened with an undemocratic voting
procedure of having to get 51 per cent, of
those eligible rather than those who are
actually voting—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Has the hon. member
read the representations of the farmers'
union on that point? Now there is a very
strong organization, an organization which
is very strong in my own locality, and they
asked that there should be a 66 per cent,
vote. Now, is that storming and raging and—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the hon. Prime Minister if he has read
the briefs of the Ontario Federation of Agri-
culture.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, I have.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, if he has read
them, he knows that this is precisely what
they are asking for.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I just ask the hon.
member this. I have just myself come through
a very difficult experience in connection with
tobacco marketing, and I want to ask: How
could the tobacco marketing plan have been
sustained in the storm of last month without
the overwhelming support of the producers?
It could not have been.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let us come
to the point that the hon. Prime Minister is
raising. I will come to it. I want to, for
example, deal with this business of the plea
of the hog producers, backed by organized
agriculture generally, that we change this vot-
ing procedure.
I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, in read-
ing a copy of the Rural Co-operator for
December 10, and finding that among those
hon. members of the House who were visited
by a delegation from his area, was the hon.
member for Perth (Mr. Edwards). I was
interested to read that he was quoted in the
Rural Co-operator as saying that: "until I
attended this meeting, I held the opinion that
the voting procedures were a lot easier than
they actually are."
I have talked to a good many of the people
who were delegated to visit their local hon.
member, and the amazing proposition is that
these people report that, in many instances,
government hon. members said that they were
not aware that these voting procedures were
as unfair as they are.
Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. In the last
two sessions of this Legislature, I have had a
bill in the House, and I think the hon. mem-
ber for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has had a bill
to change this very voting procedure. That
any hon. member of this House, including the
hon. member for Perth, should make the state-
ment that he did not know of it, means that
he was not in the House when the matter was
discussed, and voted down by the government
supporters. In fact, to give hon. members an
idea as to how the farmers feel with regard
to the present voting requirements, I will
quote another paragraph from this Rural Co-
operator's story on December 10, reporting on
the meeting with the hon. member for Perth
riding:
In criticizing the clause in the voting
regulations which permits people to regis-
ter negative votes by staying at home,
James Haggerty of Logan said this stipula-
128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion practically kills any chance of getting
a fair vote, and the Act with this clause is
like selling a boar and castrating it first.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is rather an earthy
way of putting it, but the Rural Co-operator
reports that this is the view of the farmers.
I submit to the hon. Prime Minister and to
hon. members of his party, that they might
examine this view.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I agree with them too. I
agree with the farmers. After all it was a lot
of experience and the last little while I dis-
agreed with it strongly.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the hon. Prime
Minister had better go and talk to the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture and all the people
on this particular point.
Mr. Robson: That is only one point of view.
Mr. MacDonald: There was another inter-
esting point which emerged from this meeting
of the hog producers on November 4, and
that is the revelation, to this meeting of hog
producers, that one reason why the hon.
Minister of Agriculture called a vote at this
time in the hog marketing scheme was
because the agricultural committee of the
Conservative party had met and had voted
unanimously that the hog producers should be
put to the test immediately.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Who told the hon. mem-
ber that?
Mr. MacDonald: I will tell the hon. Prime
Minister who told me. I was one of about
300 delegates and visitors to this meeting
who listened to a Mr. Milligan, who is now
the Conservative member federally for Prince
Edward-Lennox.
Mr. Robson: Was he at the meeting?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, he was at the meet-
ing. Was the hon. member for Hastings
East there, or was he asleep?
Mr. Robson: At the meeting that the hon.
member was just talking about, now, was
he at that meeting?
Mr. MacDonald: He was at that meeting.
In speaking to the meeting he reported —
Mr. Robson: He goes from one meeting
to another.
Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about the
meeting at the Lord Simcoe Hotel on Nov-
ember 4, when Mr. Milligan rose and said
that one of the reasons why the government
was forced to call this vote now was that
the agricultural committee of the Conserva-
tive party had voted unanimously that it
should be held now. And Mr. Milligan told
me personally—
Interjections by some hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to the hon.
member that I never heard of an agricul-
tural committee. We are an agricultural
party and I never heard of such a resolution.
Mr. MacDonald: I will tell the hon. Prime
Minister exactly what happened, and maybe
the hon. member for Hastings East can re-
call it. Mr. Milligan got up and said that
the agricultural committee —
Interjections by some hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would you
please try to cut off the draft here? This
is exactly what happened. Mr. Milligan, as
a member of the hog board, which he is,
and now a Conservative member for Prince
Edward-Lennox, was trying to explain to
the farmers why the vote had been called
now. He explained that one reason why the
hon. Minister had been forced to call a
vote, was that the agricultural committee
of the Legislature had voted unanimously
for it.
Interjections by some hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now. Just
a minute, please.
An hon. member: He has had enough.
Mr. MacDonald: And I am going to have
much longer. The hon. Prime Minister has
taken an hour of my time. I have had an
hour, and he has had an hour, and I will
go on until I am finished if it takes us on
into tomorrow, I can assure the hon. mem-
bers.
Mr. Milligan got up and he said that the
agricultural committee of the Legislature had
voted unanimously in favour of this vote.
Since I am a member of the agricultural
committee of the Legislature, I knew this
had never happened, so I went to some of
the people who were at the head table and
I subsequently talked to Mr. Milligan, and
he said: "I made a mistake, it was the agri-
cultural committee of the Conservative
party."
Interjections by some hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: The reason why I am
bringing it up is because I want to find out
who are the friends of the hog producers?
Some hon. member: The Ontario govern-
ment.
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
129
Mr. MacDonald: In fact, since I am under
no confidences to Mr. Milligan, I will repeat
this one thing further, that Mr. Milligan said
that the hon. Minister of Agriculture had con-
firmed this just that week, that the Conserva-
tive rural hon. members of this House had
voted unanimously for a vote in the hog pro-
ducers' association. So now we find out who
are the friends of the hog producers.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What I told the hog pro-
ducers was, that many hon. members of the
Legislature were very much concerned over
this controversy, and that they felt that the
whole hog problem should be brought out
into the open and there should be a vote.
I might say that that is the feeling of a great
many rural members of this Legislature at
the present time.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree it is, and they are
mostly Conservative. In other words, what
has happened is, that many of the Conserva-
tive rural hon. members of this Legislature
have listened to the pressuring and the lobby-
ing of the packing companies until they are
more willing to defend and accede to their
demands than they are to protect their own
hog producers back home.
That is exactly it. The hon. members think
I am joking? All right, let them just hold their
fire. Here is another report in the Rural Co-
operator of January 14 — an article on the
hog marketing reports available as a result of
the representations which were made by the
various country representatives of the hog
producers when they went to visit their local
hon. members.
I should say that in most instances the
article relates that they got a very warm
reception, and discussed the matter with the
local hon. members. But there was one ex-
ception. One county secretary writes— let the
hon. Prime Minister listen to this. On Janu-
ary 14 in the Rural Co-operator, one county
secretary writes:
We were not received very well by our
MLA. We were disgusted. He told us that
the late J. S. McLean had done more for
the hog industry than the hog producers'
association.
Some hon. members: It must have been a
CCF member.
Mr. MacDonald: Now is that not lovely!
J. S. McLean was the man who told the com-
mittee on prices at Ottawa back in 1948, that
"we pay the farmer as little as we can pay,
and we charge the consumer as much as we
can get away with, that is how business
operates." That was the philosophy of Mr.
J. S. McLean, and yet one of the hon. mem-
bers stated that, in his opinion, the late J. S.
McLean had done more for the hog industry
than the hog producers' association.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have checked and
double-checked this, and I will tell the House
who that member was— and I wish he were
in his seat so I could say it when he is sitting
here. That is the hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy).
I was out last Saturday to a nominating
convention in Peel and I learned of this. Al-
though it was embarrassing to those involved,
I checked and double-checked and to my
certain knowledge, this is true.
Mr. Lavergne: Let the hon. member get out
of the gutter.
Mr. MacDonald: This is the fact. I am not
in the gutter. I am right down with the facts,
and some hon. members are squealing like
some of the hogs we are trying to protect.
Hon. Mr. Frost: My good friend, the hon.
member for Peel, "Tom" Kennedy, is not in
his seat, but the inference that Tom Kennedy
has, in his lifetime which has been devoted
to the farmer and the development of farm
marketing legislation and is the father of it,
as a matter of fact, taken the position against
the farmer is so patently ridiculous that I do
not think this argument is worthwhile pursu-
ing.
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. Prime Min-
ister just go ahead and check, and he will
discover that this is an authentic report
coming from the county. Mr. Speaker, I
will agree with you, that when I was first
told which hon. member had made the com-
ment I said "I do not believe it." Let me be
very frank. There are some hon. members
of this House of which I would have be-
lieved it, but I am sufficiently— as the hon.
leader of the Opposition said yesterday—
sufficiently under the spell of the affability
of the hon. member for Peel that I quite
honestly did not believe it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does the hon. member
believe it now?
Mr. MacDonald: I have no reason not to
believe it, as I have checked and I am as-
sured that it is the case. And this is the
only conclusion I can come to.
Here is the problem. I want to suggest
this to the hon. Prime Minister, that we
are not faced in the province of Ontario at
the present time with a crisis in farm mar-
keting. We are faced with a crisis of con-
fidence in the Conservative party with re-
130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
gard to farm marketing. We are faced with
it for this very simple reason, that the Con-
servative party, made up of free enter-
prisers, has very great difficulty reconciling its
nineteenth-century beliefs to the concept of
planning.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I ask the hon.
member if he would read over tonight the
return in the rural subdivisions in ridings
of the last 5 by-elections which have taken
place? Would he like to read them over
and see what the farmers think of the Tory
party?
Mr. MacDonald: I agree with the hon.
Prime Minister, that up till now he has had
the rural vote. Why he has it, I am a little
puzzled, but the day will come.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I submit to you, Mr.
Speaker, that the crisis is not a crisis in
farm marketing among the farmers, because
here is the acid test, and this is the thing
I want to draw to the attention of the hon.
Prime Minister.
Our farm marketing legislation stipulates
that if there are 10 per cent, of the pro-
ducers involved who sign a petition, there
will have to be a vote. Now, did the people
who were opposed to the hog marketing
scheme try to get a petition? We can bet
they did. Did they get the 10 per cent.? No!
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I have that peti-
tion in my office —
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, the petition the hon.
Minister has was secured by putting it in
barber shops so that everybody and his aunt
could sign it. The people who were opposed
to the hog marketing scheme could have
used this legitimate means that is within
the regulations, but they were never able
to get the 10 per cent, of hog producers
in any way that was acceptable. I do not
think the hon. Minister ever predicated his
call for a vote on the proposition that he
has— this "phoney" kind of petition.
My final plea with regard to this— because
it is implicit in the story of the hog pro-
ducers—is that if the producers of this prov-
ince are going to be able to move— from
what Mr. Broderick drew to the attention
of the Minister— to move from merely put-
ting legislation on the statute books to a
position of implementing that legislation
with effective machinery, the government
has got to stand with them. It has got to
end these rumours about possibly with-
drawing from the farm marketing scheme
and stand by the farmers, not just by words,
but by actions.
I would submit, in conclusion on this
issue, that the government, if it is not
going to hold a vote on the hog marketing
scheme, should immediately inform the hog
producers that they are not holding it.
What is the reason for continuing this
period of uncertainty which, in one form
or another, has gone on for the last 5 or 6
years, so that, even now, the hog producers
do not know whether they are having a
vote or not at the end of March?
I know the government is not going to hold
a vote, and I will tell hon. members why.
Because they have not yet started to compile
the voting lists, and it is a very big job. They
simply cannot hold the vote by March 31, and
if the hon. Prime Minister is correct that they
are not going to hold it, why does he not
"come clean" with the hog producers and
remove the Damocles sword that is hanging
over their heads and announce that the vote
is postponed?
As far as the hog producers are concerned
now, they are faced with the vote, and there-
fore they do not know whether to put all their
energy into preparing for a vote or whether
they should put their energy into completing
their plan.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There is not any vote on
the hog plan contemplated for March 31 and
there is not going to be one. The hon. mem-
ber is mixing that up with another vote on
March 31.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Furthermore, the hon.
member is in the depths of depression. May
I point out that just a short time ago, a week
or ten days ago, a vote was held on another
province- wide commodity of wheat. Now, they
met the conditions of the vote, and it carried
overwhelmingly. I would think that that is
a very successful result of the legislation of
this government.
Mr. MacDonald: Bravo for the wheat
farmers. They got out and did it themselves.
All I am saying to the government is that if
the government is not planning to hold a
vote, as the hon. Minister indicated last Octo-
ber, if they are not planning to hold a vote in
March or May, it is only common decency
that they clarify this issue so that the hog pro-
ducers will know it. And they have not clari-
fied it. The hon. Prime Minister may think
that they have, but they have not, and the
hog producers today are faced with this prop-
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
131
position— do they devote all their energy to
the monumental task of organizing a vote, or
do they devote their energy to trying to get
the rest of their plan set up, when they have
only 15 of the 42 counties at the present time
included in the plan?
Now, Mr. Speaker, the time is going on, so
I am going to leave aside one whole issue
here. I was planning to deal with pipe lines
in this province, but there is not going to be
any time to deal with it, and I want to come
to the final subject of my comments which I
would have completed about 5 o'clock if the
Prime Minister had not taken about half of
my time.
Mr. Lavergne: The hon. member has taken
too much time already.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me assure the little
"tycoon" from outside of Ottawa that I am
going to go ahead. I want to speak now, Mr.
Speaker, finally on the topic which is conceiv-
ably the most important issue facing the
people in Canada. Undoubtedly it is going to
bulk very large in this federal election cam-
paign, and that is the whole question of un-
employment.
I was rather interested in looking through
my files, a day or so ago, in preparation for
this speech, to come across a clipping. It is
entitled: Unemployed Workers Are the
Chief Victims of the Free Enterprise
State. Let me read two or three paragraphs
here:
Unemployment, it seems, is the price we
must pay for our free enterprise system, and
if this is so, and the record leaves very little
doubt about it, then the victims of unem-
ployment are deserving of much greater
justice. Workers fail to see why they should
continue to be the chief victims of our free
enterprise system.
Unemployment is the cancerous sore in
our free enterprise society, and if we really
believe in our free enterprise society, if we
really believe that it should be preserved,
then it behooves us to stop talking about
unemployment in terms of only 300,000
people, or 5 or 6 per cent, of the labour
force are out of work.
We need to recognize that perhaps 1
million people are dependent on the in-
comes of 300,000 unemployed, and the
welfare of 1 million people cannot be safe-
ly organized or ignored in any society.
Now hon. members will be interested to
know that that is a quote from the financial
pages of the Toronto Daily Star on June 11,
1954, over the byline of Beland Honderich,
then financial editor and now editor-in-chief.
I submit, it is a very apt quotation.
The second quotation I want to make is
from a United Auto Workers' document
called A Programme for Full Employment
in Canada. The first two paragraphs are
as follows; and I think this sets this whole
question in its correct context:
The Canadian people today face a major
challenge, that of proving that in a free
society we can maintain full employment in
peacetime. In the world struggle between
the forces of dictatorship and freedom, it is
our responsibility to prove that freedom
of economic security can all be achieved
together.
Communist propaganda constantly claims
that full employment is not possible in a
free society, and that economic security can
be won only through acceptance of dictator-
ship and regimentation.
On the other hand, reactionary represen-
tatives of business would like us to believe
that recurring unemployment and economic
hardship are the inevitable price we must
pay, and should be willing to pay, in order
to preserve our freedom. We, in the United
Auto Workers—
and as far as I am concerned, we could say,
we in the CCF-
reject both of these false theories. We be-
lieve that a democratic system can and must
provide for all its citizens the means to
achieve economic security and a constantly
rising standard of living. We believe that
the final test of a free society is its ability
to offer every worker opportunity to work.
Now I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I think that
sets this whole problem of unemployment
in its correct context— a challenge to free
society in the kind of world we are living
in today.
What I want to draw to the attention of
the House, as I listen out on the hustings
to Liberals claiming that this is another
Tory depression, and as I come into the
House and listen to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter doing his desperate best to try to coun-
ter that yesterday by the claim that this
is a Grit depression— the old pot-calling-
the-kettle-black kind of proposition once
again— is that if you want to look at the
record of the last 10 years with the Liberal
government, when they were in power, and
the last 7 or 8 months when the Conserva-
tives were in power in Ottawa, it is almost
uncanny how exactly those records dupli-
cate each other.
132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
For example, at the end of the war— Lib-
erals forget this now— at the end of the war,
we had unemployment. Every winter, 1946,
1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, unemployment
rose in this country. Every winter it reached
a new peak and by the winter of 1949 and
1950 it was beginning to reach something
like 500,000 people.
But the Liberals had an answer. They did
not use the answer, but they had an an-
swer. What was their answer? A pro-
gramme of public works. And I suppose if
we go through federal Hansard we can find
at least 100 times between 1945 and 1949
that members of the House of Commons,
usually CCF members, rose and asked:
"What is on this shelf of public works?
How much is on it? What portions of the
country is it directed to?" They could never
get an answer. The great C. D. Howe was
just about as evasive as some other politi-
cians we have to deal with here. They
could not get the answer from him.
In 1945, the Liberal party fought an elec-
tion in which they said our answer to un-
employment is a shelf of public works. In
1949 they fought another election in which
they said their answer to unemployment is
a shelf of public works. Then, Mr. Speaker,
after they had deceived the people of this
nation throughout two elections, in 1952 the
Rt. Hon. Mr. St. Laurent rose in the House
of Commons on one occasion and stated
that they had come to the conclusion the
concept of public works was not workable,
and therefore they had to abolish it.
Now this was quite a miracle— they abol-
ished the mythical shelf which had never
really existed. But at least we knew where
they stood. The Liberals had no programme
as far as coping with unemployment was
concerned.
Now, what I want to draw to your at-
tention, Mr. Speaker, is just how uncanny
is the duplicate of this in the last 7 or 8
months of Tory government. Last fall we
watched unemployment rising across this
nation, and in this province of Ontario, in
a very alarming fashion. What was their
answer?
Well, I will tell hon. members.
First, the answer, for example, from a
good Tory spokesman outside the House,
the Globe and Mail, the answer was that
when Dr. Eugene Forsey predicted that by
March we would have 500,000 people out
of work in Canada, the Globe and Mail in
its news column headed the story "500,000
Jobless Seen in March," with a snide little
head up in the corner, "A Gloomy Forsey."
It is now clear how gloomy he was— he was
just so realistic that within 3 months, by
the end of the year, with 3 more months to
go before we get to March, his figures were
vindicated, even if you take the lower
Dominion Bureau of Statistics figure, which
revealed that there were 499,000 people out
of work at the end of December.
Furthermore, the Globe and Mail wrote
editorially that men who go around and talk
depression like this are "disloyal" and such
talk is "almost sedition." This is "bunk."
Let me give another example. The hon.
Prime Minister of Ontario as reported on
December 20, gave a speech. I want to give
the context in which he delivered this speech,
because this is delightful.
Every year we set a Christmas tree up down
on the landing here on the stairway at Queen's
Park. It is a very heart-warming tradition.
We set up a Christmas tree, and we put
flowers on either side of the stairway and the
civil servants gather and sing Christmas carols.
They broadcast them over one of the local
radio stations, and, of course, the hon. Prime
Minister is brought in— I do not say this
critically— for one of his little speeches.
Within the shadow of the Christmas tree,
with this all-prevailing spirit of peace on
earth and goodwill to all men— I was not there
on this occasion— the hon. Prime Minister un-
doubtedly with his characteristic gesture
threw out his hands, and what did he say?
"People who talk depression in this country
ought to know better. That sort of thinking
should be abolished from our minds."
This was on December 20, when the figures
now indicate that they were just 500,000, or
if hon. members want to take the other figure,
800,000 people out of work.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to the hon. member
what I said yesterday afternoon.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. And when the
hon. Prime Minister writes, as he undoubtedly
wrote it, or somebody close to him, for His
Honour to read in the Throne speech, that we
should not regard this problem of unemploy-
ment with complacency, that is precisely what
this goverment is doing.
Yesterday, the hon. Prime Minister replied to
the hon. leader of the Opposition— and I draw
this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, significant
as it is— that the hon. Prime Minister got up
yesterday and took part in this debate and
not once did he mention unemployment. The
hon. leader of the Opposition had dealt with
this issue. It was significant that in the hon.
Prime Minister's opinion, unemployment was
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
133
not worthy of discussion. "Dismiss it, just
bury your heads in the political sand and
adopt the proposition if you want to get rid
of unemployment, just talk prosperity."
I have just as much faith in the future of
this country as the hon. Prime Minister has,
but the hon. Prime Minister is not doing any
service to the problem that we face in this
country now by sticking his head like a politi-
cal ostrich in the sand and ignoring this ques-
tion of unemployment and scolding people
who may draw his attention to it.
And that is precisely what he did. Not only
did he do it, but hon. Mr. Diefenbaker did it
too. Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker has claimed that
this is "just a pause" in the onward expansion
of this country— a momentary pause.
But in any case, to indicate the parallel,
Mr. Speaker, all last fall when the Conserva-
tive government at Ottawa and the Conserva-
tive government at Queen's Park had their
heads in the political sands, and were doing
nothing about it, there was a further event
in the House of Commons at Ottawa which
shows how precisely the Tories were following
the Liberal pattern. Here is a story that was
in the Toronto Daily Star on November 22.
It is headed Won't Launch Public Works.
Listen to this, if hon. members can be-
lieve it. "Won't launch public works,"
hon. Mr. Green warns:
The Conservative government yester-
day flatly rejected the idea of a federal
public works programme to curb Can-
ada's soaring unemployment. The hon.
Howard Green, Public Works Minister,
declared he had no intention of launch-
ing an over-all programme of public
works. Mr. Green said the suggestion
was "quite impossible," and blamed the
former Liberal government "for failing to
leave the Conservatives a nice big pro-
gramme of public works on the shelf."
Five years after Mr. Green heard, himself,
the official obituary on the public works
programme pronounced by the hon. Mr. St.
Laurent, Mr. Green rose and berated the
Liberals for not leaving him a programme
of public works. Furthermore, Mr. Green
declared a programme of public works was
"quite impossible."
Now, two months later, two months in
which even the politically blind— and these
are the Tories— had to face the facts. In
the month of January we have public works
being issued from Ottawa every day. I
noticed one newspaper man described them
the other day as a "slush fund" of public
works, and it is a pretty accurate descrip-
tion. A slush fund of public works. Every
day there is another new addition of public
works, and faithful supporters of the Con-
servative party like the Globe and Mail
play up every little public works, giving
it a headline in the front page, trying to
secure political "kudos" for the Conserva-
tive party with an election coming.
Hon. Mr. Frost: How could we go about
really pleasing the hon. member for York
South, anyway?
Mr. MacDonald: I will say this, that when
the hon. Prime Minister gets up yesterday
and does what the Conservatives up at Ot-
tawa did, berating the Liberals for having
a secret document and not facing the facts
last April or May before the election, the
incredible thing is that he is arguing against
himself.
The hon. government members all refused
to face the facts, here and in Ottawa, 8
months later when unemployment was rising
right under the government's nose.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that we have gone all out, we have
in effect right now one of the greatest
building programmes in the history of this
or any other jurisdiction. We settled with
the municipalities. I am only pointing out-
Mr. MacDonald: Two of the officials of
the federal government came down to the
city of Toronto to make speeches on suc-
ceeding nights. One of them was the other
half of the great Maloney family, the assist-
ant to the hon. federal Minister of Agricul-
ture, and on the succeeding night, the hon.
Michael Starr came down into the city.
Mr. Maloney: He is not the assistant
to the Minister of Agriculture. As usual,
the hon. member is wrong.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry. In the hon.
member's presence, I am almost persuaded.
I should have said "Labour".
When Mr. Maloney rose, speaking to a
meeting of unemployed down in St. Colum-
bus Hall, the Globe and Mail reports him
the next day, "MP says that the spending"
—this is all the great programme of the
Conservative government at Ottawa— "means
100,000 jobs". This is January 30.
Now, just to show how wonderful this
Conservative party is, the very next day
Mr. Starr came into the city and made a
speech, and the headline is: Starr Says Jobs
Created for 270,000. So within 24 hours
the figure for whom they had made jobs
had gone up from 100,000 to 270,000.
134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. The hon. member commented on this
to me after my brother had made the speech
to which he now refers, and I took it up
with him after Mr. Starr had made his
speech, and as usual the hon. leader of the So-
cialist party, in his anxiety to distort the
facts, has forgotten to mention to this House
that the Parliamentary assistant to the hon.
Minister of Labour was talking about an
entirely different matter of providing jobs
than was the hon. Minister of Labour.
Mr. MacDonald: Presumably, that is an
effort of the big brother to protect the little
brother, and it is very commendable, but
if I am misrepresenting it-
Interjections by some hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Within 24 hours, Mr.
Speaker, the figures from the same people,
who were trying to make political capital out
of it, had gone from 100,000 to 270,000, and
I submit if the hon. member wants to read
these stories, he will find if I am misrepre-
senting it, I am drawing my misrepresenta-
tions from the usually accurate reports of the
Globe and Mail.
An Hon. Member: Why doesn't the hon.
member for York South run against him in
Parkdale and see what happens?
Mr. MacDonald: I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that these figures are just political
confetti thrown in the eyes of the Canadian
people at election time. What I want to men-
tion about this public works programme,
which belatedly the Conservative party has
come around to at Ottawa, is this— that it can-
not meet the needs of the unemployed this
winter. It cannot for the very simple reason
that a public works programme takes weeks,
months, in fact, considering the Toronto sub-
way, it may take years of planning, of de-
velopment and preparation and of calling for
tenders before it can be put it in effect.
If the government at Ottawa wanted to do
something about the needs of the unemployed
this winter, they should have been launching
this programme of public works last fall when,
instead, they had their heads like political
ostriches in the sand and their hon. Minister
of Public Works was saying that it was quite
impossible to launch this kind of a pro-
gramme.
This programme of public works, Mr.
Speaker, is launched for one purpose only,
and that is to try to get the Conservative
party votes on March 31. It cannot meet the
needs of the unemployment this winter. He
may meet the needs of the unemployed next
winter.
But, returning to Ontario, what has this
government done? Certainly the hon. Prime
Minister says he has a great programme of
construction, but he had that programme of
construction as part of the development of
this province before unemployment arose.
What has he done since then?
I will tell hon. members what he has done.
Nothing. This government sits in smug com-
placency which their actions, instead of the
fine words of the speech from the Throne,
document.
Further the hon. Prime Minister got up yes-
terday and unwittingly confirmed the air of
complacency, because, in a province with hun-
dreds of thousands of unemployed, he rose
even after the hon. leader of the Opposition
injected this important issue into the debate,
and he did not even mention it. He did not
mention it simply because it is not uppermost
in his mind.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. members talked
me out, they did not give me enough time. I
only had an hour, the hon. member has had
three hours.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Prime Minister
was talked out yesterday, he is certainly tak-
ing his time today.
Now, I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, to
this government, that it is about time it
shrugged off this complacency and did some-
thing about it.
If we are going to meet the needs of the
unemployed even in the short-term sense of
public works— as for the long-term sense of
economic planning this government just can-
not even comprehend that, and I am not
even going to try to— in the short-term prop-
osition of public works, it is time this
government started to do something, even if
belated. It may meet the needs of the people
next winter, if not this winter.
By way of example, I want to draw one or
two suggestions to the attention of the hon.
Prime Minister, of the hon. Minister of Pub-
lic Works (Mr. Griesinger) and the hon. Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Daley).
Four or 5 years ago this government, facing
a provincial election, put on a great display
in the papers of doing something about low-
cost housing. In fact, suddenly we were led
to believe that this government had acted—
they had gone out and expropriated almost
2,000 acres out at Malvern, to build low-
rental housing.
Mr. Speaker, almost 5 years have gone by
and there is not a single house built. Not
FEBRUARY 12, 1958
135
only is there not a single house built, but this
government and its Department of Planning
and Development have indicated to the farm-
ers who are on it, that they can occupy the
land for the next year or so.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development): May I just interrupt the
hon. member?
Mr. MacDonald: No, the hon. Minister may
not. He may have a chance when he comes to
his department. If there is one person I do not
want to be interrupted by, it is the hon. Min-
ister of Planning and Development. If he
wants to correct me, he can correct me some
time when he gets himself unwrapped from
the flag-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Out in Scarborough, I
draw to the attention of the hon. Prime Min-
ister, that near Orton Park there are 93 acres
of, in this instance, serviced land. Why is
there not action to do something about this?
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that not only
do we have a desperate need for low-rental
homes, which will bring housing within the
grasp of the majority of our people; not only
do we need to put people to work, but if this
government would do something other than
pay lip service to low rental-housing, it could
bring an end to this practice of housing by
headlines. That is all that was done in 1953
with Malvern. And no unemployed, or any-
body, can live in a headline instead of a
house. If the government would get out and
do something about low-rental housing, they
would meet the needs of the unemployed.
They would bring homes of a genuine low-
cost level within the reach of the majority
of people.
Furthermore, if they did something on an
extensive basis, they would provide a yard-
stick to check the fantastic inflation of land
cost that is still going on. They could buy the
land at the price before it is inflated and
they could build, make these homes available
on the market, so that the profiteers who are
in the home building business would be forced
to bring their prices down.
For example, Mr. Speaker, this is the sort
of thing that is now going on. The govern-
ment at Ottawa boasts about the fact that
it has made available $300 million for hous-
ing. I want to suggest that much of it, I
do not know how much, but a very signifi-
cant proportion of this, is public monies
which is being poured into a maintenance
of, and increase of, the inflated land values.
It comes by this simple process: A man
will go out and buy a certain number of
acres of land for, say, $10,000 per acre. Then
he sells that land to his own right hand, so
to speak, in the form of a corporation for,
say, $35,000 an acre. Then, on the basis
of this price, which he himself has inflated,
he goes to the government at Ottawa and
he gets money to proceed with the home
construction programme on the basis of 90
per cent, of the cost.
In other words, 90 per cent, of this in-
flated land value, which he himself has
inflated, comes out of public funds.
Now this is the kind of thing which I
think this government and other govern-
ments have got to face up to some time
soon. I would make just one suggestion—
and I will not go any further than this one
suggestion this afternoon— that if the govern-
ment wants to do something about unem-
ployment, that to get rid of its complacency,
it fulfil this great promise of low rental
housing that it made years ago, that it get
out and build not a few hundred, but it
build thousands of low-cost homes every
year. It is for that reason, in conclusion,
that I want to move a sub-amendment to
the amendment moved by the hon. leader
of the Opposition, seconded by Mr. Thomas,
that the amendment to the motion-
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Thomas is not in the
House. The seconder of the amendment is
not in the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Seconded by Mr. Gis-
born.
Interjection: Oh, I see.
Mr. MacDonald: These lawyers have a
field day on technicalities.
That the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now be-
fore the House be further amended by ad-
ding to sections 1 and 2, so that the sub-
amendment will read as follows:
That this House regrets the government
has failed to:
1. Take any effective action to meet
the rising unemployment in Ontario,
(a) through developing presently-owned
properties such as Malvern, and acquiring
more land, for a greatly expanded low-
cost housing programme so that not only
work will be provided, but inflated land
values will be checked and the cost of
homes brought within the reach of a maj-
ority of our families.
136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2. Correct the ever- worsening condition
of our agricultural industry,
(a) by actions, as well as words, in co-
operating closely with all commodity
groups to build effective marketing mach-
inery; and
(b) by dispelling the uncertainty con-
cerning the hog marketing plan with an
immediate announcement of postponement
of the vote until at least one year after
the plan has been in full operation.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to quibble
over technicalities, as the hon. member has
just said, but I have never known an amend-
ment to an amendment to be couched in
this language, and it seems to me that that
is not an amendment to the amendment
at all.
Surely, by an amendment to an amend-
ment, one cannot add to the very motion
that we moved in the House yesterday. The
motion cannot be rearranged. That stands
by itself and this seeks to interpret it on
the one hand, to add to it on the other, and
change it in some instances. May I suggest,
Mr. Speaker, that it is really not in order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before you
make a ruling on this, may I recall to your
mind a previous ruling of Your Honour last
year on a resolution which I moved dealing
with the student aid fund.
An amendment was moved by the opposite
side of the House which took the original con-
cept which I had suggested, namely, that
a student loan fund should be set up, and
added to it by saying that instead the bursary
committee should be expanded to include the
student aid fund and any other monies that
may come in. Your ruling at that time was
that this was a legitimate amendment.
I submit this is identical. What it has done
is to take the two particular clauses in the
amendment which was moved by the Liberal
party, by the hon. leader of the Opposition,
and it has added significant portions.
Mr. Oliver: Well now, Mr. Speaker, just for
the first time I have this new amendment to
the amendment before me, and No. 1 says
"take any effective action to meet the rising
unemployment in Ontario." That is our
amendment to the speech from the Throne.
Now my hon. friend uses this, grabs on to
that, incorporates it in his own, and adds
something to it, calls it his own, and says it
is an amendment to the amendment.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, really! No. 2 is
exactly the same. He says, "correct the ever-
worsening position of our agricultural indus-
try." These are exactly the same words that
we used in our amendment to the speech from
the Throne.
Now, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that by
no stretch of the imagination can my hon.
friend borrow completely what we said in our
amendment, include it in his, and add to it. I
suggest that that conflicts with any rules of
the House that I have ever known in my time,
and I would like you to rule on it, Mr.
Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, might I add
to this. My own feeling was that, being a
country lawyer, I would offer my services to
the hon. member for York South to see if I
could not compose this matter for him, but
I can see that there are too deep difficulties
for me to intervene, and I may make this
suggestion, that you take the points raised
by the hon. leader of the Opposition into
consideration and the matter could be deter-
mined by you at a subsequent time.
Mr. Speaker: The sub-amendment having
just been brought to my attention, I would
suggest that it be left over until the morning,
and I will have a look at it and be able to
give a ruling by tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. R. Macaulay (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the House, and tomorrow we
will proceed with this debate.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.55 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 9
ONTARIO
V
Hegtsilature of Ontario
Mate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the^Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, February 13, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
•
CONTENTS
i ,
Thursday, February 13, 1958
Reading and receiving petitions :. .". 139
Township of Grantham, bill respecting, Mr. Jolley, first reading 139
Township of London, bill respecting, Mr. Stewart, first reading 139
investigation of Titles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 139
Insurance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 139
Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation in Canada,
bill respecting, Mr. Edwards, first reading 139
Presenting reports, Mr, Dunbar 139
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Janes 148
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Wren, agreed to 166
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 167
.
139
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, February 13, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the executors and trustees of the Melville
Ross Gooderham Estate, the Kathleen Isabel
Drope Trust, and the Charlotte Ross Grant
Trust praying that an Act may pass permit-
ting the petitioners to sell 68,000 shares in the
capital stock of The Manufacturers Life In-
surance Company to the said company.
Of the corporation of the city of Niagara
Falls praying that an Act may pass authorizing
a pension plan for employees of the corpora-
tion, boards thereof, and their families; and
for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by commit-
tees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TOWNSHIP OF GRANTHAM
Mr. A. Jolley moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the township of
Grantham."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE TOWNSHIP OF LONDON
Mr. W. A. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the township
of London."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE INVESTIGATION OF TITLES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Investi-
gation of Titles Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill merely
changes a name in the Act in order to con-
form with the new Certification of Titles Act,
1958.
THE INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Insur-
ance Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has some
technical changes in it. It will go to legal
bills committee for clearer discussion, and all
that I would say at the present time is that
it does not change policy in any way, but
does try to define some of the more difficult
terms that have been brought into use by such
things as nuclear energy and explosions
caused by it.
THE STRATFORD SHAKESPEAREAN
FESTIVAL FOUNDATION IN CANADA
Mr. J. F. Edwards moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the Strat-
ford Shakespearean Festival Foundation in
Canada."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Third annual report of the Ontario
telephone authorities of the province of On-
tario for the year ended December 31, 1956.
2. Annual report of The Department of
Reform Institutions of the province of On-
tario for the year ended March 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I rise on a point
of personal privilege. In today's issue of the
Toronto Daily Star there is reported a state-
ment by Mr. Cleve Kidd, president of the
Ontario Federation of Labour, and I am quot-
ing in part from the article as it appears in
the Star. Mr. Kidd said:
In recent weeks (Conservative) members
of the select committee have forgotten their
140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
obligations to investigate The Labour Rela-
tions Act in order to make way for a
parade of witnesses who contribute no con-
structive suggestions for labour peace, but
who have been using the committee as a
protected rostrum to smear labour.
That article is headed: Probe of Union
Political Not Judicial— Kidd.
Mr. Speaker, until this article appeared this
afternoon, I have had a great deal of respect
for Mr. Kidd, both as an individual and by
reason of the very high position which he
holds by virtue of his office as president of
the Ontario Federation of Labour, perhaps
the largest organized union group within the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I say to Mr. Kidd and to the
hon. members of this House, that statement of
his is completely irresponsible and completely
false. Indeed, if one is to speak of political
statements, I have never seen a statement
which is more political than that of Mr. Kidd,
because he would have the people of Ontario
believe that only the supporters of the Ontario
Federation of Labour, and those whom
they support, are friends of labour, and that
hon. members of the Conservative party would
be parties to smearing the labour movement.
Nothing could be further from the truth,
Mr. Speaker. And I say to Mr. Kidd that there
are as many friends of labour outside as in-
side the Ontario Federation of Labour, and
the political organizations which they support.
Indeed, statements of this kind do not lend
one to believe that Mr. Kidd is a true. friend
of the trade union movement, because smear-
ing others does not win support for those of
whom he alleges to be a friend.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the select
committee, all the hon. members, have had
nothing to do whatsoever about the appear-
ance of anyone before the committee at any
time with the exception of one individual, Mr.
Dodd.
At the beginning of our hearings, public
notice was given to everyone within the prov-
ince who wished to appear before the com-
mittee to do so, and to present briefs. No
limitation on anyone was placed as to who
should appear, and no limitation was placed
on what they would say before the committee.
This is a democracy and everyone is entitled,
whatever his opinion is, . to appear before a
group set lip by the Legislature of Ontario
for a specific purpose, everyone is entitled
to appear and express his opinion. None of
the hon, members of the committee, neither
the Conservative,. CCF^nor the; Liberal hon.
members had anything to do with who was to
appear before the committee or in what order
or when they should appear. We gave, I
believe, a fair hearing to all.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is completely
irresponsible, because if there is any one man
within this province, outside of the hon. mem-
bers of the committee themselves, who should
be familiar with all the proceedings of that
committee, it is Mr. Kidd himself, and if he
has not been aware of all the proceedings
from start to finish of that committee, he has
been neglectful in his duty, and if he has
been following the proceedings, then he knew
that this statement which he was making was
completely false.
Mr. Speaker, in reference to the matter of
the recommendation of the committee to the
hon. Attorney-General in regard to certain
charges which were placed before the com-
mittee, as the hon. Mr. Roberts pointed out
to this House, that was the recommendation
of the whole committee, the all-party com-
mittee, with the exception of one, who voted
against the resolution, not because he did not
think that an investigation was warranted but
because he thought that the committee itself
should make it.
An all-party committee made up of the
CCF, the Conservative and Liberals, joined
in that recommendation to the hon. Attorney-
General. Why did they do so, Mr. Speaker?
Because very serious charges had been made
and, if they were false, then those against
whom those charges were made were entitled
to be cleared, because it would not be fair
for presentations of that kind to be made
before the select committee, nor to be read
into the record without the parties against
whom those charges were laid, having the
fullest opportunity of appearing before some-
one and giving their side of the story.
If they are false, those against whom the
charges have been made are entitled to have
them proved false. If they are true, then
the people of this province have a right to
know what the facts are.
When Mr. Kidd speaks about Conservative
hon. members of the select committee having
forgotten their obligations in recent weeks,
nothing again could be further from the truth,
because each of the Conservative hon. mem-
bers of the committee, as also other hon.
members of the other parties involved, have
attended loyally and faithfully. Indeed, at the
latter part of their hearings, they sat earlier
than any other committee and later than any
other committee has sat in Order to give the
fullest expression of opinion to everyone who
wished to appear before the committee. .
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
141
Mr. Speaker; I say to Mr. Kidd that this
nonsense which he would like to spread, that:
only on his side of some kind of a. fence are
there friends of labour, should stop, and. if
he is a responsible statesman in regard to the
trade union movement— and we. should have,
and I believe we do have, statesmen within
the trade union movement— then he should
stop spreading this type of political propa-
ganda, because, as a matter of fact, lie should
know by now that the people of Ontario have
not been, and will not be, fooled.
They know that in the hon. Prime .Minister
and the hon. Minister of Labour and within
the membership of this. House,, there are
friends of labour to be found on all sides,. and
this nonsense, which Mr. Kidd, would have
spread, by reason of statements of this kind,
I suggest to him should stop once and for all,
because the people in the trade union move-
ment are entitled to know that they have
friends in all walks of the community^
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, with your permission, I would say
that I concur in the remarks of the hon. mem-'
ber for Bellwoods with respect to the work as
r have observed the committee, but I also
was coupled in this charge. I see, as published
in the Toronto Globe and Mail, the last para-
graph says:
We cannot help but believe that the
Attorney-General's decision was political,
not judicial.
I would like also to say before the orders
of the day that if there was any Act that I
ever recommended that was not political,
I think this was one. I could very well have
said to the committee, "This is a matter
that you have power to investigate, now
you call the witnesses and proceed with an
investigation."
If that had been done, it might have been
open to a charge of playing politics, but
when this was placed on the recommenda-
tion of myself by the government in the
hands of a Royal commissioner, a justice of
the high court, a justice of the court of
appeal of Ontario, and a man who has had
vast experience in this field, I feel without
any question that it is placed in the best
possible place for a non-political hearing
and a non-political finding.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, I suppose, as chairman of this com-
mittee, it might be proper for me to say a
word upon this matter that has been brought
to the attention of the House by the hon,
member for Bellwoods.
I think it should be read; in the light of the
fact that apparently Mr. Kidd is of the school
which believes that all is fair in love and war,
and at the moment we are engaged in a war",
and he and other hon. members of the party
to which he belongs have for many months
now been ardently wooing the great labour
vote of this province, so far without success.
We believe that the labour people who are
notoriously fair in coming to any decision that
they arrive at will continue to deal in a mat-
ter, such as the wooing to which they are
subjected, so that they will scorn the wooer
as they have on previous occasions.
Mr. Kidd forgets that the hon. leader of the
CCF party was a member of this committee,
and supported the motion to ask the hon.
Attorney-General for this investigation. If it
was political, then he, as well as the rest of
us, are guilty of a political act trying to smear
labour, •"•r
He forgets also that Mr. Thompson, the
representative of the teamsters' union who was
present at the time the resolution was made
and carried, said that he would co-operate,
and that he was anxious for such an investiga-
tion.
Mr. Casey Dodd has also communicated
with the hon. Attorney-General to the ;effect
that he will co-operate.
So I think that we should not take Mr.
Cleve Kidd too seriously. I do not think he
has done me any harm, and knowing the
other hon. members of this committee who
have worked so diligently and faithfully, let
us say that Cleve was kidding.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, we have all read with horror and
sympathy of the tragedy that took the
lives of two young boys over the weekend-
Robert Peterson, aged 13, and James Duffy,
aged 14— who died of exposure during the
past weekend while on a hunting trip in
the Bracebridge area. The reports of this
sad occurrence suggest that they were ill-
clad for this expedition.
Mr. Speaker, my thinking has been
directed to how to prevent recurrences of
a like tragedy in the future, how people
can be informed to dress for a journey into
the woods, what to do if one becomes lost,
and what to do to save a life in case of
accident in the forest or on the water.
I was wondering if the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) would
consider compiling a booklet or pamphlet
setting out these necessary items of knowl-
edge that often become life-savers. The
pamphlet or booklet could be circulated
142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
among boys' and girls' clubs, scouts associa-
tions and any other organization that has
the care of our boys and girls under its
charge. It might, I hope, Mr. Speaker, pre-
vent a repetition of this tragedy of which
we just read with such deep regret.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, I
was not able to catch your eye earlier, but
in reference to the matter which was raised
by the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr.
Yaremko), I may say, as one of the other
parties which were represented on the select
committee, that I too saw the reference in
the morning press and the remarks made
by the gentleman from the Ontario Federa-
tion of Labour.
I want to say this, and I want to make it
abundantly clear—and I am sure my hon. col-
league on the committee representing the
views I do, will agree with me— that the
decision to request that this matter be re-
ferred to the hon. Attorney-General was
made because we believe, my hon. colleague
and I, that it was beyond the terms of ref-
erence of the committee to investigate the
internal matters of the union, and beyond
the terms of reference of the committee to
go into matters which may, or may not be,
of a criminal nature.
I agree with the hon. member for Bell-
woods that, if the persons concerned were in-
dictable for any offence, they should be so
treated, and alternatively if they were inno-
cent of the charges made, that fact too
should be made public.
I share with the hon. member for Bell-
woods, not because I associate myself with
the political party opposite, but because I
feel that the best interests of labour in this
province are served better by those who are
willing to first assess the facts, then demon-
strate publicly if they find it necessary to do
so, what the facts are, and base their judg-
ment accordingly.
Now, the only criticism I may have of the
action the hon. Attorney-General took, and
I am sure that in the light of his legal ex-
perience he took what he thought would be
the best kind of action, is this:
The hon. members of the Opposition are
required to submit to Mr. Speaker any ques-
tions they may ask of the treasury benches.
Therefore, before the orders of the day, I
think it would be highly desirable if, when
the treasury benches are making public state-
ments of some import, the Opposition groups
were given some fore-knowledge, or at least
if the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) were given some fore-knowledge, of
the statements to be issued so that they might
be intelligently discussed at the time of issue.
But, generally speaking, I have, and I am
sure my hon. colleague has, no disagreement in
principle with the actions taken by the hon.
Attorney-General.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to enter into the
political blasts and counter-blasts that have
been exchanged on this point. I just rise to
draw attention to one point in Mr. Kidd's
release which I submit is worthy of some con-
sideration, and that is, if there were indictable
offences, some action should have been taken,
either by the people who believed they were
indictable offences and if so, by the Crown
Attorney in that area at the time that it all
took place.
The point which has been ignored up to now
in Mr. Kidd's statement is that, when this did
happen, no action was taken, either by the
people who felt there was indictable offence
or by the Crown attorney at the time. Mr.
Kidd raises the question as to why the normal
processes of law did not work as they should
have worked, and why at this late date some-
thing is being done to make amends for that
omission.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Is that
not the question the judge is to answer, the
very question propounded by the hon. mem-
ber?
Mr. MacDonald: Certain people came
before the committee and made certain state-
ments involving violence and so on. This hap-
pened quite some time ago. If they consider
it as an indictable offence taking place, the
logical sequence of events was to have taken
that to the necessary authorities, and the
necessary authorities would have started in
motion the normal procedures of the law to
see that justice was done to those against
whom these actions were allegedly made. The
question in Mr. Kidd's statement is, why was
that not done at that time in the normal
process of seeing that violence is not preva-
lent in this country or in this province? If
that had happened it would not have been
necessary to raise the matter at this late date.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking from memory, the facts of which I
can check quite readily, but I think there was
one case where there was a prosecution
where a police officer had been hit by a
truck and seriously injured. I think it had
some relation to the matter.
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
143
Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish
to make a debate of this, but I do bring it
to the attention of the hon. member for York
South that the matters which he has referred
to do not appear in the report as I noticed in
the Toronto Star.
Mr. MacDonald: I was tipped off that
this question was going to be raised just
as I entered the House. Having been busy
earlier, I had not had an opportunity to
inquire. When I did inquire, I discovered
that Mr. Kidd's statement was based on the
account carried in the Globe and Mail. That
account omitted two or three relevant para-
graphs which made the point that I have
just emphasized.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I want to rise on a question of personal
privilege, having to do with an editorial
in this morning's Globe and Mail. The edi-
torial is headed: The Hatchet Man. It
says:
Unless Ontario Liberal leader Farquhar
Oliver is indifferent to preserving the credit
he has gained in the office he occupies,
he should be at some pains to inform
himself on the backgrounds of movements
to insure future prosperity for Canada.
Mr. Oliver's silly attempt in the Legisla-
ture to discredit Mr. James S. Duncan
by calling him a hatchet man for the
Tory party further belittles the office he
holds without doing any harm to Mr.
Duncan.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say as firmly as I
can that it matters little to me what the
Globe and Mail says of me personally, and
it has exercised that prerogative on numer-
ous occasions and probably will repeat them
many times in the future.
But I am not going to allow any news-
paper or any individual to say that the
argument I presented in this House in rela-
tion to a particular matter was silly. I want
to say, Mr. Speaker, that never in my poli-
cal life was I more sure that I was right
than I am in this particular case. Further-
more, I want, just for a moment if I may,
to refer to Mr. Duncan's article, or Mr.
Duncan's reply to my speech in the House
the other day.
Before I refer to this matter, I want to say
that I have nothing, of course, against Mr.
Duncan. All the hon. members in the House
who know me, appreciate that when I mention
the name of a public servant, or of an hon.
member in this Legislature, I do not mean
anything personal against the individual. I
recognize, as the hon. Prime Minister has
pointed out, that Mr. Duncan has been a
patriotic citizen, that he has rendered the
capacities that were open to him with great
service to the people of Canada.
But what I am saying to the House now
is, that what is being discussed is entirely
different than what was set out in Mr. Dun-
can's statement. Mr. Duncan said, or is
reported to have said in the Globe and Mail,
that his acting as vice-chairman of a trade
mission to Britain could not be considered
in any way political, or he would have had
nothing to do with the job. Then he goes
on to say that under the former Liberal
government he had gone on trade missions
with Rt. hon. C. D. Howe, and with hon.
James McKinnon, who was Minister of Trade
and Commerce for some time.
Now then, this is the crux of the matter,
Mr. Speaker, and I want to put it bluntly
to the House: When Mr. Duncan went on
trade missions with Mr. Howe and with
Mr. McKinnon, he went as head of the
Massey-Harris Company, he went as an in-
dividual completely divorced from public
office, he went on—
Hon. Mr. Frost: He was in Ottawa at
the time he did that. He was acting as
Deputy-Minister of one of the departments
in Ottawa.
Mr. Oliver: Well, some of the missions on
which he accompanied Mr. Howe and Mr.
McKinnon were definitely made at the time
when he was the head of the Massey-Harris
Company and that can be verified.
Now the crux of the matter, as I said, Mr.
Speaker, is this, that Mr. Duncan's position
at that time was wholly defensible. He was
the head of an independent manufacturing
concern, he was interested in trade expansion,
and as such he had the opportunity, and it
was his privilege, to go to Timbuctoo if he
wanted to, in order to expand trade with this
country.
But the same Mr. Duncan is not in the posi-
tion today that he was then. Mr. Duncan is
now the chairman of a great public utility in
this province, and as such, I suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, he is in no position to take any
part in anything that might be construed
as political discussion or controversies.
Now, there is no one, I suggest, who will
care to argue that Mr. Duncan's utterances
of the last few weeks have not been political
in character. The trade mission to England
was political in character, political because
it was built on the premise made by the
Diefenbaker government that we should divert
144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
15 pet cent, of the imports from the' United-
States to Great Britain.
Now, that was a political consideration, it
Was a political conclusion by the Diefenbaker
government; arid because of that conclusion
they sent this delegation to England. It could
not -be anything else than political in char-
acter*
Then, after that was accomplished and after
the trade mission returned home, Mr. Duncan
went on the radio, he made speeches before
various service clubs, and he defended one
particular side of that argument.
That argument is open to discussion, it is
dperi to controversy as this House well knows,
indat the present time it is a vital issue
inthis election campaign. There are two sides
to it: unquestionably, and I say it is no place
for the chairman of the Ontario Hydro to
take his place on one side or the other of
this controversial political issue, particularly
when we are in the midst of a federal elec-
tion campaign.
I say to the hon. Prime Minister that I was
shocked and amazed at his statement, in the
House, I think it was yesterday, wherein he
gave his blessing to the activities of Mr.
Duncan in respect to these matters that we
have* been discussing.
I would say to the hon. Prime Minister
that, if he carries out and actually gives that
blessing that he talks about giving, then we
have opened up a new era in the political life
of this country. We have said that, to every
head of a commission, every senior appointee,
of this government: "You are free as the air
to engage in political discussions whether or
not those discussions take place in the midst
of an election campaign."
I Say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks
in connection With this were not silly, they are
attached firmly to a principle, and I say that
the actions of this government and of the
hon. Prime Minister, in condoning what has
been done, does harm and damage to the
great principle that we have known, and that
we have adhered to, and that we have re-
spected in this province for years.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I did not
intend to be called into this controversial
atmosphere this afternoon, but apparently I
am.
I should like to say to the hon. leader of
the Opposition that the trade mission to the
United Kingdom has become partisan only
because the hon. leader and others like him
make it so.
Mr. Oliver: It was made partisan because
the hon. Prime Minister at Ottawa (Mr. Dief-
enbaker) made it so.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Might I ask the hon.
leader of the Opposition if he considers that
Leonard Brockington, one of Mr. King's
executors, is Tory partisan? Might I ask him
that? Mr. Brockington was a" member of the
trade commission. There were a large list of
industrialists. I would like to get a list of
industrialists, as a matter of fact I might
become interested enough to get that and
give it to the hon. leader of the Opposition,
and he might see a number of people who
have been friendly to his cause, who went
over to the Old Country on a non-partisan
mission to endeavour to turn trade from this
country to our greatest . friend, the United
Kingdom, and the sterling bloc. Now what
was wrong with that?
I should say that I am very glad indeed to
support the objectives of the trade mission. It
should be the objective of all right-thinking
Canadians. We are friendly in this country-^
and We have been for generations past— to the
United States, but we are not an adjunct to
them.
The action of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and some of his friends at Ottawa were
fast leading to the fact that we were just
becoming an appendage to that nation.
Now. I am all for Mr. Duncan and Mr.
Brockington and other non-partisan Canadians
who are out to give the sterling area, and the
people overseas, a fair share of our trade. I
think that is the object, and I do not think
that Mr. Duncan at any time has been par-
tisan—as a matter of fact, I have no know-
ledge of his politics at all.
I would refer another editorial to the hon.
leader of the Opposition, which appeared in
the Toronto Telegram today, it might be
worthwhile reading, but I will read only this
paragraph about Mr. Duncan.
It says that during the war, Mr. Duncan
accepted the post of Deputy-Minister of
National Defence for Air from the late Mac-
kenzie King, and was later the chairman of
the dollar-sterling trade board, and he has
been active in that matter, non-partisan, and
in this capacity accompanied the former
Liberal Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Mr. McKinnon, and Mr. Howe, on trade mis-
sions to Africa and Latin America. He has
been a patriotic Canadian serving his country
in peace and in war in a non-political role.
I have no idea what his politics are. The prov-
ince of Ontario is fortunate to have a man of
his calibre in the important position which
he now holds.
I see in the London Free Press that Mr,
Duncan's trade mission position is thoroughly
justified. I will not read that editorial, but I
point out this, here we have a body of indus-
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
145
trialists, people interested in trade. These
people were interested among other things
in finding ways and means for the United
Kingdom and the sterling area to buy wheat
which has been piled up for years on our
prairies and elsewhere.
I would say that these industrialists, non-
political, went to the Old Country, not on a
mission that was confined to people of one
particular party or anything of the sort, but
went to the Old Country to find out what they
could do.
Ontario Hydro is the life blood of Ontario
industry. As a matter of fact, in some ways
it is perhaps Ontario's biggest industry. Now,
I do not know whether this is so from the
standpoint of employment, but Hydro employs
some 20,000 or more employees, there is $1
billion, at least, invested in Hydro under-
takings.
Now, may I ask: Has that great business,
because that is what it is, the life blood of
the great industrial capacity of Ontario, has
that business a duty to try to improve Canada's
position on the markets of the world?
Such was the object of the mission, and I
would say to my hon. friend that I think he
takes a very narrow view when he asks that
the chairman— a man of experience and cap-
acity who has devoted years of his life to
the betterment and strengthening of the over-
seas ties, not only with the United Kingdom
but with the sterling areas— with all his cap-
acity, should be withdrawn from a place
where he could serve his country in a very
great way.
I would say that in these things Hydro has
a duty. I think the chairman has a duty. I
do not for one moment say that Hydro should
inject itself into matters of political partisan-
ship, but what right-minded Canadian can
at all object to the proposition that we cease
putting all our eggs in one basket, in these
days when Canada's trade needs expansion
elsewhere? Definitely, we should not restrict
ourselves to the uncertainty of placing all our
eggs in one basket.
I do not think that it is going to be a hot
political issue at all. I think the hon. leader
of the Opposition is mistaken.
I cannot imagine that a person such as hon.
Mr. Pearson would take that position at all and
he is now the leader of his party. I think he
would have too much common sense to take
such a position as that. I see my hon. friend
nods his head in assent, and probably he has
reached the stage of thinking that after all,
this is all right.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add
this one further word. The inescapable fact
around which the hon. Prime Minister skates
so skilfully and adroitly, is this, that Mr.
Duncan, chairman of the Ontario Hydro,
spoke on a controversial political subject time
and again in this last week or so. He has
thrust himself into the middle of a political
election campaign, and in no way that I know
of can he divorce himself from being a
political partisan in every sense of the word.
If we are going to sit in this House, Mr.
Speaker, and condone that sort of thing, then
principles which we held so strongly in the
days gone by have gone by the board.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, might I ask
my hon. friend where this is so controversial?
Take the last paragraph of the London
Free Press. It says:
Before the last war, Britain was Canada's
best market, particularly for our agricultural
products. When Britain found itself unable
to buy in Canada, we naturally turned to
the United States and an enormous busi-
ness has grown up in recent years, but the
balance of trade against Canada has been
some $1.5 billion annually, a state of affairs
which has disturbed Canada.
May I say that it disturbed the Gordon
commission. I do not think the Gordon com-
mission could be counted a partisan commis-
sion. An attempt to increase British imports
to Canada and divert American imports has
been the object of the hon. Mr. Diefenbaker.
He has talked, perhaps, without too much
thought of the 15 per cent, diversion. There
is nothing but good feeling in Canada towards
the United States, but we do not like being
treated like the forty-ninth state. The trade
mission sent to Great Britain has been gener-
ally approved by Canadians, and it would
be unfortunate if it were made a political
issue.
I would say, "let us keep this on a high
level."
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, may
I ask a question? I will put it very simply. Has
the hon. Prime Minister heard the address
of Mr. Duncan on the dynamics of the
trade mission?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No. I have not.
Mr. Nixon: He should hear it. It is being
broadcast almost every day on radio stations
throughout the province.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does my hon. friend
agree with it?
Mr. Nixon: Why, Mr. Duncan just "drools"
over his excellency George Drew and the
hon. Mr. Diefenbaker.
146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Question of privilege is not
debatable in this House, the hon. members
should know that. We have allowed a great
deal of latitude this afternoon in the first
question of privilege, because the hon. mem-
bers were members of a select committee and
they felt their procedure was being ques-
tioned. This is a different thing altogether, and
we cannot permit debate on the question of
privilege. We will not permit it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, having per-
mitted the degree of latitude which you have
in this very important issue now, I submit
that you cannot cut it off at this point.
Mr. Speaker: I am not allowing any more
debate on this particular one. Now there
will be no more.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is most
unfair.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I am not going
to transgress on the ruling you have just
made, but I rise to ask a question of the
hon. Prime Minister or perhaps, more prop-
erly, of the hon. Hydro commissioner who
is in his seat. I notice that in the various
newspapers of the province, 4 of them which
I have on my desk— the Guelph Mercury,
the Kitchener-Waterloo Daily Record, the
Brantford Expositor, and the Cornwall Daily
Standard-Freeholder— all of them carry pic-
tures of Mr. Duncan, and an advertisement
which asks the people to listen to certain
radio broadcasts over their own local station
at a particular time.
Now what I want to ask some hon. mem-
ber over there is this: Who pays for these ad-
vertisements in the newspapers, who pays for
the radio time by which these messages are
put across?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, if my hon.
friend would give me the advertisement
which I have not seen, I shall be very glad
to inquire. I have no idea as to their inser-
tion or the arrangements made, or to who,
if anyone, has paid for them, but I will
find out.
Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's answer also apply to the radio time?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Prime Minister does
not know at all. He does not have the fog-
giest conception of who is paying for it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No. I have no idea.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the
the day, I would like to welcome to the
assembly this afternoon, pupils from the
Central Public School, Brampton, and also
embryo or budding teachers from the To-
ronto Teachers' College.
May I say- again that I always hesitate
to break into the debates of the hon. mem-
bers, but we must, in some way or other,
try to carry out some of the rules of the
House. As far as I am concerned, from this
point on we are not going to allow debate
on the question of privilege. It is outside
the rules completely.
On Tuesday last, February 11, Mr. Oliver-
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, if I might be par-
doned, I would like to say to you that I am
assuming that you are going to make the
decision in respect to the ruling which you
delayed from yesterday-
Mr. Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I think I am within the
rules, Mr. Speaker, in adding something to
the discussion before Mr. Speaker actually
makes his decision known.
The rule, as I understand it, forbids any
debate at all after the Speaker renders his
decision. But, prior to that time, Mr. Speaker
would, I am sure, like to be advised of a cer-
tain precedence which has taken place over
the past number of years.
Now, I want to give just one, and I think
that it will be quite interesting to the House.
It bears, I am sure, a close relationship to the
matter that is under advisement by Mr.
Speaker at the present time.
Back in February of 1934—1 am reading
now from the Toronto Globe and Mail of that
day, that is before the "great deterioration"
took place— the heading in that newspaper was:
Nixon Amendment Ruled Out of Order.
I think the House will appreciate just what is
contained in the following paragraphs:
Premier Henry retorted on Opposition
assailants at yesterday's legislative session,
and voiced an objection which caused with-
drawal of a second no-confidence motion
directed against the government. Leaders'
day in the debate on the address found Dr.
McQuibben of the Liberals and the hon.
Harry Nixon [the present hon. member for
Brant] each equipped with an amendment
condemning administration policies.
At the close of his opponents' speeches,
Mr. Henry rose with a demand that Speaker
T. A. Kidd rule the two amendments so
similar as to be repetition. This the speaker
did, but gave Mr. Nixon the right to pre-
pare a new and acceptable motion.
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
14T
Just before the sitting ended, the Speaker
unexpectedly called on Mr. Nixon for his
new amendment. Mr. Nixon protested that
he had no time to prepare a new motion,
the Speaker regretted but it could not stand
over, subsequently Mr. Nixon said that he
regarded the matter as finished.
Now I want to read to the House the two
amendments which were proposed in February
of 1934. The Liberal amendment coming at
the close of Dr. McQuibben's speech read as
follows :
This House views with alarm the ever-
increasing burden of taxation and debt
which the policies of this government have
imposed upon the people, and condemns
the utter failure of the government to deal
efficiently and in a business-like manner
with the problems of vital concern to the
people.
And it should be equally acceptable in this
day as it was then, because the subject matter
is here to be probed, and the conditions are
here to be assailed, just as they were in those
days.
Now, Mr. Nixon moved the amendment
that was subsequently ruled out of order, and
this is the amendment to the amendment, as
it were:
And this House respectfully submits that
your Honour's present advisors do not enjoy
the confidence of the people and that they
have usurped office for months after the
end of the term for which they were
elected, in defiance of sound constitutional
practice, and should no longer be permitted
to function as a government.
Mr. Speaker Kidd of the day ruled that
those two motions were so similar that the
last one was automatically almost ruled out
of order.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the two
motions that are now under debate, and upon
which you will render your decision in a
moment, are much more similar in character
and a great deal closer related than these two
motions, and the one of them was ruled out
of order because it was too closely identified
with the other. It was as far apart as the
poles. These are connected quite closely, I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Before I give my ruling, may
I say that I have searched the records of the
House and I can find no written or printed
record of such a ruling. Now, I am not saying
by any means that that ruling was not given,
because a great many rulings were given "off
the cuff" and they are not put down in the
records. I can find no written record of such
a ruling. Of course, there was no Hansard
in those days, therefore we have no records.
On Tuesday last, February 11, Mr. F. R.
Oliver, seconded by Mr. H. C. Nixon, moved
an amendment to the motion for an address
in reply to the speech of the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of the
session.
Yesterday, Wednesday, February 12, Mr.
D. C. MacDonald, seconded by Mr. R. Gis-
born, moved an amendment to Mr. Oliver's
amendment.
Mr. Oliver asked for a ruling on the legality
of Mr. MacDonald's sub-amendment. At that
time I reserved my ruling until today.
After consulting the authorities, my decision
is as follows:
I recall to the hon. members the fact that
the most common form of the amendment to
the amendment begins:
That the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now
before the House be amended as follows:
This clearly indicates that the sub-amend-
ment is most usually not an independent
amendment to the main motion but, in fact,
seeks to make some alteration in the first
proposed amendment.
Moreover, May's Parliamentary Practice,
fifteenth edition, at page 400 and following,
makes it clear than an amendment may be
to add or insert words, and Lewis' Parlia-
mentary Procedure in Ontario indicates that
new sections may be inserted in this manner
to the original question. That is, of course,
the effect of Mr. MacDonald's amendment.
However, Mr. Oliver's objection was based
on the fact that his original amendment was
incorporated in toto into Mr. MacDonald's
sub-amendment. I feel that this incorporation
is not only unusual but unnecessary.
Mr. MacDonald's sub-amendment can be
effected and Mr. Oliver's objection recognized
by redrafting the sub-amendment as follows:
Mr. MacDonald moves, seconded by Mr.
Gisborn,
That the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now
148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
before the House be amended by adding
thereto the following:
To clause 1, the following:
(a) through developing presently-owned
properties, and acquiring more land, for a
greatly expanded low-cost housing pro-
gramme, so that not only work will be
provided, but inflated land values will be
checked and the cost of homes brought
within the reach of a majority of our
families.
To clause 2, the following:
(a) by actions, as well as words, in co-
operating closely with all commodity
groups to build effective marketing machin-
ery; and,
(b) by dispelling the uncertainty con-
cerning the hog marketing plan with an
immediate announcement of postponement
of the vote until at least one year after the
plan has been in full operation.
I am of the opinion that this redraft will
make it clear that an hon. member who
prefers Mr. Oliver's original proposal, without
the additions proposed by Mr. Macdonald, is
free to indicate that preference by voting
against the sub-amendment and for Mr.
Oliver's amendment, and, of course, the con-
verse holds equally true, nor can such action,
I suggest, be considered inconsistent.
That is the ruling on this particular subject.
Orders of the day.
THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. Macaulay (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon I would like to have an oppor-
tunity of dealing with the speech of the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver) in
several regards, but in particular to his refer-
ences to unemployment and the tax agree-
ments.
He had two solutions. One, to the former
hold a meeting and to the latter, hold no
more meetings. But I will return in a moment
to the comments of the hon. leader of the
Opposition.
I would also like to make some reference to
the speech of the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald). There were many aspects
of his speech yesterday which I found chal-
lenging, two in particular. These were his
references to unemployment and to the tax
agreements.
Mr. MacDonald, in commencing his speech,
was very critical of the government policy in
education, and I leave the basic defence to
the hon. Minister of Education, for it is a
defence which he can well carry. But I be-
lieve that one should test the capacity of this
government in relation to our educational
policies by comparing them with what has
been done in other provinces, and I thought
perhaps the best place to turn, since those
who live in glass houses should not throw
stones, might best be immediately to Sas-
katchewan. I thought it might be interesting
to know some of the promises of the CCF
before they formed the government in Sas-
katchewan and see what they have done
afterwards.
Mr. MacDonald: How about their hospital
plan?
Mr. Macaulay: I will come to their hospital
plan, I am going to ram it down the hon.
member's throat.
Now, if I may come to the first point, Mr.
Douglas in 1944, when he was leader of the
Opposition, had this to say on the field of
education:
The CCF government will recognize the
fact that providing educational opportunity
for all children is the responsibility of the
province. The British North America Act
makes education a provincial, not a muni-
cipal or local responsibility.
Would you not conclude, Mr. Speaker, from
that statement that they were going to pay for
all of the costs of education? But do you
know what they are paying? They are paying
the lowest per cent, of any province in the
Dominion of Canada, 26 per cent. That is a
far cry, is it not, from 100 per cent.?
In 1944, secondly, the CCF had this to say:
We are in the opposition now, but we
are going to form the government next year
and when we do we are going to repeal
the tax on education. We have a tax on
education in Saskatchewan, you cannot get
one unless you pay the tax.
And what was it before they took office?
It was 2 per cent. They said: We are op-
posed to it. Mr. Fine said it is a regressive
tax. Mr. Coldwell said it was more than that,
it was an abomination.
Well, the CCF have been in power 14
years, and where is the tax? It is still there,
and do you know, Mr. Speaker, what it is
now? It is 3 per cent.
Now I turn to the third point and the third
point is this. The province of Saskatchewan
pays less towards education than does any
other province in the Dominion of Canada.
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
149
Fourthly, in relation to taxes which have
been levied against real estate to support
education in the province of Saskatchewan,
they have risen from 153 per cent, in the
cities to 296 per cent, in the towns.
Fifthly, proportionately to the number of
teachers and the population, there are more
teachers in Saskatchewan operating on tem-
porary certificates than any other province in
Canada.
Sixthly, there are some schools in Sas-
katchewan that have no teachers at all. They
have sitters to keep order. That is the great
province that was going to take over all the
cost of education. They have sitters just to
keep order.
And seventhly, in the province of Sas-
katchewan, the government prints the books,
the books are full of naked socialist propa-
ganda.
Eighthly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this
to the hon. member for York South, I never
was in a more friendly glowing warm feeling
for him than I am today, and I left him en-
tirely alone yesterday, and I did so for a very
good reason, because I knew I would needle
him badly today, and I am just starting, so
let him not get excited.
Now I want to turn to the eighth point,
and that is, in each year in Saskatchewan
there are fewer teachers entering into the
professional teaching field than the year
before, because they are the lowest paid in
any province in Canada.
Ninthly, they have supervisors in Saskat-
chewan who have not been even to normal
school.
Tenthly, their school fees have gone up
on the average of from 33 to 100 per cent.
Now, that is the great party that was
going to provide education free, repeal the
tax, and pay the whole cost of education.
Let me read two resolutions that were
presented at the last CCF convention at
Saskatchewan, and hon. members can tell
me what they think happened to them.
Resolved, that a greater percentage
of the provincial budget be used for sec-
ondary educational purposes.
What, do hon. members suppose, happened
to that resolution? Secondly:
Resolved, that proper facilities be estab-
lished to create children's interest in some
of the more common trades of today such
as agriculture, carpentry, mechanics, home
economics, etcetera.
—the thing of which the hon. member for
York South is so fond. What happened to
that resolution? They were both lost, lost
amongst the mad mass of promises.
These are but a few of the resolutions.
There are so many that I can bring in only
a couple.
Now, I say to the hon. member for York
South that yesterday he threw a lot of stones,
he must be ready today to receive a lot back,
for I have a big bag of them.
Now I intend to return to the CCF shortly,
but, Mr. Speaker, as it is customary, may I,
in speaking today, offer my congratulations
to you, sir, and add what little weight my
name has to the congratulations which have
been extended to you for your fairness, and
all the fine things that you bring by prestige
in this great House.
May I also have the honour of extending
some congratulations to the hon. mover of
the reply to the speech, the hon. member for
Peel (Mr. Kennedy). I enjoyed his speech
tremendously. It was touching, it was moving,
it was a delicious experience.
I would also like to congratulate my desk
mate, the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon) who in a very impressive manner
delighted us and taught us much, and I
thought that I detected in him a French tradi-
tion and colour much as is possessed by the
hon. member for Russell (Mr. Lavergne) for
whom we all have so much admiration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have come here today,
originally with the intention of directing all
of my comments to the budget of this prov-
ince, but I have changed them because of the
speeches that were given yesterday and the
day before by the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and the hon. member for York South.
Subjects which those two hon. members dealt
with were done so in a shirking, articulate,
ebbing-and-flowing manner as they tried to
caress the greatest passion possible from the
body of the unemployed.
Is there a crisis? What has caused it? How
long will it last and what can be done? I
intend to meet their observations, if I can,
head-on. These are some of the questions I
propose to speak about, frankly and honestly
and openly, in response to the stirring, elusive
and hit-and-run speeches of the two hon.
members.
But in order to do so, it is inevitable that
one reach back into the field of tight money.
People say tight money, the tight-money
policy of the federal government and Bank
of Canada, caused our problem. But can they
say that tight money caused our problems
150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
without giving some consideration to what
tight money is, and to what caused tight
money?
It seems to me it is wise to know the mean-
ing of the term. Tight money means that
people who want to borrow cannot find money
to borrow, or they find that the terms that
they have to pay are too high. Tight money
means nothing more than that.
Now, what caused tight money? Every
effect has a cause, and there were two causes
of tight money, I respectfully submit, and the
first one was that Canadians did not save
enough out of their earnings, and secondly
that Canadians have not produced enough
goods at reasonable enough prices. These are
the causes of tight money, and they are also
the causes of the present unemployment.
Canadian have failed to produce enough goods
and services at reasonable prices, and sec-
ondly they have failed to save enough out of
their earnings.
Firstly, hon. members may ask why, what
has savings to do with it? Well, tight money
means that people cannot borrow money
because there is not money to borrow, and
since one can borrow only from somebody
who saved, obviously, one of the first causes
of tight money is that we have not saved
enough. That is so basic that surely it is
beyond dispute.
If a person wants to borrow, for example,
a cup of sugar and he goes next door to bor-
row from his neighbour, and they have not
saved up any sugar, he cannot borrow. There
is tight sugar. But does one blame the govern-
ment because his neighbour has not saved
enough?
Well, substitute a little money and the
bank for the cup of sugar and the neighbour.
If a person goes to the bank and tries to bor-
row money, they will not lend it to him, and
they say there are far more applicants than
there is money available. The bankers say one
of the reasons is that— in fact, that the basic
reason is— that people, their customers, their
depositors, and their shareholders, have not
left enough funds with them to lend.
Banks have no money of their own, they
lend only what people leave with them to
invest, so the basic cause of tight money was
that we wanted to spend more than we
wanted to save, and that was the problem
that every Canadian faced. If there is not
enough sugar in our neighbour's larder nobody
blames the government, but when there is
not enough money in the bank, everybody
blames the government.
Now why is that? One reason, and I think
fundamentally the basic reason, is we know
the government does not grow sugar so we
do not blame it, but we know the government
has something to do with money so we do
blame it.
Now if tight money means that there is
not enough money, then is not the solution
to tight money to print more? Why did not
the Bank of Canada print more money, and
having printed more money pump it out into
the public's hands?
There is a reason. There were 4 ways in
which it could have been done, and just for
the purpose of the record I would like to
indicate very briefly what the 4 were with-
out explaining them, because each one is
subject to at least an hour-and-a-half descrip-
tion, they are very complicated.
The first is that the Bank of Canada could
have printed new money and purchased from
the public government of Canada bonds
which the public owned and have held for
some time. The public now would have new
money, the bank would have the old bonds.
That is the first method.
The second one is that the Bank of Canada
could have purchased directly from the gov-
ernment, Government of Canada securities
rather than the Government of Canada selling
the securities to the public.
Third is that the Bank of Canada could
have purchased treasury bills directly from
the government.
The fourth is that the Bank of Canada
could have kept the deposit rate as low as
possible by law and cut out secondary bank
reserves of 7 per cent.
Now I have hurried over those, but I just
want to leave this impression, the Bank of
Canada could have printed more money, and
it did not. Why did it not? That is the
point. If it had increased the amount of
money in circulation, the borrowers would
have been happier, there would have been
more money for them to borrow. For a time
they would have been quite happy.
So there was not enough money for bor-
rowers, but if the Bank of Canada had in-
creased the money supply, it would have
done great damage, for there already was
too much money for the amount of goods
and services which this country was pro-
ducing. Why is that? How can that be
proved?
Well, the best way to prove it is to look
at the cost of living. If there is the right
amount of money, the cost of living will
stay level. If there is too much money, up
will spiral the cost of living. And where
did the cost of living go? It went up.
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
151
So hon. members can see the great problem
that the Bank of Canada had. On the one
hand, there was not enough for the borrow-
ers and on the other hand there was too much
for the consumer and the saver. And let us
not forget this, I think every hon. member
of this House should realize it, that the
saver is a pretty important fellow, because
he is the fellow the borrower borrows from,
and if there are no savers and there are no
savings, there cannot be any borrowers.
Now, we just cannot go on printing money
forever. Otherwise, money would become so
plentiful that a person would have to take
a suitcase of it to the drugstore to buy a
packet of cigarettes. Printing money can
produce chaos. Now, I have covered the
first point.
Tight money came about for two reasons
—first, because there were not enough sav-
ings, and secondly, one to which I wish to
refer— is the fact that we are under-produced,
not in the matter of population but under-
produced in the way of produce. Since the
days of Jacques Carrier this country has never
produced enough for its own needs. Other-
wise, why would we have had trade deficit
after trade deficit? The fact is that we con-
sume a great more than we produce.
And here is the fundamental truth that
very few people apparently realize from what
I have read, that we produce less than we
need and the United States produces more
than it needs.
So two basic truths of our economy are
these, the United States is overproduced, and
its problem is not production, its problem is
purchasing power. In Canada, we are under-
produced and our big problem is production,
not purchasing power. And so I say to those
American labour leaders who would like to
apply— or to Canadian labour leaders who
would like to apply— some patent medicine
which may be good for the American
economy, that it may well choke the Canadian
patient.
There is a most important principle in that,
I think both the hon. leader of the Opposition
and the hon. member for York South should
realize it and, instead of hunting for head-
lines of expedience, should consider these
problems in terms of principles.
One is that goods which are priced now too
high and therefore do not sell, will not sell
more by increasing the price further still. The
same is also true of labour. We cannot escape,
in Canada, the influence of the United States
and it is not desirable, but I do think this,
that every Canadian governmental, manage-
ment and labour leader should start thinking
of Canada as a nation and not try to apply
patent medicines available in the United
States.
One of the great and disagreeable charac-
teristics, of course, of tight money, was that
it hit indiscriminately. It hit at the small
provinces, at the small municipalities which
were unable to finance their needs, as well as
the small business man.
It is at that stage that the federal govern-
ment should have stepped in and seen that
equity was done. The Liberal government
should have stepped in to augment its mone-
tary policies with fiscal policies and regula-
tions to see that equity was done. But the
Liberal government did not have courage and
it did not have confidence to do those things,
and it resigned the complete control of infla-
tion to the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of
Canada did not have the statutory power or
the capacity to control inflation alone.
In addition, it is my belief that the Bank
of Canada started to act too late and has held
on too long. It may be that there is some
defence available to the Bank of Canada in
this latter regard, because in December the
cost of living rose to the highest level it has
ever been in Canada. Inflation still is serious,
and if too suddenly and too much we over-
stimulate the Canadian economy, we are
going to have a far greater destruction than
any problem we presently face.
But the public, and this is the truth, the
public finds unemployment very painful, and
yet it does not realize that inflation can be
more destructive, in that it can wipe out our
entire economy. Inflation is still an unremoved
cancer in the body of our economy. The cost
of living is still on the march.
But the attention of this country has been
drawn from inflation and is now attendant
upon the apprehension of another depression,
aided and abetted by the harbingers of doom
opposite who harp on it and who bring it
closer so that they may caress it.
Mr. Speaker, if that is so, if the public's
attention has turned from tight money and
has turned from inflation, then I too would
like to turn from it, to this "thing," whatever
we have been discussing, this "problem," this
"unemployment" which the hon. member for
York South and the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion have been discussing.
What is "it"? Is it a new disease, what
caused it, and what can be done about it?
What is going on actually in our economy
today? Some people say it is an economic re-
cession, some people call it a pause.
I submit with respect, Mr. Speaker, it is
neither. It is something that one's stomach
152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
does 3 times a day, it is a period of digestion,
and when one's stomach does it no one
blames the government, but when one's
economy does it, everybody blames the gov-
ernment.
Now, the first weak link, I respectfully sub-
mit, in the speech of the hon. leader of the
Opposition, as he stalked and caressed the
subject from a distance, was that he felt he
could not discuss the causes of unemploy-
ment, because he was afraid a few old
chickens would come home to roost.
The first weak link in the speech of the
hon. member for York South was that he
blamed nobody but the Liberals and the
Conservatives for having brought on un-
employment; he took no stock of the con-
tribution made to unemployment today by
the segment of the economy which pays him
to come into this House and lobby on its
behalf.
I do not intend to sidestep that issue as
they did, and in so doing, I intend on the
ground of unemployment to call, to my de-
fence, 4 witnesses.
The first is Mr. Bruce Hutchinson. Cer-
tainly no one could ever accuse him of
being a Conservative-lover. He wrote in an
article not long ago:
If Mr. Diefenbaker caused the present
decline in Canadian business which the
Liberal convention exaggerated into a
major catastrophe, then he must have
shifted single-handed and over night the
economic levers of the world. The battle
cry that was sounded, which practically
amounts to "down with the Tories for caus-
ing unemployment," is manifestly nonsense
considering that the economic processes
which brought Canada to its present con-
dition began long before June 10.
The second witness which I would call is
the* unemployment situation in the United
States. It ranges from 7 per cent, national
average to 13 per cent, in different places.
Can any Canadian political party be blamed
for that?
The third witness would be an article
which I read recently in the Atlantic Monthly
of the unemployment in Red China which
is estimated to be over 15 per cent. Can
any Canadian party be truthfully said to have
contributed to that?
The fourth witness is the CCF themselves
in Saskatchewan. If the Conservatives and
the Liberals created unemployment, and if
a province can do anything about it, then
I would be interested in knowing why un-
employment in Saskatchewan is at the same
level as the national average. Now there
are many witnesses one can call, no province
alone can cure unemployment, and I am sure
that no one, even the socialists, would say
that, although I rather felt that my hon.
friend from York South was suggesting it
yesterday. If he is suggesting it, then there
are certainly a lot of little socialists who
stand indicted for dereliction of duty in Sas-
katchewan.
I think it is most important for us to look
at the cause of these matters. After all, my
hon. friend the hon. leader of the Opposition
yesterday, or the day before, talked of reme-
dies. He felt a meeting should be held. I do
not know if he suggested anything else but I
will give him credit, I am sure he must have,
but there is no point in talking about what can
be done about a problem unless one looks to
see what are the causes of it. Because, in
doing something to cure it, one may very
well bring about the same conditions which
created it.
With great respect, my submission is that
the Canadian economy sat down some years
ago to a table and has been eating like a
starved urchin ever since, and has only once
gotten up from the table, and now it has
developed great pains and aches, and these
pains and aches are generating gas in great
quantities both from politicians and the body
politic.
The real fact is that we have never in
this country stopped eating for the last few
years in our economy. We cannot have a gross
national product jump 10 and 11 and 18 per
cent., widiout sitting down and doing a little
digesting, and we are now in a period of
digestion. If we spend the time wisely, we
will go on to have another meal later in the
day, but if we do not, we will develop chronic
indigestion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all inflations and defla-
tions and digesting periods, since and before
the days of the Phoenicians, have all had
their own characteristics, and a period of
digestion coming upon a period of inflation as
we are going through today has 4 obvious
characteristics.
One, we have stationary profit in industry.
Two, we have stationary production in indus-
try. Three, we have stationary tax revenues
from industry, and four, we have rising costs
and unemployment. This is true regardless of
the patent medicine we may take.
This is a period of digestion, and the only
real issue is: what caused it, how long will it
last, and what can we do about it? In relation
to what caused it I would just like to add
this, that unemployment itself is not a disease,
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
153
it is a symptom, and public works pro-
grammes and crash programmes will help per-
haps the symptom, but will do nothing to cure
the disease. In the long run the fundamental
truth of the matter is that we must cure the
disease, and while my hon. friends, the hon.
member for York South and the hon. leader
of the Opposition are fighting for the warm
glow of public approval, as to which one of
them moved the first motion of want of con-
fidence on account of unemployment, I would
suggest to both of them that they stop hunting
headlines and start looking for a few prin-
ciples.
The real fact of the matter is, the disease
is that industry cannot sell its products, and
if it cannot sell its products then it cannot
employ labour. There are 3 real reasons for
this.
For 5 years or more, our economy has fed
upon foreign investment which came into this
country in torrents. We built factories and
warehouses and apartments and hotels and so
forth with money belonging to foreign people.
We do not own them and we are not going to
get the profits from them either, the profits
are going to fly back home.
But that is not the issue today. The fact
is, the money came in in a torrent and now it
is a trickle. And while that money poured in
in a torrent, there were hundreds of thousands
of employees who were fed by it and hun-
dreds of companies which held up their arms
and were embraced by it. But it is not there
now, and they have nothing to embrace in its
place, and the real truth of the matter is that
in this period, when there was this great
inflow of foreign capital, the federal govern-
ment was doing nothing to create the day or
the atmosphere in relation to trade to take
the place when the torrent would reduce
itself to a trickle which it was bound to do.
It was bound to do so because foreigners
could invest in this country only the money
which they had saved, and now they have
gone through their savings.
It is not that we are not so good a country,
or that we have changed. It was bound to
happen, people cannot go on spending forever
without savings.
There was a second cause, and this, Mr.
Speaker, was the most direct of them all, and
it lies at the feet of managment and labour.
For years, labour has demanded increased
wages of management, and management has
paid them irrespective of whether it was
brought on because of increased production,
or because competition in the world or in the
nation justified it. Labour demanded increased
wages on this basis. Why not? If management
can find a way to slough them off and pay
them, it is up to management.
And management did find a way. It poured
it into the increased cost of goods. Now the
situation has backfired because management
and labour together have priced many of our
goods out of our own market and out of the
foreign market. We cannot develop trade
unless we have buyers.
We cannot make buyers buy who do not
want to buy because our goods cost too much.
We cannot make them buy, and there is a
truth of every economy and that is this—
that we cannot sell if we have no buyers.
There is no point in looking at the govern-
ment either. Management has berated labour,
and labour has berated management, and
when they both got sick of that fruitless duel,
they turned and both berated all levels of
government.
Now, there is no sense in them duelling
for higher wages, if when they get finished,
it is going to produce an increased cost of
the product which the buyer already will
not buy. The reason buyers today are not
buying is not because of the fact that they
do not have the money, it is because the
goods are costing too much for what they
are worth.
Labour says, "but look at the terribly high
depreciation rates." They are not high, but
surely the answer is that if there are not
depreciation rates, by the time your machine
or building comes to the end of its useful-
ness, you have nothing left aside to replace
it, and if you do not replace it, every one
of the employees will be out of work. It is
awfully short-sighted to try to raise a few
votes on that kind of a premise.
There is a second proposition labour makes.
It looks at the dividend rate. Look at it.
It is about 5.4 per cent, interest on one's
money, on the average across the board. And
I say this, hon. members cannot tell me that
industry can borrow money if it does not
pay a dividend.
There was a poll held a few years ago,
a public opinion poll in Toronto amongst
the working class and they were asked,
"What interest would you demand to invest
in a company or lend money?" The average
was: "Between 8 and 12 per cent., before
we are going to take the risk of losing our
money." If we cut off dividends, there will
be nobody lending money to industry. And
then how will industry expand? In this
country if one does not expand, one goes
backwards.
154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, I would say to my lion, friends op-
posite who have taken the position they have,
that dividends should increase and can only
increase with increased productivity.
The same is true of wages. Labour can-
not go on demanding more and producing
less because this nation, every one of us, and
we are all in that class, all wanting more
and producing less, live by the production
of this country.
While employment was high, governments
were told to mind their own business and
now that employment has developed into un-
employment there is not a soul in sight to
accept any responsibility for what was hap-
pening while the government did mind its
own business.
I say this frankly, Mr. Speaker, that man-
agement and labour must accept their share.
They set the wages and the wages deter-
mine the price of the goods. They set the
volume of production, and it is the volume
of production which helps to settle prices.
No government controls either prices or pro-
duction. These are controlled by manage-
ment and labour.
Certainly, the government has some re-
sponsibility, but crash programmes and pub-
lic works will not cure unemployment. They
will alleviate it for a while, but it will be
worse in no time. As I say, one of the an-
swers lies solely in the hands of manage-
ment and labour, and while they are shoving
each other around in front of the warm fire
to get a warm place, the fire is going out.
And people can talk all they want about
governments priming pumps, but you can only
put a certain amount of water in, and if
you run into a dry well, you cannot prime
that forever. A primed dry well sucks noth-
ing but air.
Now management cannot pass on the buck
any longer because the consumer will not
buy the goods. The real fact is that labour
and management have got to come to a com-
promise to survive in this position, because
the nation cannot survive on increased wages
and decreased production forever, and now
is ever.
There is a third cause of this period of
digestion, and it is psychological and it is
a characteristic of Canadians. My hon.
friends opposite made great fun of the hon.
Prime Minister when he talked about it, in
trying to belittle him by saying that he had
his head in the sand and he was ignoring
unemployment, and that all he was doing
was hoping that if he talked loud enough about
how good things were, he could forget all
about unemployment. But both of my hon.
friends opposite overlook a fundamental fact
of man, and that is, that confidence is one of
man's greatest assets, that and his dignity of
person and his willingness to work. If one has
a sense of dignity, and has a feeling of con-
fidence, and has a preparedness to work, he
will succeed.
So I say to both of my hon. friends opposite,
let them not belittle self-confidence be it na-
tional or of the person. Simply because neither
of them give the impression that this nation
should have any confidence, it does not mean
they need to destroy it in the eyes of the rest
of us, otherwise they establish themselves as
very poor judges of human nature.
We in Canada have established-
Mr. MacDonald: He is living with his il-
lusions.
Mr. Macaulay: —that we have never had a
great deal of self-confidence. We have al-
lowed other foreign nations to develop our
own national resources, and when they
stopped pouring in their money to do so, we
stood up in sort of a neurotic trance.
Look at the stock market. Some hon. mem-
bers ask: "What good is talking confidence?"
But let them look at the stock market. Be-
cause Mr. Eisenhower had a heart attack,
there were billions of dollars lost from the
stock market. The stocks are as good or as
bad as they were the day he had the heart
attack.
Mr. Eisenhower gets better and up go the
stocks. Russia sends up a sputnik and down
go the stocks. The United States sends up
a sputnik and up go the stocks, as my hon.
friend from Leeds (Mr. Auld) says, "higher
than the sputnik."
Now, that is nothing more than confidence,
and so my hon. friends can say what they
want about belittling the hon. Prime Minister
or anybody else about their confidence, be-
cause it does not mean much to people like
them. All they can see is the black crepe.
Now I would only say to them, if they want
to judge what confidence or the lack of it
really can do for a person, let me go to
Saskatchewan, that favourite myopia of lands.
Mr. MacDonald: Hurrah, we are out there
in the west again. "Go west, young man, go
west."
Mr. Macaulay: Now I would like to point
out, and one of the fundamental rules, I
always thought, Mr. Speaker, of this House,
was that unless a member was standing, his
microphone was turned off, and although I
am under the impression that my hon. friend
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
155
is standing in spirit, he is sitting physically
and I wonder if we could turn off his micro-
phone.
Now, turning as I say to the bible of the
CCF party, we will find in the first chapter
of the CCF epistle, the eighth verse:
The executive council or any authorized
member may expropriate without consent
of the owner, any land, industry, or com-
mercial enterprise carried on in Saskatche-
wan.
Mr. MacDonald: That is what Union Gas
Company is doing all the time.
Mr. Macaulay: Now, Mr. Speaker, would
you conclude from that, that my hon. friend's
microphone was cut off? Is it possible to
assume control of this gadget, or it may be on
the other hand that the hon. member has
more friends here than I thought.
Now to get back to the point. If we get
into the issue of this eighth verse of the first
gospel of the CCF, and wonder what effect
that has had— I would have thought it would
destroy confidence of people who would want
to go into Saskatchewan, and I leave it to this
House to conclude. In 1944, there were 326,-
000 people in the labour force. That was
when the CCF came to power. In 1958 there
are 308,000, it dropped 18,000 people in the
labour force. In the province of Ontario, the
labour force when the Conservative govern-
ment came into power was 1.49 million and
today it is 2.195 million, an increase of
700,000.
Now I want to read a couple of little
quotations which rather interested me. They
would horrify me if I had to live in Sas-
katchewan, but here are some of them, and
this is one of Mr. ColdwelTs:
Profit and ownership have to go. We
must have a mental revolution or we shall
have a physical one.
Then Mr. Irven said:
We do not believe in the so-called rights
of public property.
Mr. Weaver, at the annual convention of
the CCF in Winnipeg, said:
We ought to remember that the con-
stitution was not made to bind the CCF,
we are not concerned with capitalistic con-
stitutions as soon as we can wreck them.
Now there are a couple of other quotations
which rather interested me, and I wonder
whether hon. members think they would pro-
duce confidence, and whether they think that
this kind of propaganda has produced a
reducing population and a reducing labour
force, and a reducing many other things.
Mr. MacDonald: Are these quotes in the
thirties?
Mr. Macaulay: Here, for example, is a
quotation from the book Social Planning:
There seems to be no reason why interest
should be paid on deposits. Nor can we
see much likelihood of the circumstances
arising under a socially planned economy in
which it would be desirable to pay interest
on deposits.
So I say of this book called Social Plan-
ning, page 307, Mr. Speaker, for anyone who
has any money in the bank, the minute those
fellows get into power, get it out of the bank.
I do not know where they will put it, they
will find a place, but just get it out of the
bank.
Another quotation which interested me was
one which appeared in Democracy Needs
Socialism. I have always thought that my hon.
friends were honour bound to say they were
true socialists, I thought they considered
themselves socialist. I admit there are social-
ists and socialists. A socialist government may
pay reasonable compensation to existing share-
holders when socializing in industry, but it
should be noted that this does not involve
cash but simply exchange securities that will
bear no interest. So anyone who owns any-
thing, get rid of it. Because the day is go-
ing to come, they are going to give you
some bonds and they are going to pay no
interest on them and there will not be any-
body who will buy them.
Who wants to buy them when they are
going down in value and they do not bear
interest? Not even those fellows who issued
them.
Let me tell hon. members what Mr. Cold-
well said in the House of Commons in 1942:
The present loan policy should be re-
placed by one of compulsory interest-free
loans.
Let me tell hon. members what Mr. Phelps
said, he is a member of the CCF in the Sas-
katchewan House:
The CCF is prepared to confiscate if
necessary, if it is necessary I do not back
up one inch.
156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Let me tell what another man by the name
of Lynch had to say:
We will nationalize the financial system
of the Dominion, therefore there will be
no money paid in the form of interest.
Now, lest the hon. members in this House
think that they are the only ones to whom
this has been directed, there are a lot of
farmers here, and I think they would be in-
terested in hearing a few of the CCF's ob-
servations on the farming community. They
said, and this is from the CCF Saskatchewan
farmer group labour handbook:
We cannot definitely state how much
land a man will be allowed to hold.
Now let me tell hon. members what Mr.
Leven said. The hon. CCF members keep
asking what year is this, I can only conclude
that they must have changed their minds!
Now, Mr. Leven said that while they do
not intend to control the land, ultimately
farmers could stay on their farms as long as
they wished, but they could not will the
property on their death to anyone else. I
suggest the farmers give that a little thought.
Let me tell them another one:
The CCF has considered socialization of
land. There are many advantages to the
farmer from some form of socialization,
we can learn much from Russia in this
respect.
Stalin said: "I like the Pope but how many
divisions has he got?" Is that the business
we are in for?
"If the farmer wants a co-operative com-
monwealth in which everything is socialized
but himself, he better have a co-operative
commonwealth of his own" or as Mr. Mc-
Ginnis said, "we shall have to force them to
the socialistic view."
Do you wonder, really, Mr. Speaker, why
the Saskatchewan labour forces dropped down
18,000, or why when they have had a birth
increase of 135,000 in the same period their
population has gone down 50,000?
If we are careful and watch Mr. Douglas'
quotes, they are wonderful, he says last year,
after years of the CCF in power, the mineral
production of the province has gone out of
sight, and he talks of it in terms of dollars,
but he forgets to tell the reason why it has
gone out of sight. It is because the cost of
living went out of sight. The real fact is
that the production in tons and pounds has
gone down.
•■• i «
Interjection by some hon. member.
Mr. Macaulay: Well, the hon. member can
say all he wants, I am prepared to have my
veracity tested against his any day.
Now in relation to this particular matter,
the CCF and Saskatchewan did not eradicate
capitalism, they drove industry out of the
province, and that is why, regarding con-
fidence, my hon. friend can belittle as much as
he likes the hon. Prime Minister for his con-
fidence, but Saskatchewan is losing its in-
dustry, it is losing its zest for living, its
population is going down, and so is the poli-
tical support for the hon. members opposite.
They can belittle the expression of confidence
all they like, but it is a vital matter.
Now, let us go back to the question of the
Liberals. We would think from the way that
they carried on for as long as they carried
on, they had a policy. But if they did their
trade policy was simply this: "While the rest
of the world eat their economic competitors,
we are going to wait until ours die." That is
fundamentally it, "or we get eaten first, which-
ever happens sooner."
The real fact is involved in the question of
self-confidence, and what it will do for a
nation. If hon. members want to know the
real reason, in my humble opinion, why Mr.
Diefenbaker had to call an election-
Interjection by some hon. member.
Mr. Macaulay: All right, I will tell the
House, and it is not a really creditable story.
In fact, I will go so far and say it is disloyal.
We were cut off and threatened to be cut
off in the American markets from our oil
exports. This country lives and breathes by
our exports, and if we do not export we do
not live. Now, life is that simple. And the
real issue is that the Americans cut off our
oil in parts of the United States, and this is
what happened when our government, the
Conservative government, went to Washing-
ton to protest and say: "You cannot do it, we
are an honourable friend, we are a good
neighbour, you have all of your self -protection
apparatus in our country; we are carrying our
fair share and we have done it before; do not
cut us off, do not choke us, that is one of the
most important things we need."
What happened? Let hon. members read
Hansard. The Liberal and CCF axis got up
and they in effect said to the Americans: "Do
not pay any attention to them, they are just a
minority, over-night guests, do not worry
about them."
Hon. Mr. Frost: Sell the country down the
river.
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
157
Mr. Macaulay: Certainly, sell them down
the river for one reason, because they are
fighting, fighting simply because they have
no confidence, and what I say is this, and I
have said it before, that what the hon. Prime
Minister has indicated in the way of con-
fidence is a vital matter, and he was quite
correct in underscoring the whole issue.
Now I have attempted to indicate, Mr.
Speaker, in a recapitulation that there are 3
reasons why we have this period of digestion.
An inflow of foreign capital has been cut off;
secondly, our national and international mar-
kets are for the moment lost because we have
priced ourselves out of them; and thirdly, we
are short of confidence.
I say, as the hon. Prime Minister has sug-
gested, the axis is prepared apparently to
have a depression in the hope that it will help
it more than it hurts the economy, but they
are prepared to take the risks.
Mr. Speaker, inherent in these causes that
I have outlined are the 3, I respectfully sub-
mit, cures which must be undertaken:
Firstly, we cannot help anything or have
anything to do with the decreased flow of
money coming in from foreign markets, but
we can develop greater trade, but our greater
trade is going to depend upon better prices
and better qualities.
Secondly, if we produce more, we can
reduce the price, and we can reduce the cost
of living. I believe that wages should advance
with production and with the cost of living,
but wages have outstripped production.
Thirdly, I believe that all levels of govern-
ment must assist in priming the problem,
within the fields of their own constitutional
obligations.
Now, to come to Ontario: "What has
Ontario done in relation to this problem?"
the hon. member for York South was asking.
The real fact is that Ontario undertook a
crash public works programme in the 1950's.
We have been producing hundreds and hun-
dreds of millions of dollars, and my respect-
ful submission is we have led every province
in this country. We are ahead by miles. We
did not wait until 1957 or 1958 to start on
any public works crash programme, we en-
larged on it and went into it as soon as it
was possible after the war.
And I suspect that our debt, our net debt
in this province by the end of next year will
be— and this may shock the hon. member for
Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer)— will be
$1 billion. While the debt of all the other
provinces are going down and being wiped
out except the Maritimes, ours has more than
doubled.
We are pouring out in this province at
capacity, and I believe another figure that
may shock the hon. member, although he will
know from the budget in a matter of a few
weeks, I would think that it is quite possible
that in this year we had a deficit of over $100
million.
That is what this province has been doing,
that is what we have been building, and we
had a programme long before anybody else
even started on it.
The point on which I want to conclude in
relation to that is this, that I respectfully
submit, that the udder of the cow is now
dry. There are a lot of people in this country
who want to say, "Chop up the cow and
we will eat it," and there are a few others
who say, "Feed it, so we can milk it again."
Now that is the choice that the people of
this country have, it seems to me, they have
it and will make it if they are honestly in-
formed by people of integrity.
I wish people would know when to shut
up when they are not on their feet.
Now, I want to turn, in conclusion, to two
matters, the second of which the hon. member
has been anxiously prompting me, that is the
tax agreements and the budget, but firstly I
would like to make some very short reference
to the budget.
Arising obviously from what I have said
is the obvious conclusion that the gross
national product is, in quotes, "relatively
stable." I say "relatively" because, although
it is imperceptibly rising— the cost of living
or rather the part of the gross national product
which is rising— and there is a greater part of
it in the increased wages than in increased
production. And although the gross national
product, in short, is rising a little, the part of
the production rising is very small.
Now what is that going to mean? To On-
tario, it is going to mean this, that our
revenues are going to stand still for the com-
ing period, apart from the question of the $22
million and any additional change in the tax
agreements which will come about after the
Conservatives win the election on March 31.
So, on the one hand we will have stationary
revenues apart from any changes in the tax
agreements, and on the other hand we are
faced with drastically uprising costs.
I suspect that in relation to our budget,
the mining tax returns were lower than were
estimated. I would think likely the corpora-
tion tax returns are lower than were estim-
ated. And even with the $22 million, unless
we get a better deal next year or this year
from the backcoming Conservative govern-
ment, I would think that our revenues, includ-
158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ing the $22 million, are likely to be no more
next year than they are at this time. And
that all presumes no new taxes in this prov-
ince.
My respectful submission in relation to
taxes is this, I have always pleaded contra-
cyclical budgeting, and I do not think this is
any time to raise taxes. I do not think the tax
structure should be altered with exception
perhaps of two things, a modest revision of
the logging tax and some impost in rela-
tion to the hospital plan if that is required.
I would think, in some summary of the
budget, it could be this, I would suspect
that this year we have brought in, in revenue,
in the year that will end on March 31, be-
tween $600 million and $615 million. I
would believe that our deficit is between $90
million and $100 million, and that we will
have a small surplus on ordinary account,
and that our debt increase will be between
$90 million and $100 million.
I would think for the coming year 1958-
1959, our revenues will likely be about $625
million, our deficit will likely be $140 million.
I hope we can have again a small surplus
on ordinary account, and I would anticipate
that our debt will increase by $115 million.
That will mean that we will have increased
our debt, if I am correct, by somewhere in
the neighbourhood of $200 million to $215
million in this province in two years, to help
carry a tremendous load which constitution-
ally we are obligated to do, and which we
assumed in 1943, and secondly, our tremen-
dous crash programme constituted to help
stimulate the economy.
This is a tremendous load, and it is some-
thing which, when we look at those figures,
if I am accurate, or even if I am within
10 per cent, of the figures, revitalizes again
the question of the tax agreements.
Now, I come to the favourite subject of
the hon. member for York South.
In relation to the tax agreements, Mr.
Speaker, they are again under review by the
federal government. Last year the hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition were critical of the
hon. Prime Minister, critical of him because
he fought on behalf of Ontario to obtain a
better deal from the then federal Liberal
government. They were critical because they
said, as I understood them, that the agree-
ments were fair, just, equitable and above
all, constitutional.
Now, on the other hand, we have a better
deal, and the only thing they have to com-
plain about is that it was not as good a
deal as we should have had.
The real fact is that we cannot please
them. While the hon. Prime Minister fought
for the province of Ontario, the hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition fought for the Liberal
government in Ottawa, and that is an issue
which we are going to take to the people
in the next provincial election, and we will
leave it to them to decide whether "Old
Man Ontario" fought for them and got
them a better deal, and I know now what
they are going to say.
This is the truth, if the hon. members of
the Opposition last year had called these
agreements what they really were last year,
unfair and unjust, this year* they would have
been able to rise and complain, but they
cannot because the agreements were "just
grand" last year and they are better this
year, so it is a "better grand" agreement.
Now, the real fact of the matter is that
the hon. leader of the Opposition and the
hon. member for York South were critical
of the conference. How can the hon. leader
of the Opposition be critical of a confer-
ence that lasted a whole day when he
went down to Ottawa in 1935 with Mr. Hep-
burn, and they did not even get out "God
Save the King" before he broke it up?
In any event, there is an additional factor
which is quite evident. The hon. leader of
the Opposition and the hon. member for
York South say that the conference produced
nothing. The conference amongst many other
things produced one figure, $166 million—
$100 million for the Maritimes and $66 mil-
lion for the rest of the provinces, and I must
admit that a few weeks ago $166 million
was a great deal of money.
It may not be much, now that hon. Mr.
Pearson has been in hibernation, but it was
a lot of money then.
The real reason they are critical, they say,
is that it was given as an election bribe.
Here is an interesting fact, it was promised
before the last election. It was clear to any-
body who could read, and I mean no offence.
Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker promised it as one of
the terms of his, of one of the promises of his
election. He promised, and if we had not
brought it in we would have been damned,
and if we did bring it in we are damned, so
"damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead."
And now I want to say to the hon. leader
of the Opposition, because he is the man who
always wants to be right on the nose— in fact,
he likes everything to be correct— that I often
am wrong when I get into a debate with him
because he has had far more experience than
I have. I did not get into a debate with him
on this subject, so I find I am right when I
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
159
go and look up the figures that the agreements
were amended from 10 per cent, to 13 per
cent., and the agreements will run on that
basis for 5 years, until they are amended or
unless they are amended, so the $22 million or
whatever comes in will come in each year.
Mr. Oliver: On that point, would the hon.
member allow me to ask this question? He
says the agreements were amended. Has the
province of Ontario signed the amendments to
the agreement?
Mr. Macaulay: The hon. leader of the
Opposition is showing that he has a more
technical grasp of the English grammar than
I thought he professed to possess the other
day when he was talking about his qualifica-
tions to discuss education. But I do not think
actually one can truthfully describe the mat-
ter as to "the agreements being amended."
There was enabling legislation passed in the
federal House which entitles all of the prov-
inces to the money if they want to take it.
We will go to the country on that and we
will take the $22 million any way we get it.
The real fact of this matter, in a more
serious vein, is this, that the agreements are
not satisfactory. They are not satisfactory in
the least.
That is one of the reasons why we need a
Conservative victory on March 31 in the in-
terests of this province, because the Liberal
and CCF axis voiced at these agreements-
there was not a dissenting vote of the CCF
against these agreements when they were put
into force, or passed as enabling legislation,
last year. Their axis rammed it down the
House, and now neither of their policies, that
I can see, in the coming election holds out
any hope to any province that these agree-
ments will be amended.
There is only one party which says that it
will do something about amending these
agreements, and that is the Conservative
party. That is one of the fundamental reasons
why the Conservative party must be returned
to power for the interests of the country and
for the interests of this province on March 31.
The real fact of the matter is, and the
Liberals and the CCF members have never
understood this, they have always been cen-
tralists, they have been centralists for a long
time, from away back, they believed that
trees and crops and economy lacked water
and starved from the top down, but they do
not, they starve from the bottom up.
It is the municipalities in the provinces
which are providing the atmosphere and the
area for development, the areas for producing
revenues. That is why, it seems to me, incon-
gruous and almost economically a little
immoral that we should see all parties clam-
ouring in Ottawa to reduce taxes at the top
while the municipalities and provinces at the
bottom are faced with increased debt and
increased taxes.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in relation to
these tax agreements, that the real test of a
good tax agreement is whether it reflects
the amount a province has created in terms
of its debt, its total income, and its cost to
service— the created income— and I respect-
fully submit that the tax agreements should
not be amended, they should be repealed.
I submit that the tax agreements should
be substituted for an agreement based on the
contribution that a province makes to the
gross national product of Canada and, sec-
ondly, that these agreements should be aug-
mented by regional assistance grants, and
thirdly, that there should be a floor put under
revenue, so that the agreements, the new sub-
stituted agreements that I would enforce,
would have 3 parts:
First, each province would receive 3 per
cent, of its contribution to the gross national
product. The gross national product of Canada
is $30 billion. Ontario produces 40 per cent,
of the total gross national product, that is
$12 billion. Three per cent, of $12 billion is
$360 million, and that is the amount that this
province should be paid on that formula for
giving up all of its present 3 fields of taxation
to which it is entitled.
One person in this House will ask
me: "My hon. friend, why do you pick 3
per cent?" I would only say back to him:
Why did he, in his party, pick 9, 10 and 50?
Under part 1, then, one-sixth of the national
budget would be devoted to the tax agree-
ments and the money necessary to create the
atmosphere in the provinces and the muni-
cipalities, because it is only there that the
hand, the real hand and strength, of the
federal government lies.
The second part I would still continue as
equalization payments, but I would not con-
tinue them on the basis of the formula,
because we cannot adjust economy on the
basis of a formula. We can adjust it only on
the grounds of a heart of equity.
Thirdly, I believe there should be a basic
floor of revenue under the agreements.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, these
agreements were never more important in the
economic history of this country, and they
were never more important to any province
than that of Ontario, and I would say this, in
closing, that I have sought this afternoon to
160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
put to this House, some of the reflections of
some of the issues for which I feel very
strongly, even if on some of them I must, in
so doing, stand alone. I believe this, that I
would rather stand behind a principle in
which I believe than behind a green curtain.
I cannot always, nor can anyone else always
obtain approbation, that is something that is
available only for the dead, and not all of
them.
Edmund Burke said as far back as 1774, "to
tax and to please, no more than to love and be
wise, is not given to men" and I would com-
mend to this House, to my hon. colleagues in
it and to the government, one of the poems,
a short one by Proctor, which I think has so
much of the effect of today:
Rise for the day is passing,
And we lie thinking on,
But some who have buckled their armour,
And forced the fight are gone,
A place in the ranks awaits you,
Each man has some part to play,
The past and the future are nothing
In the face of the stern today.
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): Mr.
Speaker, I first would like to congratulate
you on the very fine way in which you are
controlling your "bad boys" in the House
and also to congratulate our new hon. mem-
bers on being elected to this House. I am
very happy to see a group of new younger
men coming in. We older grey-headed hon.
members must look forward to the time, prob-
ably not too many years away, when we will
not be here to assist in carrying on the business
of this House. It is very gratifying to see
young men coming in to take over, which
must of course always be the case.
I want to congratulate the hon. mover
(Mr. Kennedy) and hon. seconder (Mr. Guin-
don) of the speech from the Throne. We
always enjoy hearing my hon. friend, the
mover, and I want to congratulate the hon.
seconder of the motion for the very fine way
in which he delivered his seconding motion.
He has a wonderful voice, he could be heard
in every part of the chamber.
I feel sure that there is a great deal of
meat in the speech from the Throne, a great
deal of useful legislation which will be to
the good of the province of Ontario.
I regret that so many of my friends have
passed away in the last year and have left
vacancies that cannot be filled by the new hon.
members, as far as we older hon. members
are concerned, but that is a way of life that
we must face and cannot do anything about,
but we do revere the memory of our friends
who have passed along to their rewards.
I want to personally thank the hon. Prime
Minister ( Mr. Frost ) for his efforts in getting
some help to our users of rural hydro in
the back concessions, who are having diffi-
culty in getting hydro in their homes. Very
greatly due to the efforts of the hon. Prime
Minister, who is always sympathetic to the
people on the back roads, as he has shown
so very often, we got hydro privileges ex-
tended, so now the Ontario Hydro will build
a line two-thirds of a mile instead of one-
third, which is going to mean a very great
deal to many of the people in the province
of Ontario.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am coming into this
debate for one reason and one reason only.
As you know, I have not taken too much
part in debates in this House, only when I
had something I wanted to talk about, that
I felt was of interest to my people and to
the interest of Ontario, and something which
I felt I knew something about and could
discuss with some understanding.
Today, I want to discuss the pipe lines
in the province of Ontario.
I am very greatly worried about a situa-
tion which is developing. I can see, in look-
ing back, and of course, it is easy to be
wise afterward to see where we have made
very grave mistakes when pipe lines were first
being established in this province. I can
see where this government, and probably
the government in Ottawa, should have got
together and established a route for pipe
lines across the province and kept them all
controlled and confined to that area. It
would have saved a great deal of difficulty
and a lot of heartache to a lot of people in
this province.
We all recognize that we must have pipe
lines, and I have never yet heard a sugges-
tion that we should not have pipe lines. We
must recognize the fact that the traffic on
our highways now is more than the highways
can bear, and if oil products were not carried
by pipe lines, it would not be possible to
maintain highways, to service the trucks and
automobiles that we own.
It might interest hon. members to know
that, across my riding, I now have 6 pipe
lines running east and west, and probably
10 or 12 running north and south.
We will all agree that pipe lines must go
through, and that they must go through with
as little damage as possible to the property
owners.
A point I want to make today is that in
my riding a high-power hydro line was put
through without any trouble. It was a special
contract when we were short on hydro, the
FEBRUARY ;13, 1958
161
purpose was to get high tension in. the line
from Sarnia to London.:
Also, the Imperial Oil pipe line Went
through. The company had no right to ex-
propriate, they got through in an agreeable
manner, and we heard very little about it.
The only time I had any trouble was when
the contractor got out of hand and was driv-
ing through fences and was destroying pro-
perty. I got on the phone and called the
Imperial Oil Company, and explained what
was going on, and they immediately took
over, and after that, there was not a word of
complaint about the Imperial Oil going
through. They had no support from any
government, they went through on their own.
Then I had the Sun Oil Company come
across through my riding. They had no right
to expropriate, and they got through quietly
and agreeably. There was no quarrelling, no
taking people to courts of any kind. The Bell
Telephone line went across with a cable, and,
oif course, they "have rights to expropriate, to
which I will refer later on. I have a brief
which was presented to Ottawa on Bell Tele-
phone rights.
We had the Interprovincial Oil line come
through, with rights to expropriate from the
federal government.
I was very greatly interested just the other
day to hear the question about the gas line
in northern Ontario. It sounds so natural that
I thought I was at home where I could hear
the complaints.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the way
these companies, with power from the govern-
ment to expropriate, start a conversation?
They go into the farmer and they say: "We
want the right for an easement through your
property." Almost before the farmer has a
chance to say a word, they say: "We are going
to go through anyway, we can take your
property, we have the right from the govern-
ment to do it."
The farmer's first reply is, "Well, to blazes
with the government for giving them that
right. This is my property."
From there on it is an argument and every-
body is angry.
Before I go on with the lines, I want to
tell this House that the first oil well in Lamb-
ton county came into production 100 years
ago last June, and that same oil field is still
producing oil in paying quantities. About the
same time, a salt well came into production
in very near the same area. That salt well
remained in production until about 1 or
1% years ago. The company is being re^
organized now and they intend to go on pro-
ducing salt.
A few years after, the first gas wells were
brought in, and they have been producing gas
ever since in that area, and are still produc-
ing gas in very large quantities.
Something that will astonish the House, I
am going to say right now, is that from the
year that the Union Gas Company brought
their first gas well in, they never paid a dollar
to the property owner for gas. They got that
gas free over all those years. . ,
Then they come along and want to put a
gas line through and they hope that the
farmers love them and will let them through;
It does not look very good when we see where
there are about 600 farms they had to go
through, and 400 they had to expropriate or
take action against. . *v:
All the opportunity the property owner has
is to, go to court, and he gets very little sa,tis-
f action there because,, in different areas i he
comes before a different judge. A different
judge gets different evidence and he has dif-
ferent ideas. We find, in one place, a decision
giving them no increase On their property
value but probably some increase on their
damages. We find another judge takes a dif-
ferent view, taking a very dim view of the
fact that they have a reason to cross their
property, and there is a blight on their deed,
and offering them $1,000, so there we have
the situation and the chance that the farmer
had to get something by going to court with
an oil or gas company where they had the
right to expropriate.
Now I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that
the Union Gas Company knew 3 years before
they started going through that they wanted
that line and intended to put it through. They
waited until within a few months of the time
they were to go through, then in spite of the
fact that Interprovincial Oil line had gone
through, with rights to expropriate it, but had
gone along and offered the farmers $150 an
acre and paid all damages, Union Gas came
along and offered 50 cents a rod.
Can hon. members imagine that? Then,
after dickering for weeks, they got up to $1
a rod. They were not making any headway
and they came along and got up to $150 an
acre, but would accept no damages to amount
to anything.
The farmers were aroused about it, called
me to many meetings, and there was no advice
I could give them. They asked me what I
would do in the same situation, and I could
only answer that I would not sign, and they
162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
did not sign, most of them, but some of them
did.
It was getting late in the fall, and the
pressure was beginning to come on, and the
company wanted to get through. They were
putting pressure on our fuel board, and I am
critical of the fuel board, and I do not like
to be critical of a public servant in this House
but I cannot help it. We were working
hard, in co-operation with farmers' federation,
to get some settlement. I discussed the matter
with the former Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Porter) and the chairman of the fuel board.
The fuel board sent up one of their chief
gas inspectors, who worked with the federa-
tion in trying to find some other route for
this pipe line which would do less damage
to the farm property. They were able to ar-
range that the pipe line go straight across
the country, do very little damage, and it is
almost wholly acceptable by the people. But
no, Union Gas refused to accept that route,
and forced the fuel board to give way to them
and issue them— let hon. members remember
that they required a certificate from the fuel
board before they could go through and have
a right to expropriate— they forced the fuel
board in this way.
It seems strange that, just at that time,
representatives of all the urban centres which
wanted gas landed up in Toronto, at the fuel
board, demanding that this pipe line be
allowed to go through. The fuel board gave
way and issued the certificate.
Then they had to call these farmers into
London for a hearing to state why they
refused to sign up, and to inform them that
they were going to give the company permis-
sion to expropriate. It did not help a bit.
When they issued this certificate and issued
this summons, which was a summons to the
property owner, a Union Gas truck delivered
that summons to the farmer. That fact did
not help any, and if the farmer refused to
accept it, they threw the summons on the
ground in the yard and drove out.
All this trouble was caused by the fact
that this government had given the Union
Gas Company the right to expropriate the
property. Now, I must accept some blame for
this because I sat on the committee that gave
that right to them, and I thought I was doing
the right thing. I thought it was right at the
time, but I have found out that the company
took complete advantage of the privilege we
had given them and made no honest attempt
to settle with the property owners and got
the whole countryside into a turmoil.
What bothers me very greatly is the fact
that the farmers do not suggest in any way
that the Union Gas Company or the oil com-
panies are taking their property. They say
the government is taking their property, which
in essence is true. We gave them that per-
mission to take it. It was wrong; it was not
necessary. I can see that now. It is easy to
be wise, as I said before, afterwards.
I feel that we must have some change in
that Act, and I have some suggestions as to
some amendments which I am going to read
later on, making it necessary for any company
going through, whether it is an oil line or gas
line or what it is, to show good will before
they are given permission to expropriate the
property. It must be done only where they
cannot get through.
The irony of the thing is that the farmers
finally offered to let them through for $5
a rod, which was a very, very small cost
when we consider that the pipe line is cost-
ing, in some places, between $30 million and
$50 million.
Over the years, I have had so many prob-
lems with gas, and gas lines that it takes
a considerable portion of my time trying to
keep things in balance. Let us consider
the fact that on one side of the county we
have the Imperial Oil, who are a good com-
pany and have good public relations. When
they go into the oil business or bore a well,
in every case I know of— and I think I can
say in every case— they pay the property
owner a royalty on the gas and oil they take.
Just imagine the situation when I have
just a road dividing two territories, and Im-
perial Oil are paying a royalty and right
across the road the Union Gas are taking out
the gas and not paying one cent.
Then we come on across the Union Gas
territory, we have Imperial Oil again put-
ting wells down and paying the farmer a
royalty, keeping everybody happy and trying
to co-operate with the people; they have
good public relations.
Another problem that worsens matters is
this: we have storage areas and we enact
legislation correctly to declare that those
storage areas are for the use of the people
in the province. But in doing that, we for-
got the fact that these were private proper-
ties, and we left the people we were dealing
with at the mercy of the company. After
years of negotiations, we got part of those
storage areas settled, and in one storage
area now they pay $7 an acre, another stor-
age area $6, and in another it is about $2.
That is per annum.
In one storage area, in boring for gas, they
found oil. That oil is down there below the
gas. Naturally the farmer wants that oil out,
but he cannot get it out because Union Gas
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
163
control the property, we have declared it a
storage area.
There again, the government is to blame
for the whole thing. Just outside this storage
area there is some property— and it is only
a few rods outside— that was formerly under
lease, but the company abandoned it. A
private group came in there and organized
a company who drilled oil wells, and they
are now producing oil in paying quantities,
so hon. members can imagine how happy
the people are in that former storage area.
We can go over to the riding of the hon.
Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cath-
cart) where there was a gas area that the
same company bought from Imperial Oil,
where they had always paid royalties on the
gas they were taking out. The company de-
manded this be made a storage area, and
the fuel board declared it a storage area. My
information now is that there is a lawsuit
on it, this land had practically all been op-
tioned at $1,000 an acre. They came in there
a while ago and offered 25 cents an acre
for rental storage. I believe it is up now
to $7 an acre. But for land that is optioned
at $1,000 an acre, imagine the company
offering them $7 an acre yearly rent!
I would ask the House to remember that,
in a storage area, almost none of that area
is suitable for building any building on,
because there are pipe lines running in all
directions in those areas to the wells where
they put the gas in and take it out. It
means that that land has been taken away
from those people, it is valuable property
and we have given the company the right
to take it.
I am not saying it should not be taken,
decidedly it should be taken, because those
storage places are the keystone of our gas
lines and gas consumption in Ontario. With-
out the storage areas it would not be possible
to bring the gas down from Alberta and use
it in Ontario.
Most of the hon. members understand
that this 26-inch line, coming from the
Lambton county storage areas, meets the line
coming from Alberta, and in the off-peak
time that gas is taken back down and stored
in those wells for use in the high-consumption
period of the winter.
I would ask the consumers to think for a
moment how the situation on a winter's night
probably would be if that line from Alberta
burst, or something went wrong with it some-
where near Kenora or Winnipeg; this whole
area of the heart of Ontario would then have
to depend on the gas stored in those storage
areas.
That is how important those storage areas
are to the people of this province. That is
how much value those areas have to a com-
pany. And they are on private property, and
I think the property owners should be given
a fair remuneration for the use of their prop-
erty, and if it happens to be in an area
where the land is valuable, they should have
a better reimbursement.
I am often asked: "What damage does a
pipe line do to a farm?" I am well aware that
is a very difficult question to answer to people
who live in the city, who are not familiar
with a farm, or our farms. It is very difficult
for people in other parts of the province to
realize what it does do to a farm in western
Ontario.
I would ask hon. members for a moment
to imagine that this is a farm, and it is not
any more level than the farms in my riding.
The farmer has spent a considerable amount
of money; he has tile drainage the full length
of that farm, rows of tile about 3 or 4 rods
apart. It is just like those joins in that carpet.
He issued debentures to pay for that tile.
Then a pip<? line, a gas or an oil company,
comes across. They will not go straight across
and do less damage, no, they want to go
cornerways. They go cornerways right across
that area. Large machines go through and
they have a trench from 6 to 8 feet wide.
Hon. members can readily understand it is
going cornerways across those pipes, and they
have to cut the tile for about 15 feet, and
then lay a pipe in there to carry the oil or gas
across.
These people are travelling over with this
heavy machinery, and there is probably not
one drain left there that will operate. That
heavy machinery has crushed all that tile, and
the company refuses to accept the responsi-
bility, and there has been nothing done as
yet to make them accept that responsibility.
A letter went out to the companies saying
they would have to be responsible— at least
it was supposed to have gone out, I do not
know whether it has or not— but the question
is, if the water starts laying on this property,
with the debentures still not paid for, is that
farmer supposed to go and dig those tiles all
up and show that each one is broken? He
cannot afford to do that. That pipe line com-
pany, whether it operates an oil pipe line or
a gas pipe line, should be responsible for the
crop that has been damaged, and be res-
ponsible for digging the tile up.
I had one farmer who— can hon. members
imagine that same farm?— this is an extreme
case, but he had 3 of those pipe lines angling
164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
through his farm like this until his area was
all under-drained. He dug up some of his tile
and found they were crushed, and he did so
much complaining they decided to dig up his
tile and fix it, and they found 120 tiles broken
in the one drain. That is only one farm.
One man came to me and said: "I invested
$9,000 worth of debentures on my farm, they
are going cornerways through $6,000 of that
money I spent. What am I going to do about
it? Where am I -going; to get some protec-
tion?" ■ ■ •
Mr. ; Speaker, I am asking this House to
give that situation some consideration. I have
an article here in the Country Farmer, and
it finishes up this way— I am not going to
attempt to read the article— the writer said
there is a limit as to how far a farmer can
try to fight. If he carries it too far it will
cost him more than he can get back. At
the moment, the best he can do is carry it far
enough to get a settlement under the rules
of an Act— pipe line, hydro or whatever Act
it may be. If he thinks the easement dairiage
settlement offered him by the -company is
not reasonable, the onus is clearly on the
government to give farm property owners
more protection, and to get these matters
settled without cost to the farmer, if he has
no say in expropriation of his own property.
That article is by G. K. Honing. He claims
he interviewed the farmers on those pipe
lines, and tells what they are trying to do
to get a settlement and some protection. He
says that they have been helpless, they have
not been able to do anything.
I have a letter here from the farmers'
federation, making suggestions and some
statements that I hesitate to read to the
House. Their secretary has been talking
to the farmers, and he finds them in very
bad humour, and he explained to me the situa-
tion and goes so far to say that the fuel
board is only a tool of the Union Gas Com-
pany.
Now I know that is not correct, but I am
just saying this to show the feeling which
exists in that area.
Now, here are some suggestions about
amendments. At the present time the gas,
telephone and all these companies and the
inter-provincial companies have the right to
expropriate the property. I am suggesting
that they be given the right to expropriate
property after they have concluded agree-
ments with 85 per cent, of the property
owners. That establishes a price. That is
the way The Department of Highways does
its business.
Now, we have no problem with The De-
partment of Highways, the men come there
agreeably, and they do not swing a big stick
and say they are going to expropriate the
farmers' properties, they try to deal with
them. Then when they finally come to the
place where there are only a few properties
left, they then must take the owners into
court.
The land buyer on Highway No. 7 came
to me last year and said, "I have a few prop-
erties left there, what will I do with them?"
"Well," I said, "you have 90 per cent, of
them signed up now, probably 95 per cent.
You have established a value, for that prop-
erty," and I said, "I have no intention of
interfering with you, I think you have done
a fair thing and have done the best you can."
So I feel if a company were given the
right to expropriate only after they had 85
per cent, of the property owners signed up,
and there was no question of preventing the
line going through1, then I think it would be
fair.
Also in the storage area, I do not thinl?
any government should declare an area a
storage area until the company wanting to
use that area has made an honest effort to
obtain that property and have 85 per cent,
of the owners signed up.
Here is one of the recommendations I
have always given the hon. members, that
it is the responsibility of a corporation, where
there is an indication that the drainage sys-
tem has been damaged, upon notification of
the landowner, that they properly repair the
damage; likewise the corporation should be
responsible for any crop damage resulting
from their operations.
And I might tell hon. members that we had
a great deal of assistance from the hon. Mini-
ster of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow). When
conditions got so very bad, he appointed two
men to follow those lines and see if the
contractor carried out his instructions and
put the line in the position it was supposed
to be, and these men were a wonderful help!
The hon. Minister was not able to smooth
over the sores, but he did so in at least one
instance where these contractors operated 24
hours a day, and had no respect to the
people's property.
If the contractors can raise their machines
and put the line in at half the required depth,
they can get along a lot faster. And this repre-
sentative of the hon. Minister of Agriculture
came back one morning and found that a
contractor had raised the machine and gone
across. this farm probably 60 to 100 rods at
half the depth. The representative immedi-
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
165
ately stopped him and made him fill that in
and start over again and go down to the
proper depth. He did not have any trouble
after that.
Here is another suggestion that I think has
merit, that in order to eliminate possible dis-
crepancies in fuel board hearings, a court
stenographer attend all hearings to record
minutes. The board holds hearings and they
have no stenographer, and there is always
a chance for argument about what was said.
And every time the farmers have wanted to
question anything that had been going on,
they found they were up a blind alley, they
could not do anything.
Here are others: That all damages assessed
by the Ontario fuel board be paid for by the
corporation, and I think that is very fair.
Designated pipe lines should be laid parallel.
There should be no municipal drainage
damage that may obstruct the regular flow of
water.
Then, I suggest that storage areas be
assessed. There we have a very valuable asset
in those municipalities that are not assess-
able, according to The Municipal Act. If that
storage area was not there, the companies
would have to have huge tanks such as can
be seen here, where the Texaco people are
operating now. These would cost many mil-
lions of dollars, and it would carry a very
high assessment. I think those people, who
have to put up with these pipe lines being on
their properties, should be permitted to assess
municipally those storage areas.
Now, I want to say a few words on the
telephone situation -and the Bell Telephone
Company, another group that have federal
rights to expropriate. And in doing that, I
want to first express our gratitude to the inde-
pendents, I am speaking now of the indepen-
dent telephone companies of Ontario, and to
our hon. Minister of Agriculture for the very
great assistance he has been to us in the last
year or two. He has taken a real interest in
our companies and our problems, and I know
I am, expressing the feeling of all the indepen-
dent telephone companies when I extend
gratitude to the hon. Minister of Agriculture
for what he is doing for us.
Now, hon. members may wonder why I
am bringing the Bell Telephone into the pic-
ture. As I have said in this House several
times, I have been in independent telephone
work for quite a number of years, and I am
speaking of another company that has a
federal charter.
I want to say that indications are there is
anew look in things at Ottawa, and I think,
if action is taken at the present time, that we
could get a change in the Act making conv
panies with federal rights and with federal
charters come under provincial legislation.
And I want to say that, in Our sister province
to the east of us, they do come under provin-
cial legislation. Whether they like it or not,
they are told to come under it "or else," and
they do, they have no problems there at all
with paralleling lines and so on.
Now here is a brief that was presented to
the federal hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.
Hees), and I have been asked to read it to
the House, and I think it is well worth read-
ing. This is a letter by the Canadian Indepen-
dent Telephone Association to the federal
hon . Minister of Transport, and to the
Ontario hon. Minister of Agriculture.
The brief is much longer, but here is the
part that I wanted to bring before the House:
We would also like to bring to the atten-
tion of the Minister a matter vitally affect-
ing the interests and rights of independent
telephone operating companies in Ontario
and Quebec. That is the intention of the
Bell Telephone Company of Canada to
disregard established routes and territories
served by independent companies and the
lack of legislation to prevent this condition.
May we, Mr. Minister, present some actual
cases of the Bell Telephone Company
invading both the territories and duplicat-
ing the established routes of other inde-
pendent companies-
Take, for instance, the route between Fort
Frances and Fort William. On January 12,
1957, the Bell Company took over the opera-
tions of the municipally-owned exchange at
Fort Frances, and by means of leased Cana-
dian National Railways lines, provided toll
service betwen Fort Frances and Fort Wil-
liam.
This service has been provided by lines
of the Northern Telephone Company, Ltd.,
and leased from Canadian National Tele-
graphs and operated at its toll centre at
Atikokan.
This, of course, not only meant a direct
loss of revenue to the Northern Telephone
Company, but it also meant part of the leased
circuits are now surplus but still must be
paid for under lease with Canadian National
Telegraphs.
The Northern Telephone Company ob-
jected strongly to this duplication of facilities
to the board of transport commissioners, for
Canada, under letter of April. 26, 195.7- . The
166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
secretary of that board replied on May 1,
1957, stating:
I am not aware of any statutory provi-
sion giving power to the board to prevent
the company giving the services objected
to by you. If you consider that there is any
such statutory provision, please write to
me and indicate the section and statute
giving such powers; without such powers
the board will not be able to give effect to
your objections.
It means the board was helpless— at least
it refused to take action.
Here is a matter of evasion of territory
at Lester Falls.
North Western Communication Ltd., with
quarters at Kenora, had furnished radio and
telegraph way-circuit service to this Ontario
community since October 3, 1952. They
were planning to establish exchange services
as early as possible in 1957. Most of their
equipment was on the site, ready for instal-
lation, when the Bell Telephone Company
moved in with a mobile exchange. Both com-
panies are now operating exchanges and com-
plete outside plans at this place. Their ex-
changes and their subscribers do not connect
with each other, and coupled with the fact
that they also have different toll routes, this
leads to endless confusion and extremely poor
service to all subscribers.
In 1956, the Bell Telephone Company
established an exchange in Vermilion Bay,
with outlines north of the Canadian National
Railway at Red Lake Road. This Ontario
point had been previously served on the
circuit by the Canadian National Telegraphs.
There are many places in Ontario and
Quebec where the Bell Telephone Company
invades the territories served by independent
company exchanges. Instead of stopping at
the boundaries of the independent companies,
they take their toll lines right to the indepen-
dent companies' exchanges. This effectively
bars the independent companies from receiv-
ing the toll haul which is a looser part of the
telephone business.
May I point out that all Ontario chartered
companies coming under the jurisdiction of
The Ontario Telephone Act, 1954, are pro-
hibited from duplicate service by invading
served territory by section 69 of the Act
which reads:
No telephone system shall erect poles
upon or along or adjacent to and parallel
with any portion of a highway, upon or
along which the pole leads of another
system are already erected or otherwise by
means of its plant or part thereof, duplicate
the plant or compete with any other system
which furnishes telephone service in the
same locality in which the first mentioned
system proposes to furnish this service,
unless by the consent of authorities.
Further, may I quote from the North-
ern Telephone Company's letter to the federal
transport board official which reads:
Unless the Bell Telephone Company of
Canada is prevented by your board from
duplicating and paralleling service of an
Ontario chartered company, then such com-
pany is simply at the mercy of the Bell
Telephone Company, with its enormous
financial resources.
On the other hand, an Ontario chartered
company is prevented by law from treating
the Bell Telephone Company in the same
fashion. It is also obvious that the continu-
ance of these company conditions place all
these 700 to 800 independent telephone com-
panies in Ontario and Quebec at the mercy
of the Bell Telephone Company wherever
they plan to strike next.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that they have
invaded the territory of our own company
on many occasions, and they simply tell us
that they have a federal charter and they
can go where they like, and we have been
able to do nothing with them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is 6 o'clock and I
could have taken up more time, but I think
I have put my points over to the House, at
least I hope I have. I have tried, and I hope
the hon. members will understand the prob-
lem that the farmer has now with pipe lines.
I hope they will understand the problem that
the independent telephone company has in
dealing with a company that has a federal
charter.
I would ask that the government give con-
sideration to assisting the farmers in their
rights, in getting a fair payment for their
property, for pipe lines and for storage areas.
I also ask that consideration be given to
bringing the Bell Telephone Company under
the laws of the province of Ontario. Surely
we have grown up.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): May I move the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the adjournment of
the House, I would say that the hon. Minis-
ter of Mines (Mr. Spooner), in whose depart-
FEBRUARY 13, 1958
167
ment these questions have been raised by
the hon. member from Lambton East, and the
field board will give them, I am sure, careful
consideration. The hon. Minister has been in
his seat through most of them. I would say
that tomorrow, we will proceed with the
Throne debate.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock,
p.m.
:>j ...j>'- ', " .; 'r: '■ 3
No. 10
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
©etrnte*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, February 14, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 14, 1958
Township of Chinguacousy, bill respecting, Mr. Kennedy, first reading 171
Lindsay Separate School Board, bill respecting, Mr. W. A. Stewart, first reading 171
Windsor Jewish Communal Projects, bill respecting, Mr. Murdoch, first reading 171
St. Peter's Church, Brockville, bill respecting, Mr. Murdoch, first reading 171
Huron College, bill respecting, Mr. W. A. Stewart, first reading 171
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 171
Statement re works programme to assist unemployed, Mr. Frost 171
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Wren 176
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Wren, agreed to 184
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 184
.
"
171
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker. Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TOWNSHIP OF CHINGUACOUSY
Mr. T. L. Kennedy moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the town-
ship of Chinguacousy."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
LINDSAY SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
Mr. W. A. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the separate
school board of the town of Lindsay."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
WINDSOR JEWISH COMMUNAL
PROJECTS
Mr. W. Murdoch moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting Windsor Jewish
Communal Projects."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ST. PETER'S CHURCH, BROCKVILLE
Mr. Murdoch moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting St. Peter's
Church, Brockville."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
HURON COLLEGE
Mr. W. A. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting Huron
College."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Friday, February 14, 1958
THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY
Mr. A. H. Cowling moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the Cana-
dian Pacific Railway Company."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to make an announcement of, I
think, some importance to our municipalities
and to others in the province. I have ar-
ranged that the particulars of this announce-
ment be sent to all of the municipalities in
the province today.
The government of Ontario has made an
intensive study of the type of provincially
assisted works programme that would pro-
duce immediate employment. This type of
programme would involve work and the pay-
ment of wages. It would be a substitute for
direct unemployment relief. It would con-
tribute to the providing of work of a tem-
porary nature for those able to work and
not eligible for unemployment insurance
benefits.
A number of municipalities— including Met-
ropolitan Toronto— the cities of Toronto, Ot-
tawa, Windsor, St. Thomas, Sarnia, Kitchener,
Welland and North Bay— have made represen-
tations to us for the establishment of such
a programme. The programme proposed by
the board of control of the city of Toronto is
a good example. It was pointed out by its
board that we have, in the city, unemploy-
ment insurance and things of that sort, but
still there is a residue of unemployed left over,
and it is that residue which is causing diffi-
culty.
I may say that the same situation also
applies to representations made by the city
of Windsor in connection with some of their
problems.
The incidence of unemployment is, of
course, much heavier in some places than in
others. As a matter of fact, in some muni-
cipalities there is no unemployment, and
therefore no unemployment problem. Yester-
day I was, with some of the hon. members
of this House, discussing these matters with
172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
representatives of several municipalities in
northwestern Ontario, and they outlined their
problems to me.
To meet this situation, this government has
determined upon the following course:
Effective tomorrow, February 15, the gov-
ernment of Ontario will reimburse muni-
cipalities to the extent of 70 per cent, of the
direct labour costs which are incurred before
May 31, 1958, on special municipal projects
or works undertaken in each municipality.
The formula will apply to all municipalities
—including area municipalities and counties—
as a form of special assistance to stimulate
work and relieve unemployment.
It is not designed to provide funds for any
projects or works which would be undertaken
in the ordinary course by the municipality
in the next 3.5 months. The province's assist-
ance will apply only to the amount by which
the municipality's expenditure for wages in
the period— from February 15 to May 31, 1958
—exceeds these expenditures for the same type
of work or project in the corresponding period
of 1957.
Municipalities that have an unemployment
problem— and some do not have one— may
immediately submit to The Department of
Municipal Affairs a statement of their unem-
ployment situation, a description of the special
works or projects which they wish to under-
take, and an estimate of the direct labour cost
in such special projects. Upon notifying The
Department of Municipal Affairs, the muni-
cipality may proceed. In other words, the
investigation of the problem then is our job
and our onus. The municipalities may go
ahead at once, but they have to notify the
department of the work they are doing so
that we can look at it if we want to, as I will
mention in a moment.
The Department of Municipal Affairs, with
the assistance of The Department of Public
Welfare, reserves the right to pass upon and
approve any project submitted. Obviously, in
a plan such as this, good faith is a very neces-
sary condition. The projects must involve
additional work and employment over and
above the municipality's ordinary undertak-
ings, and the wages so subsidized would be
for unemployed workers who are not entitled
to receive unemployment insurance.
The projects and works referred to may
include, but are not strictly limited to, the
following:
(a) repairs to sidewalks, streets, roads and
sewers;
(b) park and beach clean-up and renovation;
(c) repair and painting of buildings;
(d) renovation of heating and wiring facilities;
(e) clearing costs of redevelopment projects
which are not subsidized by the province
(this would include a land clearance
project in one of the municipalities, and
if it is not subsidized by the province then
the wages would be subsidized); and
(f) tree planting and trimming.
As pointed out, the provincial assistance
will amount to 70 per cent, of the direct
labour costs incurred on such works and pro-
jects up to May 31, 1958. Projects which will
not be finished by that date will be eligible in
respect to costs incurred up to May 31, 1958.
In determining the special projects or costs
towards which the province will contribute,
consideration will have to be given to the
grants made by the province under any other
arrangements, in which case adjustments will
be made. '
I give a case in point, Mr. Speaker. We
subsidize, for instance, work on roads and
things of that sort. That subsidy, of course,
would be taken into consideration. I do not
know the details of how it would be adjusted,
but it would have to be done on some equit-
able basis.
The amount of $5 million will be placed
in supplementary estimates for the fiscal year
ending on March 31 next for this purpose.
As the magnitude of the problem is unknown,
it is impossible to make any accurate deter-
mination of the amount of the provincial
contribution. Accordingly, the plan will be
financed by a supplementary estimate in the
ensuing year and a full statement will be sub-
mitted to the next session of the Legislature.
Obviously, this programme of assistance is
experimental, and I point out that it has never
before been attempted in this province—
certainly not on this basis; but it has inter-
esting possibilities. Essentially it is based
upon providing work and wages instead of
relief. The experience gained this year can
be a guide to its feasibility should the need
arise in future years.
The following are some of the considera-
tions :
1. While this plan is being made available
to all parts of the province this year, perhaps
in the future— and I am merely projecting this
—it could be limited to the areas in which
unemployment is concentrated. In the coming
years, we may be faced with spotty and
localized unemployment conditions, and even
though there be a high general level of em-
ployment, the development of this plan would
enable us to act promptly and effectively.
FEBRUARY 14, 1958
173
May I give an example of what I have in
mind. A while back we had a problem in
that there was a very high level of employ-
ment across the province, but we had very
considerable unemployment in Sault Ste.
Marie. There is no reason why, with the
development of this programme, we might
not in future years— I am not attempting to
do that this year— limit it to areas in which
unemployment is concentrated.
2. This plan is not a substitute for a full
works programme designed to maintain a
high level of general employment. In many
municipalities, as stated, there is no signi-
ficant unemployment. In others, there is.
Inevitably, with the adjustment of produc-
tion to demand, considerable spottiness and
unevenness may exist in employment and
activity across the province. I am talking
about other times, not about the situation
today.
The major provincial and municipal pro-
grammes, involving the construction of high-
ways, roads, hospitals, schools, sewers, water
works and electric power, are being proceeded
with on an unprecedented scale, as will be
indicated a little later in the session. They
are adding physical projects of great benefit
to our people, affording employment for
many thousands of workers, and giving rise
to effects which will permeate the whole
economy.
The plan for temporary employment now
being introduced is no substitute for the
longer term capital programme which will be
described soon in the budget.
The special provincial assistance, which we
are now introducing to stimulate works to
relieve the unemployment of those not eligible
for unemployment insurance, is designed to
supplement our long-term programme and
meet the requirements during the winter and
spring months of those municipalities which
are confronted with an unemployment situa-
tion. In this way, a very notable step is being
taken to assist the municipalities and to
reinforce employ msnt generally.
3. Last December, a very far-reaching
plan of direct unemployment relief assistance
was introduced, providing for a federal and
provincial contribution of 80 per cent. Our
objective, however, is to provide work and
wages. The new provincial plan does this.
There will be no federal contribution or
participation in this. I may say that we have
never discussed this with the federal govern-
ment, and it is entirely a provincial project.
Therefore, I say that there will not be any
federal participation and contribution, and
that is the reason for the provincial contribu-
tion of 70 per cent, and the municipal con-
tribution of 30 per cent.
The province could not and should not
be placed in a position where a large pro-
portion of the direct relief costs would be
shifted from the federal-provincial direct re-
lief programme unless, of course, there is a
significant contribution in real work. Thus
there must be some differential in the two
plans, and the government has endeavoured
to keep this as low as possible.
It would work out this way: For an extra
10 per cent, which increases the municipal
contribution from 20 to 30 per cent., the
municipalities may institute works which will
be of great benefit to their people. In other
words, instead of paying 20 per cent, for
direct relief, if there is work to be done
which is of benefit to the municipality, by
adding 10 per cent, the municipality may
get that work done and the province will
contribute 70 per cent.
This means that provincial and municipal
dollars will go to the betterment of the
community. Furthermore, unemployed per-
sons, instead of receiving relief assistance,
will have the benefit of doing work as so
many of them obviously desire.
4. The wages to be paid by the munici-
palities are to be the standard wages paid
by them for the type of work done under
normal conditions. In other words, there is
to be no cutting of the general wage level
for the type of work carried out.
If this plan of relief work is successful,
and is capable of development, then, of
course, experience might justify federal par-
ticipation next year or the year following.
However, this year the plan is being wholly
sponsored by the province, which will bear
70 per cent, of the direct labour cost.
If a good type of work can be evolved by
the municipal authorities, it would be ad-
visable, I think, in another year for the
federal and provincial governments to con-
tribute rather than to rely on direct relief,
with all of the undesirable elements which
flow from that type of assistance.
Nevertheless, that type of assistance is very
necessary and, I think, is very desirable,
and has to be used to meet certain cases.
But I think that our experience of the years
of the 1930's was this— and I think it is one
of the things that we have to look back on
now with some regret— we did not do work
that we might have done in those days in-
stead of putting so much money into direct
relief.
174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This programme is being advanced on an
experimental basis. Its success will depend
upon co-operation and good faith. It has
many desirable features, and can be amended
if necessary to meet conditions in the future.
This year it will be limited in operation
to May 31. The organized resources of The
Department of Municipal Affairs and The
Department of Public Welfare will be made
available to carefully check the results and
to present to the House a full report at the
next session of the Legislature, together with
a statement of the cost and the additional
monies, over the supplementary estimates
that I have mentioned, that will be required
to finance the expenditures involved.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I
did want to ask a question. I am sure there
will be many municipalities in the province
of Ontario which will appreciate what the
hon. Prime Minister has said, but my ques-
tion or couple of questions are these:
Firstly, in matters of construction— roads,
sidewalks, bridges or things like that— it is
generally necessary that a construction firm
be hired to do that type of job. Now, will it
be necessary for these construction firms to
employ unemployed workers in the munici-
pality concerned, or will they bring in their
own staff?
Hon. Mr. Frost: This is directed entirely
to the matter of persons who are unemployed
and who are not eligible for benefits from
unemployment insurance.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Would there not have to be some
provincial obligation imposed to see that it
was unemployed workers—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I would say
to the hon. leader of the Opposition that the
situation is this, if it was necessary as a
preliminary to go over all of these cases, it
would take 3.5 months to process them. What
we are doing is this— the municipality will
notify the government of its projects and the
particulars that I have mentioned, then they
can proceed. Let us take, for instance, the
county of Grey. The welfare offices there can
very readily check over with the munici-
palities the names of persons who are on the
relief rolls, and if there is any difficulty then,
of course, an objection can be raised.
But, in the meantime this statement is being
given to the municipalities; their officials will
understand the conditions, and it is up to
them to live within the terms of the arrange-
ment.
The idea is this— to assist the municipalities
and to assist the unemployed persons who are
not eligible for unemployment insurance.
There is one variation— or one addition— to the
conditions which I should mention.
After all, we cannot be too rigid. There
are some cases where persons in receipt of
unemployment insurance are also receiving
relief benefits because of the size of their
families. Now, in that case, we are going to
include them in this programme. But to avoid
making my statement too complicated, I have
not mentioned some of these additional points.
Now, what is going to be involved is the
use of good sense. I think that our relief
officers understand the problem, and they
know the people who need this type of work.
With the municipalities I think it can be very
readily arranged that if any question arises,
it can be resolved at the local level.
We are not hunting for technicalities, we
are looking for ways and means to give people
who have no unemployment insurance a
chance to do work if it is available for them,
and if they are qualified and feel they are
able to do it. But we are not restricting the
municipalities in special cases such as I have
mentioned.
Mr. T. D. Thomas ( Oshawa ) : I am very
glad that the hon. Prime Minister gave that
assurance. There are some people, of course,
in the municipalities who have unemploy-
ment insurance, and some of them are re-
ceiving as low as $24 a week, and are also
being assisted by the local relief officer.
If they are allowed to work on any of these
kinds of projects, well, that is fine. But after
all, Mr. Speaker, I think we should keep it
in a proper perspective. There is only a sum
of $5 million being allotted for this, so it is
not going to go very, very far.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister a
question, but before I ask that question, I
would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, for your
consideration not necessarily today but for
the future, that when an announcement is
made by the government, this is in a com-
pletely different category from a question of
privilege on which you quite rightly yesterday
said that there could be no debate.
It seems to me that, when an announcement
of this nature is made by the government,
an unfair advantage is placed with the govern-
ment, and even more important, the Opposi-
tion is deprived of the right to fulfil its role
in the House if limited debate is not permitted.
FEBRUARY 14, 1958
175
I do not wish to dispute your ruling but I
just respectfully raise that for future considera-
tion, because it seems to me this is a different
situation than the one yesterday in which I
think your final warning to the hon. members
was a very valid one.
The question that I want to ask the hon.
Prime Minister is, why is the government not
putting this on the basis of a 100 per cent,
underwriting of these projects? The reason
why I ask it is this:
There is one principle involved in what has
been indicated which I think is very good,
and I am glad that all governments are now
coming around to it, and that is the proposi-
tion when we have unemployment the answer
is to provide work, not to provide relief.
Relief is an undignified and a demoralizing
kind of thing for the people involved.
But if we analyze what the hon. Prime
Minister has just said, we notice that he
emphasized first, that this is not designed for
programmes that may now be on the board,
so to speak. This is for a new programme to
provide extra employment, and the municipali-
ties are asked in effect to develop that pro-
gramme and to submit the proposals to the
government.
The government is willing to meet this on
a 70 per cent, basis. That means that the
municipalities are going to be left with 30 per
cent.
Now, on the basis of the figure of $5
million, what the hon. Prime Minister is
asking, in effect, is that the municipalities
must dig up from somewhere the sum of
$2,143 million.
Now, most municipalities already have
budgets that are strained beyond their
capacity to consider new projects.
Furthermore, the very municipalities that
the hon. Prime Minister desires to help,
namely, the ones that are facing serious unem-
ployment, are the very municipalities which
are going to be facing the greatest difficulties
in raising more money from anywhere,
because they are facing dropping revenues
because of the fact that so many of their
people are unemployed.
Certainly, that must be the case in an area
like Windsor, for example, where with such a
number of unemployed the revenues are
dropping.
Now the question I want to ask the hon.
Prime Minister is, that if he wants this to suc-
ceed, why does not the government take away
from the municipal level that which he him-
self says is unfair to leave at the provincial
level as a long-term proposition? Namely, the
problem of coping with unemployment and
the financial responsibilities of it which cannot
be handled by a tax basis as limited as the
municipal tax base.
Why did the government not put this on
the basis of 100 per cent, underwriting, rather
than giving a 30 per cent, underwriting to
municipalities when they cannot cope with it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, of course,
such a suggestion is completely impracticable.
We have to have, in the carrying out of such
a project, some fiscal responsibility on the part
of the agency doing the work, otherwise chaos
would result. Now, after all, let us remember
that this is public money, and as such should
be subject to the safeguards that should attend
the expenditure of such money.
I mentioned a large number of municipali-
ties in my statement, and I had communica-
tions from and correspondence with others
not mentioned. The requests for assistance
in this regard have ranged from 50 per cent,
to 80 per cent. In looking at it, we felt
that we should bring it as close as possible
to 80 per cent, level and still leave a differ-
ential, because the province is doing this
programme itself.
If we were to make it 80 per cent., we
would probably be faced with the munici-
pal administration saying that there would
be no difference between unemployment re-
lief and this works programme. Therefore,
it would not make any difference how the
recipient was handled, but it would make a
difference as far as the province is con-
cerned, because on this programme the entire
70 per cent, is payable by the province.
That was the point.
The requests that were made by various
municipalities ranged from 50 per cent, to
80 per cent., and we arrived at 70 per cent,
as the most practicable figure.
Again, the programme is experimental; we
have no idea as to what the result may be.
We have no idea as to the extent that this
programme will be used, but I would say
that I think we have placed the percentage
at a very generous level.
Furthermore, we have left it this way: In
years to come, there may develop a federal-
provincial programme on the basis of 80
per cent. As far as I know, this type of
programme has not been attempted in Can-
ada before, and the resulting experience may
be such that the federal authorities would
come in, in another year, and share the
cost the same as they do now with un-
employment relief.
If this programme is successful, it would
be wholly desirable for this reason— that this
176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government would be doing something to
eliminate the area in which there is no work
and in which there is the factor of relief
which so many people dislike and with good
reason.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to say that I
agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Prime
Minister that the municipalities should accept
at least 30 per cent, of a project such as
this. But I would like to point out that I
do hope the government is most elastic in
the construction projects that they will allow,
because in weather such as we have at the
present time, some projects are impossible.
I jotted down only a few of the projects
the hon. Prime Minister suggested— take
painting as an example. Well, it is impos-
sible to paint outside in this weather and will
be for some months to come.
Sidewalks: we cannot put sidewalks down
in this weather because obviously the con-
crete would freeze and be useless.
Roads are another measure that were sug-
gested. Well, there is very little construction
of roads in this type of weather.
Therefore, I hope the government will
come forth with some other suggestions as
to projects which can be undertaken, con-
sidering the weather.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The municipalities will
do that, they will come forward with the
suggestions all right, they are very original
people.
Mr. Whicher: I hope the government will
agree with those suggestions and will pay
the 70 per cent.
Mr. Speaker: In connection with the rules
of the House, I would just like to say I had
no part in writing the rules of the House,
my responsibility is to enforce them as best
I can.
I would say this, that I think a revision
of the rules of the House is long overdue,
but nevertheless at the moment we must
enforce the present rules of the House.
Before we call for the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome to the assembly
this afternoon a large group of students from
the Toronto Teachers' College.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I must apologize to the
hon. leader of the Opposition. Yesterday
afternoon he asked me a question, and I
must admit I completely forgot about the
answer until I entered the House, but I
assure him I will have the answer on Mon-
day at the opening of the House.
THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, Sir
Winston Churchill, when he was addressing
an audience in Britain during his parlia-
mentary career, met an admirer of his at one
of his halls who said to him: "Doesn't it thrill
you to know that every time you speak the
hall is filled to overflowing?"
Sir Winston answered and said: "Yes, it
may be flattering, but if I were being hanged
today instead of speaking, the crowd would
be 3 times as large." Before I get through
this afternoon, there may be a hanging.
At the outset, I would like to compliment
you, Mr. Speaker, and express my apprecia-
tion to you for the fine manner in which the
business of the House is conducted, and in
addition to that would like to mention the
kindly assistance that is always available to
the hon. members through the facilities of
the Speaker's offices in the interval between
sessions.
Yesterday, some discussion took place about
an announcement of the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) at which time I briefly stated
I thought the only thing I could find wrong
with what he had said or done was that the
Opposition— or at least the hon. leader of the
Opposition ( Mr. Oliver ) — should have had
some pre-knowledge of the statement he was
to make.
I would like to emphasize this again in
speaking this afternoon, because I think such
a procedure would be fair to hon. members
of the Opposition. It would enable them to
better discharge their duties and obligations,
especially since it is a requirement of the
hon. members of the Opposition that they
submit questions, usually in writing, to the
Speaker and to the hon. Minister concerned
so they may intelligently deal with the
questions.
I think it might enhance the conduct of
the business of the House if such information
were made available beforehand to respon-
sible people on this side.
I want to say something, too, about the
hon. members' addresses dealing with the
speech from the Throne. I was particularly
touched with the remarks of the hon. member
for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) who has always been
well loved and well respected by all hon.
members of the House, and I can recall very
well my first weeks in the Legislature when
the hon. Colonel was of great assistance to
anyone who sought advice on rules, procedure
and the various things a new hon. member
runs into which he finds so very confusing.
FEBRUARY 14, 1958
177
I was also interested in the address of the
seconder, the hon. member for Glengarry ( Mr.
Guindon), but of course it was not in the
same tone and it did not have the same
flavour as the address of the hon. mover.
Yesterday I was rather surprised at the
leader of the CCF party, the hon. member for
York South ( Mr. MacDonald ) , who wondered
how the hon. leader of the Opposition had got
some matters confused in regard to the pro-
ceedings and possible reports of the labour
relations committee.
I would like to say to the hon. member for
York South, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the
hon. leader of the Opposition is in somewhat
the same position as the newly-nominated
CCF candidate in Kenora, when he said this
the other day— and I am quoting from the
Kenora Miner of February 10. He said, and
I quote:
While most of the meeting was devoted
to organizational plans, Mr. Welsby spoke
at some length on his reasons for becoming
a CCF member. "As a union member,"
stated Welsby, "I, along with 4 other labour
representatives, presented a brief before
the select commitee on labour of the
Ontario government. Of the 11 men who
sat on that committee, only one tried to
help us in our presentation. The others
seemed most intent on picking holes in our
requests, requests that our union people felt
were well reasoned and just. That man,
Donald C. MacDonald, whom I was later
to learn, was the leader of the CCF party
in Ontario, was called out of order nearly
every time he attempted to speak in our
behalf."
Now I do not know what is wrong with
the CCF public relations or their nominated
candidates for office, because they will not be
elected up there, and are not even aware of
who their hon. provincial leader might be.
Mr. MacDonald: Ask Rt. hon. C. D. Howe.
He thought the same.
Mr. Wren: Well, I was a bit concerned
about that because every time there is an
election in the Kenora district, be it provin-
cial or federal, we lose some citizens because
the CCF candidates move out of the district.
On March 31, the situation will not change
this time, we will not lose any citizens be-
cause this time they had to import a man
from Port Arthur to run because there was
no one in the riding who was interested in
accepting the nomination.
In fact, the president of the CCF riding
association, who is a barrister in the community
was very willing to pay the Ontario Bar
Association the sum of $1,500 to enable him
to move from Saskatchewan into the district
of Kenora where he could practice law and
earn himself a reasonable living.
Now, the hon. CCF leader the other day
mentioned something about collusion and I
think he suggested that the hon. Minister of
Mines (Mr. Spooner) had engaged in some
sort of an agreement with someone in the
Cochrane district so that no Liberal candidate
would run in the last provincial election,
thereby enabling the hon. Minister to gain
that seat.
I think the hon. member for York South
was again talking from hearsay, but I can tell
him that it is a fact that people with Con-
servative persuasion in the 1951 provincial
general election did pay, and did finance, the
running for office of the CCF candidate in
the Kenora district. That is not hearsay but a
matter of actual fact.
He also mentioned that the hon. member for
Elgin (Mr. McNeil), he thought, was some-
what of a turncoat; he suggested that perhaps
he changed his party affiliations; he had once
been a Liberal and became Progressive-Con-
servative and thus had become elected to the
House.
Well, I would say to the hon. member and
to all hon. members in this House that I do
not think Canada was built, and I do not
think Canada will build, with people who are
entirely conformist. This is a free country,
and if the hon. member for Elgin was inter-
ested in changing his affiliations— and I do not
know whether he did or not, because I do not
live in that part of the country— I would say
that is his business and the business of the
party which saw fit to accept him if he did so.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Wren: Now, I want to say something
else, and I will deal with that soon in my
own fashion. I do not need any assistance
from York South. I think that the hon. mem-
ber for that riding will find when the next
election rolls around that perhaps there might
be some changes in his own organization as
well.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset-
seeing that this interjection has risen— that one
of the prime reasons that prompted me to go
into politics— because I was as surprised as
anyone when I was first elected— one of the
prime reasons that put me into the political
arena at all was that when I came back from
overseas, I found a CCF member sitting in
the provincial Legislature for the riding in
which I live.
178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
, I set to work to chase him out of the riding
—chase him out of the seat, I mean— and I
did. And I will see to it that no one else of
that affiliation, at least under the present
policy of the party, ever holds that seat again.
The hon. member can be sure that the Tories
and the Liberals will fight that out among
themselves as to who will be the member, but
at least we will know what we are fighting
for.
Last summer a large number of the hon.
members of the Legislature travelled through
the northern part of Ontario on one of the
usual "members tours," which was organized
by the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Mapledoram) and his department, and
even I was very amazed, having lived all my
life in the north country, to see the great
developments which are taking place all
across the north, particularly in the new base
mining area.
I think the southern hon. members par-
ticularly got a very keen insight into just
what is taking place in the north, and the
opportunities which are available to the gov-
ernment and to capital generally for invest-
ment in the north country.
There is one significant thing, too, about
the north country, particularly with the events
which are shaping up for March 31. We
hear some people mention that Quebec is
the only province, or the only area in Can-
ada, where the Liberal party seems to have
a firm hold. Federally, in northern Ontario
the Progressive-Conservative party does not
hold a single seat, and I cannot predict that
after the events of March 31 that situation
will change. I think part of the reason is
that we have the large international develop-
ment in that part of the country, the large
international investment, to be more clear,
and this is due to the fact that we did have
far-seeing policies which brought that in-
vestment into areas like Steep Rock, Mani-
touwadge, and so on, and I think it is
something well worth mentioning.
There is another matter I want to discuss
which is not entirely within the confines of
the business of the province of Ontario, but
it is something which is going to have a very
marked effect on vital issues in this province.
I am referring now to the report of the Royal
commission which was just released recently
on the use of diesel firemen on the railroads.
First of all, at the very outset, I want to
clear up some misapprehensions that are
on the minds of many people when they dis-
cuss railroad work. There is some very de-
cided misunderstanding that, just because
someone works for the railway, he makes a
lot of money, and that his wages are very
high. I want to assure this House, Mr. Speak-
er, that it is not so.
There are some trades in the railway where
incomes are admittedly high, but only in
proportion to the extra hours and the extra
time these men put in on extra miles on
their runs. The situation is quite similar
to that of men in factories in southern On-
tario who make a certain salary at 40 hours
a week, but who make a greater take-home
pay if they work 55 and 60 hours. That is
the situation there.
I think hon. members would be surprised
to know that there are railroad men working
in the north country for both railways, who
are isolated from all communities, living out
in section houses where their take-home pay
is something like $40 per week, and where
they have no hydro, no modern facilities of
any kind, no educational facilities except
correspondence courses provided by the de-
partment, and an occasional visit of a school
car.
I certainly do not suggest that everything
is not being done to help that can be done,
but I do suggest that the incomes of those
people are certainly substandard, and cer-
tainly the conditions under which they live
would entitle them, if they were working
for either the provincial or the federal gov-
ernment in the northern areas, to an extra
allowance for hardship.
Now the railways are making quite a story
about this being a bad time to deal with
wage increases, and a bad time to deal with
situations where they feel staffs of certain
kinds are no longer needed.
One very important aspect of this whole
situation that the Royal commission did not
look into, and I cannot understand why the
union counsel did not raise the matter-
there may have been some good reason, I
do not know— but one very important feature
of this situation which was not discussed at
all is the proposal which the railroads made
to recompense men who might lose their
jobs.
The railroads' proposal was one that they
would, with seniority up to 1953, guarantee
their employment and, from 1953 on, would
find other employment for them on the rail-
way in other departments.
Now, with the railway unions' schedules
and with their collective agreements— or
schedules as they call them— it is utterly im-
possible to transfer men and seniority from
one department to another, and impossible
to put men to work in another department
FEBRUARY 14, 1958
179
at an entirely different level of wages. Yet
the railway is suggesting this and I think it
is their hope— as a matter of fact, I think
it is the desire of the railway— to promote a
jurisdictional fight between the unions and
weaken the unions to the greatest extent they
possibly can.
Another statement which has come out
from the office of the president of the Cana-
dian Pacific Railway is that only 100 men
would be affected. Now a statement like
that, I suggest Mr. Speaker, is utter non-
sense. There will be a good deal more than
100 men affected on the Canadian Pacific
Railway alone, and there is the Canadian
National Railways, our own government line,
and several other smaller railways across the
country which will be affected if this de-
cision stands.
I am disturbed, too, that one of our Cana-
dian transcontinental railways, while it is a
concern operated by private capital, was con-
structed in this country under great conces-
sions granted to it by the government of the
day, and today carries federal subsidies of
one kind or another, particularly mail, which
it has the exclusive rights over the Canadian
National Railways across Canada. I am
shocked that a Canadian railway, which
accepts public subsidy, should put itself in a
position where it is the goat for the North
American Railroad Association, and that is
what they plainly and simply are.
The company is trying to make monkeys
out of our railroad men in Canada for the
sole benefit of the American railroads in the
United States system, and I will tell hon.
members why they are doing it, and I am
having this checked now by legal experts to
find out if something can be done in this
House to deal with the situation.
The reason why the American railroads
have used one of our railways as a goat is
because, in some of the states in the United
States, the Legislatures in those states are
authorized, constitutionally and otherwise, to
pass legislation governing the size of crews
and safety control on the railroads through
those states, and several states have that kind
of legislation.
They could not effectively break these
collective agreements in the United States
because of that very situation, but they could
do it here because by mutual consent of the
provinces, the dealings with the railways, due
to their inter-provincial characters, were left
with federal jurisdiction, and the collective
agreements themselves were not framed under
any of the provincial labour relations Acts,
except in rare instances, so that therefore, in
order to set the scheme up in order to build
up the public relations necessary to set this
idea up in the United States, the American
railroads persuaded one of our own to take
this matter on.
There is another misconception which has
developed about this, and it is written right
into the report. The newspaper reports of this
report say that, in England, they do not have
firemen on diesel powered locomotives or
helpers where the run is more than 70 miles.
Now that is just not so, as this report— as hon.
members can see if they read it more fully—
points out, because in the United Kingdom
there are no diesel locomotives, there is not a
single diesel locomotive in the entire United
Kingdom in freight service today. Yet the
impression is conveyed that in England, they
operate these locomotives with one man.
Another thing has to be considered in this
matter. It is all right for the railways to
promote this scheme by saying: "Well, we
are going to take care of this man and going
to take care of that man." But what are they
going to do with the senior man who is already
a locomotive engineer and holds seniority as a
locomotive engineer?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what they
are going to do, and they have already started
out to do it. Due to the fact that they are
going to have on their hands— if this report
is adopted, or effected— a great many extra
younger men whom they either have to find
employment for, one way or another, or pay
compensation in exchange. And they have
already started a merciless medical check-up
of senior men who are now operating our
transcontinental freight and passenger trains,
with the object in view of getting them out
of employment and making a hole where they
can put in some of this so-called surplus
labour material.
What are we going to do with those dis-
qualified men? Let us for the moment accept
this statement of the president of the
Canadian Pacific Railway, supposing the pro-
cedure does affect only 100 men. What is to
be done with the disqualified 100 men who
are perhaps 55 or 60 years of age, and forced
out of employment by severe medical check-
up, firstly because the company wants to get
them out of there and secondly because if
there is only going to be one man in charge
of the front end of that train, he must have
first class health? There is no question about
that.
At the present time, the railway can have a
man in charge of the front end of that train,
180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who is 62 or 63 years old, and has some slight
affliction. He can operate his train in safety
because he has a younger man who is trained
in the rules, and is experienced in the opera-
tion of the locomotive. The younger man can
assist the older man and, if necessary, take
over his duties.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if there is any legal
way in which this House can entertain legis-
lation to prohibit the railways from operating
passenger and freight trains in Ontario with
smaller crews than they have now, I respect-
fully submit that should be done.
Mr. MacDonald: I doubt whether the hon.
member would answer a question on that. He
never did say whether or not he agreed with
the findings of the Kellogg commission, and
I wonder if he would say whether or not he
agrees with the need for the fireman on a
diesel locomotive.
Mr. Wren: I was coming to that, Mr.
Speaker. I do not agree with the findings of
the Royal commission. I have had experience
on the railroad. I was born and raised in rail-
road circles. I have lived on and about them
all my life, and when I was going to school
I was a railroad fireman myself, on freight
and passenger trains with the Canadian
Pacific Railway.
One of the most important things which
was emphasized in those days— of course they
were steam locomotives, but one of the most
important things which was impressed upon a
young man when he took his seat in the left-
hand side of that cab was this: "Be careful,
be safety-conscious." The older man, who was
an engineer of some 25 or 30 years' experi-
ence, usually would tell his assistant: "There
are signals at this post, at that post, at this
corner and that rock cut, at this crossing and
that crossing. Now if your steam gets down a
little bit, or you get into a little bit of trouble
with your fire, leave it alone, get up on your
seat. I have to have your help to see these
signals." Now, they are going to take that man
away.
Mr. Cowling: The brakeman does that.
Mr. Wren: No, the brakeman does not do
that. The brakeman has another job to do,
even on a steam locomotive. His job is to be
available first of all to flag— I am talking about
a moving train now— he is to be available for
flagging, if the need arises for it, and secondly,
he is supposed to watch the running of the
train itself. He is supposed to be looking back
and looking for dragging material, for "hot
boxes," for any signs of danger along the
train, and he must watch for any signals
which might be coming from the caboose. On
a freight train in contrast to a passenger train,
it is impossible to signal any other way than
by hand.
Another situation which could develop,
and another reason why I do not agree with
this report, is that in a case of a stalled
train, the brakeman's job— once that train
stalls— is to get out and flag, but if there
is some danger to the train or something
to be done in the mid-section of the train,
he might have to go back and help, or if
the brakeman is injured, the engineer him-
self would be required to move up the track
the required distance, according to the rules,
and do the flagging, leaving the locomotive
unattended.
I shudder to think what the consequences
of lessening the crews could be. Safety is
all-important in the operation of a railway,
and I can think of all kinds of examples,
where jobs have become redundant in ap-
pearance, where nothing has been done in
that regard until management finds a situa-
tion where they want to break some rail-
way agreements, so they seize on something
like this.
I will give you one example, Mr. Speaker,
right within our own government. On March
31, according to the information we have
been given, liquor permits will be abolished
and replaced by cards, and the purchase of
liquor may be made more simple.
According to a statement by the hon.
member for Beaches (Mr. Collings), who
is the liquor commissioner, none of those
men was laid off because of the change,
and I have no quarrel with that statement.
But I use it just to point out that other
people have found ways and means of
absorbing and continuing the services of
people, and there is no reason why the rail-
ways in Canada cannot let the American
railways look after their own business and
let us look after ours.
Now, another matter I want to mention
briefly— and I do not want to beat this to
death because a lot has already been said—
but I have in mind some remarks which have
been made here the other day concerning the
chairman of the Ontario Hydro commission.
I share with the other hon. speakers the
feeling that this is no place to speak about
a civil servant who is not able to defend
himself from the floor. But I cannot help but
agree with what has already been said, that
the chairman of the Hydro commission has
no business taking part in matters which may
be construed as political.
FEBRUARY 14, 1958
181
I wish to mention another thing, too,
despite the explanation given by the hon.
Prime Minister.
The hon. Prime Minister said yesterday
that he was serving a very useful purpose,
but what the hon. Prime Minister was talking
about was imports, the importation of goods
into this country and into this province. What
we are interested in is exports, and I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the heavy in-
dustrial users of hydro— people who are in
manufacturing and who are seeking expansion
of trade, and of exports— are not very happy
that an Ontario government commission
should be promoting import of trade in com-
petition with themselves.
However, it does appear that the chairman
of the Hydro commission does not have a
great deal to do and if he has not much to
do there are some questions I would like to
have him look up, and I would like to have
him bring the answers to the committee on
commissions when it meets next week or the
week after.
I will put these questions on the order
paper tomorrow as well, in order to give him
ample opportunity to answer, and the ques-
tions are these:
I would like to know what is the total
amount paid to the Canadian Comstock Com-
pany for its share of the frequency conversion
programme? Secondly, have the volume pur-
chase rebates received by Canadian Com-
stock for purchases of material used on the
frequency conversion programme been re-
turned to The Hydro Electric Power Com-
mission of Ontario? What is the amount and
where is it reflected in the commission's
annual financial report? It seemingly cannot
be found. If the volume purchase rebates
received by Canadian Comstock have not
been returned to the Hydro commission, is
it the intention of the chairman that they
will be returned to Hydro in order to reduce
the overall cost of frequency conversion to
the people of Ontario?
Now, there was evidence given two or
three years ago before the restrictive trade
practices commission of The Department of
Justice, where it was a common practice for
suppliers of electrical materials to give rebates
to purchasers in quantities. And the Comstock
Company is no exception. And I would like
the chairman to make that information avail-
able to this House. What has happened to
these rebates and where have they been
applied in Hydro accounts?
Another matter which I would like to bring
to the attention of this House, which I think
is very important, is this: In this frenzied
haste between political parties these days, to
be first at the door of the welfare state, there
are a few people in our economy whom we
are forgetting all about, and who are getting
a bit roughed up in the process. I have in
mind those people who are neither indigent
nor wealthy, and have no means other than
a few dollars in savings to help them when
disaster strikes.
I have in mind one case of a woman who
lives in my community, who is severely
stricken with arthritis, and as a result is
severely crippled. Expert medical advice was
obtained, and following diagnosis the pres-
criptions of Meta-Cortone were raised, which
enabled this lady to get back on her feet.
While not regaining her health she was at
least removed from the crippled stage.
The cost of those pills were between $40
and $70 a month, dependent on the dosage
prescribed from time to time by the doctor.
Now, despite the cost of the doctor, the
$40 or $70 had to be paid each time the
prescription was filled on a monthly basis.
It reached the point where the couple had to
sell their home in order to get enough money
to buy the pills, and it reached the stage
where when that money was exhausted
nothing else could be done except the person
return to the crippled state.
Now, everybody in the province who knows
anything about this are very sympathetic
about it, and have done all they can do.
But there are still situations like that where
it is impossible for the government to help
under existing laws and regulations, and
where it is likewise impossible for the person
to help himself simply because he does not
have the money.
Something has been said too, in recent
days, about education. I am not going to say
too much about education at this time, be-
cause I intend to deal with it at some length
during the estimates in the budget debate.
But I would like to say this, that in my
opinion education is the best unemployment
insurance scheme we can develop, the best
education we can give our youngsters is going
to develop our best unemployment insurance.
And I am very happy indeed with the
announcement in the speech from the Throne,
and later with the introduction of the bill
by the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Dunlop) to provide for a student loan sys-
tem.
I well realize it is going to take some time
to get this thing under way and iron out
the details of it, but I am sure it will be
182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ready for the next session of the univer-
sities. It is going to be of great assistance
to the people in northwestern Ontario, be-
cause if they are going to attend Ontario
universities at all, they have to come great
distances, and most of the citizens of north-
western Ontario are not in the financial area
where they can stand the strain of two or
three children attending school over those
distances, and with the attendant costs of
room and board in addition to tuition. I
am very pleased indeed that the hon. Minis-
ter has brought this under way.
I am happy too with his announcement
that land has been purchased and plans are
under way to erect a teachers' college at
the Lakehead. This is something, too, we
have sought for a long time, and we are
very happy with the prospect that our stu-
dents from that part of the country who
are interested in the teaching profession will
be able to attend a teachers' college nearer
to home.
Now, other than that, I will leave any
further remarks I have on education to the
budget debate.
I want to say something, though, about our
tourist industry. It is becoming more and
more important to our economy, and as was
pointed out yesterday by the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost), at a small gathering
we had in the cabinet room, we want people
in the millions, in the hundreds of thousands
to come from the United States to visit us.
I feel that there is still a great deal we
can do to help this situation, particularly in
the time of unemployment fears. It has been
advocated, and one of the hon. Ministers of
the Crown at one time or another suggested
that he is in sympathy with the idea, and
this is that we grant loans for capital im-
provements to tourist camp outfitters. I
think it is a very desirable form of loan to
make, and a desirable form of assistance to
a basic natural resource industry.
But one other thing is still a cause
for concern and still a cause of anxiety to
existing tourist and camp outfitters and vis-
itors and citizens alike, and that is the
present set-up of stupid liquor laws that
have to do with catering to the visiting
public. I know hon. members may get tired
of me talking about this year after year,
but I get a bit annoyed at having to see
respectable people be and remain bootleg-
gers in the eyes of the law just because
they want to entertain visitors in this country
who are seeking that kind of entertainment
and interest.
I do not know why we cannot do some-
thing about it, and I see some small signs
in legislation which is coming out in this ses-
sion that something might be done. Perhaps
I am under a misapprehension, but I hope
that is so.
There is another avenue of assistance to
which I think the tourist industry is en-
titled. I feel that they should be subsidized
or assisted in some way in their advertising.
A great deal of their advertising helps not
only themselves, their particular camp, but
helps business in the whole area, and I do
not know why we could not make some
laws to assist these people with their adver-
tising—perhaps through assistance to a tourist
council in an area. I do not know just how
it might be done, but I think something
should be worked out. I feel it would pay
very, very worthwhile returns.
In dealing with highways, I want to pay
tribute at this time to the method and way in
which the affairs of The Department of High-
ways are handled in the north country. Hon.
members will recall that, not too many years
ago, I was one of the more severe critics, shall
we say, of the conduct of The Department of
Highways. I want to be just as fair now as I
was critical then, that there has been a great
improvement, and a great deal of good work
is being done today, under the stewardship of
the hon. Minister (Mr. Allan). No longer is
it impossible to get information, and no longer
is there any real concern as to how the affairs
are being directed, and I think a great deal
of credit is due to the new organization in
that respect.
And I want to say something else, too,
about the department, something which sur-
prises a lot of people down here in the Queen
City.
When they get 3 or 4 inches of snow here,
the city is practically paralyzed. We can get
huge falls of snow in the north and, in all
my experience and I travel a good deal in the
north country, since Vie war I have never
been stuck for more than 20 or 30 minutes
for want of a cleared highway. The traffic is
moving all the time under the most trying
and difficult conditions, and I think the hon.
Minister and his entire staff deserve a great
deal of credit for it.
There is another thing of which most
people are not aware, and I think I will start
the educational programme in this House
right now, by saying this, that motorists can
drive right across Ontario. They can go from
one side of Ontario to the other, from Quebec
to the Manitoba border, and stay within the
confines of Ontario.
FEBRUARY 14, 1958
183
I get a bit annoyed sometimes by questions
such as the one by a chap this morning. "Are
you going home this week end?" he asked. I
said, "I do not know, why?" and he said,
"Well, I suppose you drive?" I said, "Yes, I
could get back a week from tomorrow if I did
that."
He said, "Where do you go? You have to
go into the United States, do you not, in
order to get to Kenora?"
I took him down and had one of the girls
give him a map. I do not know whether he
looked at it or not but, as the northwestern
chamber of commerce pointed out very wisely,
it does not have a good effect on travel in the
province when even our own people are not
aware that there is a trans-Canada highway
system almost completed, across Ontario, and
that the highway is in existence to take
motorists from one side of the province to
the other any time they wish to go.
Another matter which I am going to discuss
in more detail again in estimates, but which
I would serve notice upon the hon. Minister
of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) that I am
going to do, is the adoption programme in the
province. I am going to take a very critical
look at it. I think it has reached the stage,
Mr. Speaker, where some of these "do-good"
organizations should be called to a halt in
some of their activities, and where more of
these unfortunate young people should be
taken into homes where they are needed and
where they are wanted.
Another matter, too, that I want to discuss
later, is compensation to widows and accident
victims whose rate of compensation was fixed
in days far removed from conditions as they
are today. I think it is time, and I do not
know who is going to pay for it. The hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley) has told us
on other occasions that industry today cannot
be expected to pay for industry's ill fortune of
yesterday, for the workman's ill fortune of
yesterday. But neither can we expect the man
who has to live today to live decently on the
kind of compensation he was awarded for an
injury he may have had, or for a widow for
the death of whose husband had occurred,
prior to 1939. Something has to be done
about this situation. If the money has to come
out of the general revenue fund to make these
adjustments, let us make them, and put these
people back on a respectable level.
Now, yesterday and the day before there
was quite a lot of information given out about
access roads to be constructed in the north
country. Again we are moving in the right
direction, and each one of those roads, when
they are built, will return tenfold the money
and effort expended into putting them in. It
does not matter where they are built, because
the access roads committee is composed of
men who know what they are doing, but each
one of those roads will be very profitable.
I am particularly pleased that, in my own
riding, roads which we have been seeking for
some years are going into important com-
munities and the benefit to the communities
from the roads will be very great indeed, and
will be very well received.
Last, but not least, in my remarks today,
I want to say something more about a pet
subject or pet hate, call it what you will. I
refer to Indian affairs. I suggested to the hon.
Prime Minister in another meeting yesterday
that if he has any influence with the present
hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefen-
baker), it would be my hope that he would
encourage the federal Department of Indian
Affairs to go and do some house cleaning. I
do not think we have any right to look at
Little Rock, Arkansas, or at some of the con-
ditions in the southern States, when we have
the existing conditions among the Indians in
our own province. And I think, if the hon.
Minister of Education and the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests want to discuss the
matter at any time, I think I am safe in saying
they will say that, despite what they do to
try to set up benefits for the Indian people,
particularly in the remote areas, they get all
kinds of promises from Ottawa but they get
very little action.
The discrimination which exists, and which
is encouraged by The Department of Indian
Affairs, is actually sickening to behold.
I brought one matter to the attention of
the hon. Minister of Transport two or three
months ago, where in one section of my
riding, where they were erecting new build-
ings, white men on the job were getting
$2.25 an hour plus their room and board.
The Indian working right beside them do-
ing exactly the same work and with an equal
degree of skill, was getting 80 cents an hour.
Out of this he paid his own board, in a post
where a bag of flour costs $38.50.
That is the kind of treatment those people
are getting.
When things get bad in commercial fishing
fields, a white man will get 17 and 18 cents
when prices are down, while the Indian will
get 12 cents for the same thing. And no-
body does anything about it, nobody seems
to care.
I am convinced that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter and the hon. Minister of Education, too,
would be quite happy to take over the ad-
184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ministration of Indian affairs in Ontario if
Ottawa would get out of the picture and
leave the matter to us. I think we could
do a good job.
The other day there was some announce-
ment that for the first time, an Indian has
been appointed to the Senate. I do not have
the ear of hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, if I had
I would tell him I would be very happy
indeed if he would appoint the Indian, whom
he just made a Senator, as the chairman of
a special committee to look into The De-
partment of Indian Affairs, and see what
can be done to help these unfortunate people.
In education, of course, the Indians present
quite a serious problem, and I am speaking
now of the remote areas, because I realize
that farther south there are some very ex-
cellent facilities available for the Indian peo-
ple. But up my way, we are getting them
up to grade 8 and grade 9 levels, then they
are going back into the woods with an edu-
cation that is practically worthless to them.
And I can assure hon. members that those
who, by one means or another, are enabled
to get out and get a better education would
make for themselves a very good mark in
our society. I would again urge that some-
thing be done about Indian affairs in Ontario,
and I think this government would be very
happy to take charge of these matters if
Ottawa would just get out of the road, and
let somebody who is interested do something
about it.
Now when the estimates for liquor come
down, of course, I am going to have some-
thing more to say on that subject, too.
I want to have something more to say for
this reason. It seems awfully strange to me
that everywhere one goes, down here, people
say: "Now, do not talk about booze, because
people do not like it." But everywhere I go
around Toronto and southern Ontario, every-
body drinks it. It is just like the weather,
nobody wants to do anything about it.
Mr. Allan: Not everybody.
Mr. Wren: Well, not everybody, but non-
drinkers are very scarce. I would like to see
something done to elevate this traffic, this
industry, this business to a place of distinction
and dignity rather than what it is now.
It is unfortunate indeed that we have to
retain this beer parlour, this tavern, society
to keep alcoholic beverages out of first class
restaurants and establishments like that.
When we see some of these parlours and
taverns— well, I just have not got a word
which will fit in here because it has to go
down on the record and I would not like to
say what I am thinking. But some of these
places certainly have to be cleaned up, and
the only way we are going to be able to do
it is put the business on a respectable level.
So let us talk about beer and let us do some-
thing about it. Let us not all be so afraid.
Now, finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to
say that the announcement made today about
unemployment is going to be welcome to the
municipalities generally, because everyone is
getting concerned about it. Unemployment
is something I think we should be very careful
with. I feel confident that the part of the
country from where I come — northwestern
Ontario — has a great future ahead of it, and
now that these airlifts from Europe are
finished, or at least these airlifts are curtailed
to some extent, I would suggest Mr. Speaker,
that we start an airlift from Toronto up to
northwestern Ontario. If people bring some
money along with them, they will get along
fine up there, because we need a larger popu-
lation, we need money, we need investments,
because we offer great opportunities. I do
really feel that the time has come when these
smog infested cities, these lung-cancer culture
centres, might better be divided up a little
bit and moved to other parts of the province.
I assure hon. members that there is a
hearty welcome waiting for them there, and
I am sure that Trans-Canada Air Lines would
get them up there fairly quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion carried.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment
of the House, I would say that the plan is to
proceed with the Throne debate on Monday.
There may be a number of bills called of a
non-contentious nature, but as stated before,
if there is any question about any of them,
they will be held up.
Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment of the
House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 3.36 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 11
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
©ebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, February 17, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A* W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
gteS^>5
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 17, 1958
Reading and receiving petitions 187
Sudbury Young Women's Christian Association, bill to incorporate, Mr. Monaghan,
first reading 187
Waterloo College Associate Faculties, bill respecting, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading ... 187
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 187
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Cowling, Mr. Whicher 194
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Herbert, agreed to 212
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 212
Public Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 212
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 213
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 213
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 213
Certification of Titles Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, second reading 213
Township of Kay Road Allowance Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Mapledoram,
second reading 213
Provincial Land Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. Mapledoram, second reading 213
Cancer Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading 213
Cemeteries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading 214
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading ... 214
Town Sites Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Mapledoram, second reading 214
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Goodfellow, agreed to 215
187
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 17, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the city of Sault Ste.
Marie praying that an Act may pass providing
a two-year term for members of the public
utilities commission and the memorial gardens
commission.
Of the United Community Fund of Greater
Toronto praying that an Act may pass author-
izing by-laws as to the manner of giving
notice of meetings of its members.
Of the corporation of Anson House and the
city of Peterborough praying that an Act may
pass ratifying an agreement vesting all pro-
perty, etc., of Anson House in the corporation
of the city of Peterborough for the purposes
of a home for the aged to be established by
the city.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
SUDBURY YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION
Mr. G. J. Monaghan moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Sud-
bury Young Women's Christian Association."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
WATERLOO COLLEGE ASSOCIATE
FACULTIES
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act respecting Waterloo
College Associate Faculties."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Eleventh report of the liquor licence
board of Ontario for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1957.
2. Thirty-first report of the liquor control
board of Ontario for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. W. Spooner ( Minister of Mines ) :
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
may I take a few minutes of the time of the
House to tell of an event which took place
at Timmins on Saturday last, which I believe
is of interest to the hon. members of this
House and to the people of Ontario.
On Saturday last, I had the pleasure and
the privilege of officially opening the fifth
school to be constructed in Ontario for men-
tally retarded children.
There are, at the present time, 47 local
associations for mentally retarded children in
various parts of the province. The Porcupine
and district association for retarded children
has been operating for the past several years
through the co-operation of local service clubs,
firms and individuals, the municipalities and
their school boards, and The Ontario Depart-
ment of Education. The new school, and all
of the equipment in it, will also be entirely
free of debt within a short time, thanks to the
financial support of the parties I have men-
tioned and the J. P. Bickle Foundation.
As one who has been interested in support-
ing the local association, I can personally see
that much good can be achieved in the train-
ing of these unfortunate children who cannot
receive educational opportunity in the same
manner as other youth of this province. I
commend the work of the Ontario Association
for Mentally Retarded Children and that of
their associated organizations.
Hon. L. M. Frost ( Prime Minister ) : Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity, a very wel-
come opportunity indeed, which comes about
once a year. I refer to the fact that this week
is Brotherhood Week. This has become an in-
stitution in this province and one to which
we all heartily subscribe.
188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The observing of this event commenced
yesterday, and I know that we are all glad to
associate ourselves with the Canadian Council
of Christians and Jews and other very worthy
organizations and, I think, with all right-
thinking citizens in their great effort to bring
about a feeling of mutual understanding
between all peoples regardless of race, colour
or creed.
In our own province, as I suppose in most
others, there may be some residue perhaps of
feeling which we all want to have eliminated
as soon as possible. Canada has set a very
notable example, since its very first days, of
the ability of peoples of various races to get
along together. That is the basic element of
the great progress of our country. I think the
fact that we have shown that example to the
world is one of the great contributions Canada
has made to the world.
I would say that, while we ourselves must
always be on guard against things which cause
lack of understanding, we should remember a
word which is becoming out of date, "tolera-
tion", which used to be a great word 50 years
ago. Since then, it has perhaps come to
acquire a patronizing meaning.
Nevertheless, I would emphasize that we
must continue to cultivate among ourselves,
within our own society and our own country,
a spirit of understanding. The fact that we
have done so is why we are able to show the
world that we can live at peace, among and
with ourselves, at peace with our neighbours.
I am very glad to recognize the great work
of the spirit which this week exemplifies.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Mr.
Speaker, I hope you will permit me to join
in the well-chosen words of the hon. Prime
Minister in support of Brotherhood Week.
I know that this is generally an occasion when
the hon. leaders of the parties give expressions
of support on this occasion, but as I say, I
hope you will permit me these few words,
as I am a member of the board of directors
of the Council of Christians and Jews which
sponsors Brotherhood Week. I am therefore
very anxious to help spread this gospel of
brotherhood.
Incidentally, in this regard, Mr. Speaker,
much credit is due to the national director
of that organization, Rev. Richard Jones. This
reverend gentleman has done very wonderful
work, over the past number of years, in
spreading the gospel of brotherhood, and
much of the success of that organization is
due to his work.
The message of brotherhood, Mr. Speaker,
bears constant repetition. Aside from the
very indecency and immorality of bigotry,
self-preservation demands that we eliminate
race hatred. It must be apparent by now
that, to overlook discrimination against others
is to once again risk unleashing the gods of
war from which all of us will suffer.
Bigotry, race hatred and intolerance even-
tually destroy our own loved ones. Surely
the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker, have proven
this. Those who felt that the horrible things
that were happening in Europe were no
concern of theirs eventually paid with their
own blood or the blood of their own loved
ones. Those who today may feel secure in
the knowledge that they are here in a free
country and therefore need have no con-
cern (besides perhaps occasional lip service)
for those who suffer in other places — for
example, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic States,
Africa, all over the world— are living in a
fool's paradise. Unless we concern ourselves
with our brothers in those places, all of us
here I say will eventually suffer for it.
Brotherhood of course begins at home, and
here in Ontario, our hon. Prime Minister has
a right to speak on behalf of brotherhood be-
cause he and his government have been in the
forefront of those who have put words into
action, and have given a great example to the
rest of the country in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, as one who has been deeply
involved in the reception and resettlement of
immigrants in the last few years, I tell the
hon. members that I have seen amongst many
of our immigrants a tragic outlook on life
which is indelibly imprinted on their faces.
This has come as a result of living for 20
years under the heels of tyrants who used race
hatred to ride to power. This outlook on life,
indelibly imprinted on their minds as well as
in their faces, will never in many instances
be erased.
We should not for a moment think that we
will not have to share in the problems of
many of these unfortunate people, and let us
not feel that what has happened in the past
cannot happen again— and here. Many years
ago, Alexander Pope wrote:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated, needs but to be seen,
Yet seen too oft familiar with her face,
First we endure, then pity, then embrace.
Now should we feel that perhaps this could
not be true today, that it could not happen
today, permit me to quote from Time maga-
zine of January 21-not 1858, 1937, 1938-but
1958, and I quote:
In an interview between Francois
Mauriac, one of France's leading writers
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
189
of the Catholic school and the British jour-
nalist Philip Toynbee, which appeared
recently in the London Observer, Toynbee
asked why it was (and to quote him),
"Hardly anybody nowadays seems to talk
about the extermination of the European
Jews. The whole terrible thing has been
forgotten after only 10 years."
Mauriac's reply was that he ( and I quote
him again) "is extremely pessimistic. During
the terrible massacres committed by Hitler,
I tried to console myself," Mauriac states,
"that at least they would act as a frightful
warning to the rest of humanity. Nothing
of that sort has happened. Far from being
a warning, it has provided a terrible ex-
ample which has been followed all over the
world. People get used to torture and they
form a fearful taste for it."
I remind the hon. members that the point
here is as Alexander Pope wrote many years
ago— if we engage in bigotry, first we endure
it, we will soon embrace it, then we will all
suffer for it. And may I, Mr. Speaker, close
with the following lines of John Donne:
No man is an island entire of itself.
Every man is a piece of the continent, part
of the main. If a clod be washed away by
the sea, Europe is the less as well as if a
manner of thy friends or thy own were.
Any man's death diminishes me, because
I am involved in mankind, and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.
This is the lesson of life which we must
learn if we are not all to perish in an all-
consuming holocaust, if we are to ever live
in peace with each other.
The message of Brotherhood Week is,
"I am my brother's keeper."
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I would but re-echo the
sentiments expressed by the hon. Prime Min-
ister and the hon. member for St. Andrew.
It is well that we pause and reflect on the
great principle about which we talk today.
In the last few years, hundreds of thou-
sands of new people have come to live with
us and in that testing period, we have had
to learn again the essence of brotherly love
and extend the principle of the brotherhood
of man.
Loving one's brother, understanding his
problems, seems to me a never-finished task.
The price tag on better relations with our
fellows is that of constant vigilance. We
must be continually at work educating our-
selves and our fellows as to the moral values
involved, and we must also, it seems to me,
be prepared to give something of ourselves
in order that there might be a unification of
ideas as between the other fellow and our-
selves.
In Ontario we have a reasonably good
job in this regard, and the only warning
word I give is that the job is never done,
the relationship is never fully brought about.
We must be always on our guard to improve
ourselves, so that out of our relationship
might come better understanding and a
deeper sense of brotherly love itself.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to re-echo, without
repeating, the sentiments that the hon. Prime
Minister has expressed on the opening of
Brotherhood Week.
I would just like to add two points: First,
to underline the statement of the hon. Prime
Minister that in Canada we have perhaps
an example which in this respect we can
take considerable pride, an example of hav-
ing throughout our history resolved these
racial or nationalistic differences without the
degree of violence which has been the case
in the history of many other great nations.
I think, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we forget
that in the history of even a country like
Great Britain, they fought a number of very
bitter wars, now some centuries back, before
they were able to achieve a national unity
because of the nationalistic and language
differences that happened to be within that
country.
In the great nation to the south of us,
they fought a bitter civil war to resolve
those differences.
We in Canada, it is true, in the 19th cen-
tury had our rebellion of '37, our Red River
rebellion, and our Riel rebellion, and in
trying to keep up with the Joneses in writing
our history we have exaggerated the pro-
portions of these. In most instances they
were Sunday School picnics by comparison
with the kind of struggle that other nations
had to go through, and therefore I think we
can take a measure of pride in our achieve-
ments without being complacent.
My second point would be this: I think this
practice that is now growing apace, of setting
aside weeks for particular purposes, is at once
good and bad. Hon. members will have noted
that today we have not only Education Week
and Brotherhood Week, but we have Fish
Week, and last year I think we even came up
with Tossed Salad Week.
190
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I say this is good and bad. It may be good
that we should remind ourselves for one week
in the year of the eternal truth involved in
this principle of human brotherhood, but there
is the danger that we may think that, having
paid special lip-service to it during that week,
we can forget about it for the other 51 weeks
in the year.
That, I think, Mr. Speaker, is something we
dare not do in the kind of world we are living
in, and my hope would be that sometime soon
we can move from having Brotherhood Week
to Brotherhood Year which would extend from
January 1 to December 31 of every year, so
that those principles to which we are paying
lip-service will be lived up to more fully
throughout the whole 52 weeks of the year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
answer the question of the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Oliver) which I was com-
pelled to overlook on Friday, and also other
questions which were raised by the hon. mem-
bers opposite relative to the address at the
combined meeting of the Empire-Canadian
Clubs and subsequently over CFRB by Mr.
Duncan, chairman of Hydro, which took place
on Thursday, February 6, I think.
Now, I beg to advise that no portion of any
expenses incurred have been paid or will be
paid by either The Hydro Electric Power
Commission or the government of Ontario or
any government agency. That, I think,
answers the question of the hon. leader of the
Opposition.
In the meantime, however, there was a
question raised by the hon. member for Brant
(Mr. Nixon) the other day, and in response to
other questions may I say that I have had the
opportunity now of reading Mr. Duncan's
address to the combined Empire and Canadian
Clubs, and also his radio speech, both of
February 6, and I must say that I find the
thing completely non-political and I think I
am a good judge of what is political and what
is not. I have had some years of experience
in that, and I would judge it as being non-
political.
But, may I say that, if my ability to make
that judgment is doubted, if my impartiality
is doubted in that regard, then I would like
to call to my side certain other witnesses, and
among them is Mr. Henry Langford, the presi-
dent of the Canadian Club. I have known Mr.
Langford, of course, for very many years. Mr.
Langford, I can assure hon. members, is not
a member of the flock which I lead. He is a
very well-known Canadian.
Mr. Langford made public a letter which he
addressed to the hon. leader of the Opposition
and he says:
I note by this morning's paper that you
express the opinion that the recent address
given by Mr. J. S. Duncan in this city
showed political partisanship. This address
was given at a joint meeting of the Cana-
dian and Empire Clubs, and not the Empire
Club alone as indicated by you. The meet-
ing was arranged prior to the calling of the
first present federal general election.
Neither in concept nor in content was there
anything political in the remarks of Mr.
Duncan. Far from being the subject of
attack such as was made by you, I think
Mr. Duncan and other persons who are
endeavouring to solve our trade problems
should receive the thanks of all responsible
Canadians.
Now, that was from Mr. Henry Langford,
who, as I say, is certainly not political in the
sense that the hon. leader of the Opposition
refers to myself and the activities of people
such as myself.
I have also gone to this trouble to obtain a
list of the personnel of the Canadian mission.
I have a list of prominent Canadians here
which I do not think is necessary to place on
the records of the House, but if any hon.
member would like to look at it, I would be
very glad to give him the list.
The composition of the trade mission is
obviously strictly non-political. The personnel
included, among others, Mr. Leonard Brock-
ington, whom I do not think anyone could say
is partisan from the standpoint of the party
with which I am connected. Mr. Lloyd Jasper
represented the Ontario Federation of Agri-
culture. Mr. George T. Schollie, vice-president
of the Canadian Congress of Labour, was
present on the mission.
I was also very much interested to see the
name there of one with whom I had very
considerable association some years ago, and
have had association with since— Mr. Donald
Stevens, the chairman and general manager
of the Manitoba Hydro Electric Power Com-
mission, which is the counterpart of our com-
mission.
Now, that particular commission is asso-
ciated with the government of Manitoba,
which is of a different political faith than the
one which is in office in Ontario. I do not
think it could be said there is anything parti-
san about Mr. Stevens' membership on that
commission.
However, I was very much interested in
something else, and I give it to the hon.
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
191
leader of the Opposition. This mission was
announced in the House of Commons on
November 8 by hon. G. M. Churchill, the
federal Minister of Trade and Commerce, and
among the comments in connection with the
trade mission was one by that very great
Canadian, the Rt. hon. Louis St. Laurent,
who was then leader of the Opposition, and
for whom I myself have always had a very
great regard. Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent said
this:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members
of the House will welcome the statement
made by the hon. Minister of Trade and
Commerce and will extend their best
wishes to him, and to those who will ac-
company him on this mission.
There is no doubt that greater diversi-
fication of our import trade would be
beneficial to our economy, and the govern-
ment has come to the conclusion that this
is apt to be an effective way of furthering
that objective.
We hope that their prognostics and
hopes in that regard will be realized, and
that there will be a furthering of what
has been I think the desire and objectives
of all parties in the House to see restored,
to the greatest possible extent, the multi-
lateral trade that used to exist and that
did have beneficial effects for all of those
who participated in that mutual trade.
There have been dislocations which
brought about inevitable results. I hope
that those results will not be permanently
inevitable and that they can be overcome.
I can assure the hon. Minister that we
wish him well in his endeavours to re-
store as near an approach to multilateral
trade as can be realized under present
world conditions.
I would say that is a statenient that one
would expect from Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent,
whom I count as a great Canadian.
I would read to the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald), the comments of
Mr. M. J. Coldwell, who comes from Saskat-
chewan, a place for which the hon. member
has great regard.
Mr. Speaker, we can join very heartily
of course with the hon. leader of the Op-
position (Mr. St. Laurent), wishing this
delegation every success in Great Britain.
I notice that, in the hon. Minister's state-
ment—I understand why of course— he laid
particular stress on the desirability of
British exports to Canada.
I am sure that the delegation will not
lose sight of the other side in which we
are also very interested, namely the ques-
tion of enlarging our exports to the United
Kingdom. The more imports we take from
the United Kingdom and Commonwealth
countries, the more we provide them with
the necessary dollars which they can spend
in Canada for the exports that we wish to
send abroad.
Now, I very heartily agree with what Mr.
Coldwell has said in that regard. He said
further:
Representing as I do an agricultural con-
stituency, a food-growing area, I am anx-
ious to see an expansion of trade with the
United Kingdom not only for industry
generally but particularly to help our agri-
cultural situation. Even if the list of gen-
tlemen who are going to England has not
been completed, if the hon. Minister has
a list, I would ask him if he would like
to table a partial list this afternoon and
add to it later.
I have the list here, as I have said. Now,
in looking it over, I find on reading the
addresses and the comments, one in which
I was particularly interested, by His Royal
Highness the Duke of Edinburgh when he
spoke to this trade delegation. I cannot find
a trace of anything of a partisan or a party
nature.
I think there is something that appeals to
all Canadians, and I find nothing which I
would find at all not only disagreeable but
with which I could not agree with, most
wholeheartedly.
I say to the hon. leader of the Opposition
again, that in looking at it, Mr. Duncan I
think has made it abundantly clear that any-
thing he has said of that nature was calcu-
lated only to improve the position of our
country at home and abroad. His views were
non-partisan, and I would say that neither
the government of the province nor the Hydro
Electric Power Commission is in any way
financing the spreading of the views which
he expressed.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly allow
the hon. Prime Minister to be satisfied with
that sort of a statement. Much of what he has
said this afternoon I would term irrelevant
and almost superfluous.
He has argued that it is quite all right, it
is quite the proper thing, to increase trade
with England. Nobody is disputing that,
nobody is disputing the rights of any federal
192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government to send a trade mission to Great
Britain in order to foster increased trade as
between Canada and Great Britain.
The only point at issue, and I outlined it
clearly the other day, was that I doubted
whether it was the proper activity for the
chairman of the Hydro Electric Power Com-
mission, and we do not need to get shoved
off onto sideroads on this particular matter.
The issue is quite clear. The hon. Prime
Minister tells me who went to the trade mis-
sion. It is quite proper that anyone should
go who is interested in fostering trade between
England and Canada.
The only point at issue, and he has skirted
around it completely, is that Mr. Duncan
came back to Canada and sought to further
the principle of increasing trade with Great
Britain, and he kept on saying that the way
to do that was to divert to England trade
presently held with the United States.
Now in the passing of time— the hon. Prime
Minister knows this quite well— this issue has
become perhaps the paramount one in the
present federal election campaign.
There are those who say that the way to
increase trade with England is to increase
our overall trade. There are those who
violently oppose the principle of diverting
trade from the United States to England. It
has become perhaps the hottest controversial
political issue in the present election campaign.
Now, what I take issue with— and I say it
to the hon. Prime Minister that it is on the
soundest grounds— is that the chairman of the
Hydro Electric Power Commission, a political
appointee of this government, perhaps the
highest paid appointee of the government, has
no right in any way, shape or form to take
the platform or to take the radio in the midst
of a general election campaign and take one
side of the issue involved. That is exactly
what he has done.
Now the hon. Prime Minister missed that
point entirely. That is the main point. If
the hon. Prime Minister is going to excuse
Mr. Duncan for talking partisan politics in
the midst of an election campaign, then by
the same waive of the rule he excuses every
other civil servant and political appointee of
this government, and they have equal right
to go out and take part in the political
campaign.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have vio-
lated a rule that has been honoured by all
political parties down through the years,
and that is that civil servants as political
appointees shall not take part in political
election campaigns, and in this instance, there
is no one to suggest that he is not taking part
in an election campaign.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, of course, Mr.
Speaker, I would say to the hon. leader of
the Opposition that the matter really arose in
his speech of a week ago tomorrow, in which
he said that the trade mission to England was
political in character. May I point out that
Mr. St. Laurent's statement and Mr. Cold-
well's statement I think should disprove that
to his satisfaction.
Mr. Oliver: Would the hon. Prime Min-
ister not say that every trade mission spon-
sored by the federal government is political
in character? It is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say, of course,
everything— when we get down to that— every-
thing is political for this reason, that almost
everything that is done in the country affects
government in some way or other.
But I point out that it is not partisan or
political in the sense that the hon. leader of
the Opposition used the expression. Mr. St.
Laurent and Mr. Coldwell, I think, made that
perfectly plain that it was not the case, that
it was something on which they were all
united.
I would say to the hon. leader of the
Opposition that the Ottawa people, the fed-
eral leader of the Opposition, the leader of
the national CCF, and I did not read the
statement by the Social Creditors but it was
much the same, and may I point out that
they regarded it as not only all-party, but as
a matter of Tact the viewpoint expressed by
all the parties was that they hoped this could
be done.
Now I would say that the hon. leader of
the Ontario Opposition is more political and
is more sensitive than the good people at
Ottawa were.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, would any further question be
allowed in this respect?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would ask the hon.
Prime Minister whether or not he thinks the
"little people" of Ontario were served well
during the absence of the chairman in respect
to the administration of our great Hydro
Electric Power Commission?
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): That
is when they turned on the lights for the little
people.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, if Mr. Duncan
was not hired to turn on the lights, why do
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
193
we pay him $30,000 each year, or something
in the neighbourhood of that?
What I am driving at is this. Much of
what has been said thus far is true. As the
hon. leader of the Opposition has pointed
out, the real issue I think is the question of
whether or not a man in Mr. Duncan's posi-
tion who, as head of a giant industrial cor-
poration in this province, and the only in-
dustrial corporation over which we have real
control, should be spending his time on some-
thing that may be very desirable.
All of us want to increase trade. I think
it desirable that it be increased in a multi-
tudinous manner as suggested by Rt. hon.
Mr. St. Laurent.
But, on the other hand, either this man
is required to serve the people of Ontario
in his job, or we are paying him far too
much money for the services that we are
receiving. If he is not required as a full-
time employee, then I suggest that we think
in terms of somebody who will do a full-
time job.
On the other hand, if he is required to
administer this great industrial empire, then
I think his place is at the head of it.
Certainly there are a lot of people in
Canada today being paid $30,000 who would
love to go on a trade mission, but their
corporations and their senior officials feel
that their time is better spent at the head
of their individual corporations, or at least
in management, and I think that this man,
patriotic and very competent as he may be,
did to a degree let the little people of
Ontario down, when he went off on a junket
that may be good, but certainly is not par-
ticularly helpful to the people of Ontario
with regards to the administration of Hydro
Electric affairs.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that perhaps it is not necessary
for me to go further than to say that the
view held here is identically the same view
as held by the Liberal government in Mani-
toba, because the chairman of their com-
mission, Mr. Stevens, went on the same trade
mission. Now does it become wrong here
and right in Manitoba, I ask my hon. friend
that?
Mr. Wintermeyer: What about the little
people of Ontario?
Mr. Frost: May I say to the hon. member
that I take the responsibilities of leadership
which must come from Hydro on a broader
basis than the hon. member has done. I
think that the chairman of Hydro, now it
might be Dr. Hearn or Dr. Hogg or others—
but let us take for instance Dr. Hearn, who
was gratefully devoting his talent to other
matters of broad interest in Canadian life—
I think that the chairman of Hydro, which
is probably Ontario's biggest corporation, is
vitally concerned with cleaning the life blood
of industry in our province, and has to take
a big broad Canadian view, and that is my
answer to the hon. member.
Mr. Oliver: We would have to have a rov-
ing chairman and a working one.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, there are a few
people working.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make just
a short statement about the programme of
the House. If at all possible, I would like to
introduce the budget a week from Wednes-
day.
Now I would say that I do not want, in
any way, to restrict the Throne debate, and I
think last year we were able to meet that
situation by continuing the Throne debate
after introducing the budget. If it is neces-
sary for the Throne debate to continue, and
I think very probably it will, I cannot see
any reason why that cannot be handled in the
same way as last year.
The purpose of introducing the budget
early at that time is this, and it arises partly
from a question which I understand might
have been asked by the hon. member for
Waterloo North relative to the tabling of
estimates.
I would say that the budget is of very great
concern and interest to the school boards of
Ontario. I think it is highly desirable that the
budget be introduced at an early date, and I
would like, on the day of introducing the
budget, to table with the estimate the par-
ticulars relative to school grants.
I believe that the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Dunlop) will be in that week. I
suppose, commencing with Monday of that
week, he will be calling in the inspectors
from across the province to give them par-
ticulars of the new regulations, and to assist
them in their problems.
That is the reason I would like to proceed
a week from Wednesday, which I think is
February 26.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, will the
hon. Prime Minister announce the grants at
that time?
My purpose is simply to inquire when the
announcement will be made because, as the
hon. Prime Minister well knows, many school
194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
boards are currently fixing their budget, and
have been concerned about the amount of
grant that they will receive for this coming
fiscal year.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day are called, I rise on the
question of privilege. Last Thursday, the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay) in
delivering his speech on the Throne debate
attacked my veracity, or the veracity of
claims that I have made in the House, and
documented it by a 10-point demolition of
Saskatchewan's educational system. Now the
interesting thing is that his eloquence echoed
not only in this House but across the nation
and—
Mr. Macaulay: The point of order is that
the hon. member now wishes to rebut my
speech. There was nothing personal, I made
no reference to him other than I said that I
was choosing a site which was a land of utopia
to him. There was no personal reference, and
if he wishes at some time to rebut what I say,
the rules are full of opportunity for him.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before you
make a ruling on this point, I would draw to
your attention that last week, the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver) rose on the
question of privilege dealing with a news-
paper editorial which described his views as
silly.
I would also draw to your attention that,
last year when on the second day of the ses-
sion I spoke about the attitude of radiologists
and pathologists to the hospital plan, the
following day the hon. member for Ontario,
now the Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Dymond), rose and on a question of privilege
rebutted what I had to say.
I can assure you that I can be brief, but I
submit that in accordance with your rulings
in the past, I am in order.
- Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South feels that his veracity has been ques-
tioned, and I feel that he has the right to say
something about that.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall be
brief. The hon. member's words, as I said,
echoed across this nation and produced some
rather interesting results. For example, within
36 hours of his speech, in the province of Sas-
katchewan, there appeared in the Saskatoon
Star-Phoenix of last Saturday a story. I shall
read only the first two paragraphs:
An Ontario politician's attack on the Sas-
katchewan government policies was repulsed
here Friday morning by an official of the
Saskatoon teachers' federation.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, a dis-
interested body.
G. D. Earner, secretary of the STF, said
Robert Macaulay, PC Toronto Riverdale,
made statements in the Ontario Legislature
Wednesday in which he achieved "a perfect
score, he is wrong on every count."
Mr. Speaker, I was interested to learn, be-
fore Mr. Macaulay spoke, from another news
story that allegedly he had spent $1,000 in
research work for his speeches this session. I
would suggest that he fire his researchers
because they are not doing him justice.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, in the first place I would like to
congratulate you for your usual good sense
and deportment over the proceedings of the
House, and at the same time I would like to
offer my very hearty congratulations to your
new deputy Speaker, the hon. member for
Middlesex South (Mr. Allen). It is a well
deserved appointment and I know he will do
a very excellent job.
The hon. mover of the reply to the speech
from the Throne, the hon. member for Peel
(Mr. Kennedy) has been, and is being, an
inspiration to many of the hon. members here
in the House. I enjoyed his remarks very
much, and I hope he is with us to continue
in the same way for many years to come.
I would like to convey my best wishes to
the hon. seconder, the member for Glengarry
(Mr. Guindon), for his participation in the
debate. I thought his comments were well
put, and I know that he is going to make a
real contribution here.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) made an announcement
which had to do with a grant of $5 million to
the municipalities in the province of Ontario.
As a citizen of Toronto, I was particularly
interested in the amount of money and what
it would mean to our great city. I feel that,
as usual, this government is in advance of
other jurisdictions in coming forward at this
time with such a very tangible way of helping
to relieve the unemployment situation.
I was very pleased to note a comment in
the paper this morning by the mayor of
Toronto, saying that the board of control and
council would be meeting today and they
hope that some men will be actually hired
by Wednesday or Thursday of this week to
start using up some of that money.
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
195
Now, that is just about the fastest kind of
action, and it is usually the kind of action the
people get from this good government here
at Queen's Park.
I remember back in 1955 when the same
type of grant was made to municipalities, and
I well recall the good work that was done in
our parks and other areas by people who
needed the money and who were prepared to
work for it. I reiterate what the hon. Prime
Minister said, that it is much better for our
citizens to be able to get out and do some
work and earn some money rather than to
have them on the relief rolls which were so
badly used in the poor days of the 1930's.
Our unemployment situation will be
bettered, I know, by the grant of this amount
of money, which is in effect until March 31
of this year— and probably more money can be
added to this amount after that date if it is
found necessary. I like to feel that way
about it.
I would like to take a few minutes of the
time of the House, Mr. Speaker, to talk about
our new hospital plan which is going into
effect on January 1, 1959.
As we all know, the plan is being operated
and handled by the Ontario hospital services
commission which we set up here a while ago.
Its members are very active in working out
many of the details. I just thought it might
be wise to review some of the events leading
up to the hospital plan, and to go over in our
minds some of the benefits of the plan, and
then I would like to make some comments
and suggestions as to ways and means of
improving it.
I am going to read off the hospital benefits
to the hon. members because they are con-
siderable.
In the first place, the hospital plan is going
to include accommodation and meals at
standard and public ward level. It is going
to include necessary nursing services but
exclude private duty nursing. It will include
laboratory, radiological, and other diagnostic
procedures including necessary interpreta-
tions; drugs, biologicals and related prep-
arations as approved under the provincial
schedule; use of operating room, case room
and anaesthetic facilities including necessary
equipment and supplies.
It will also include routine surgical sup-
plies, and the use of radiotherapy facilities
for treatment of cancer where available.
Other benefits are: use of physiotherapy
facilities where available, and other services
rendered by persons who receive remunera-
tion therefore from the hospital; care and
treatment in mental and tuberculosis hospitals
and out-patient services for emergency ad-
missions, providing the individuals concerned
are received as out-patients within 24 hours
of an accident.
Now, that is quite a sizeable line-up of
benefits that we are going to receive from
this new hospital plan. I am sure that the
hon. members who participated in the dis-
cussions in the health committee and other
places feel satisfied that the benefits are very
very liberal in their character.
The Ontario government plan necessarily is
much broader than those offered by private
insurers, and one of the main things of course
is that these benefits are going to be paid for
as long as a patient might remain in the
hospital.
Hon. members will remember, during our
many discussions, that we talked about the
catastrophic aspect of this hospital insurance
plan, and this simply means that where people
have accumulated some money over the years
to take care of themselves in their old age,
and serious illness or accident comes along,
they are confined to the hospital and their
life savings are used up.
Now this is going to eliminate any pos-
sibility of that tragedy happening to the
citizens of Ontario. The plan is going to
be compulsory, as hon. members know, for
those employers who have 15 or more per-
sons on their payroll. The compulsory aspect
has to do with that type, 15 or more per-
sons, and the registration I understand is
going to begin some time this summer, and
the premium payments will start towards
the end of the year.
The amount paid, the actual premium
price, is going to cost an unmarried sub-
scriber $2.10 per month and the cost to a
family is to be $4.10 per month. That covers
every member of a family. I know that it
is impossible to purchase elsewhere the type
of benefits that will be provided in this
hospital plan operated by the government;
it is impossible for private insurers to match
those rates, and it is going to be a great and
wonderful thing for our citizens.
For a person employed in an organization
hiring fewer than 15 persons, it will be
necessary to fill out a form and submit volun-
tarily to the plan.
They can do this on a voluntary basis.
They will send in their premiums, send in
their card, and they will be covered in much
the same manner as those persons who come
under the compulsory aspect of it.
196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It is estimated that as of today, in the
province of Ontario we have about 3.5 mil-
lion or 4 million persons who are covered
by some type of hospital plan— group, indi-
vidual or something of the kind.
Now, figuring on the population of 5.5
million in the province, hon. members can
see that our own hospital plan is going to
be greatly extended, and will include most
of the citizens of the province.
I would like to just give hon. members
an idea of the cost, which we have dis-
cussed before but the cost is always im-
portant, and the total projected cost of the
Ontario hospital programme, including care
and treatment in mental and tuberculosis
hospitals in 1959, is to be about $210 million.
Of this amount, it is expected that the
federal government's contribution will ap-
proximate $74 million or about one-third,
while the province's contribution will com-
prise the remainder of $136 million or nearly
two-thirds. Of the province's share, nearly
one-half will be met out of the consolidated
revenue fund and the remaining one-half will
come from premiums.
It is therefore expected that revenue from
premiums will total about $75 million or
just over one-third of the cost of the over-all
hospital x^lan.
Now, hon. members will recall in our
early discussions that some were talking about
some type of free insurance that the govern-
ment was going to provide. I think those
figures prove, Mr. Speaker, that the plan
is not "for free," everybody is going to pay
a premium, and even though a portion is
going to be paid by the provincial and the
federal government, everybody is going to
make a contribution into the plan, which is
as it should be, because in that way, there
is a little more appreciation of it.
It will also be recalled that at one time the
federal government, that is, the one that was
in office prior to June 10, had said that before
the plan could go into effect it would be
necessary that 6 provinces indicate their will-
ingness to participate, and I think one of the
very important things accomplished by the
present hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)
and his government, was that they washed out
that requirement, and at the present time it
is not necessary that 6 provinces go into the
plan, although I think about 6 of them are
ready. I noticed the other day where Mani-
toba is now ready to go. The six would include
Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta,
Manitoba and Ontario, so we are getting
pretty close to 6 anyway.
But in any event, that is not necessary, and
it seems to me that there is not a doubt in the
world that following the election on March 31,
when the Progressive-Conservative govern-
ment is returned to Ottawa, one of the things
high on their list will be the completion of
some type of national hospital scheme for all
of Canada.
Now, I would just like to take a few
minutes to talk about a great number of
individual policies — individual hospital and
other types of income policies— which have
been sold in the province of Ontario over the
past 20 or 30 years. This is an individual
policy which has been purchased by men and
women, including farmers, small business men,
and so many other citizens who have taken
the initiative to provide themselves with some
type of care in the event of a serious illness
or accident.
Now, when our plan goes into effect, I am
just concerned about how it is going to operate
in an individual field. I realize that with
many of the group plans in the province—
that is, Blue Cross group, co-operative groups,
farmers' groups and so on— there is no particu-
lar problem, because the individuals are writ-
ten under one master policy. The one master
policy would be amended to exclude benefits
that were payable for standard public ward
care, and the reduction in premium, and the
operators of the group would simply remit
to the government a portion of the public
ward premium which they normally would
receive. It all seems very simple and uncom-
plicated.
But on an individual policy, where a man
has been remitting his individual premium to
a private insurer, I do not think the same
plan will work so well, and in such cases it
might be a wise thing for the commission, Mr.
Speaker, to consider leaving some of those
individual policies in effect for say a year
following the January 1 date, and integrate
them slowly, rather than causing some con-
fusion in the minds of the buying public.
There will be a great many people, on
January 1, 1959, who think they are covered
for everything, regardless of the advertise-
ments we put in the paper, on the radio, on
television and every other kind of publicity
we give. A great many people are going to
say: "Well, the government has now taken
over the hospital, the medical and the income
insurance and we are all set; we don't need
anything."
Well, when a claim arises in a situation like
that, these people are going to find out that
they have not all the coverage that they
thought they had, it is just human nature to
feel that way about it, so I think that we have
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
197
a very important public relations job to do in
trying to the best of our ability to inform the
public just exactly what the government plan
covers, what it does not cover, and how it
affects the many individual and group plans
which are now in effect.
One of the things I have talked about
too, on other occasions, and I would like to
bring up here again, is the need for some
type of home care. I was very pleased to
hear, in the speech from the Throne, that
home care facilities are going to be made
available by the government, and I think
that is a step in the right direction.
With these increased hospital grants, I
do not believe we are going to have the
same problem of perhaps overcrowding our
hospitals as we have before, but at the same
time I do feel that some type of home care
coverage in the early years of the operation
of the plan will relieve the burden of over-
crowding our hospitals, and at the same time
give the individual, who might be sick or
hurt, ample time to recover from his dis-
ability.
If we institute a home care idea, it might
be necessary to pay some small benefit while
people are convalescing. We can make use
of our convalescent homes that are provided,
and which would be approved by the hospi-
tal services commission, but in the final an-
alysis people can get better faster if they
are in their homes.
I had a personal experience last fall, and
I think I speak for every one of us who has
spent some time in hospital because of an
accident or an illness, the patient is pretty
anxious to get home and if he were being
paid a smaller amount, say by the govern-
ment, it would encourage him to get there
as quickly as he could.
I said before that certainly the success of
the Ontario hospital plan rests to a very
large degree upon the shoulders of the medi-
cal profession in the province. After all,
they are the ones who send patients to the
hospitals and they are the ones who tell
them when they leave, and I know, from dis-
cussions with the doctors in our health com-
mittee and other places, that they are with
us in this plan, and I know that we can
count on their co-operation because it is very,
very important.
So those are just some thoughts and ideas
that I had on the hospital insurance scheme,
Mr. Speaker. I think this government has
certainly taken the lead, I do not think they
have left any type of hospital coverage out
of the benefits that it is possible to provide,
they have given a premium which no private
insurer could possibly compete with, and I
do feel that the citizens of our great province
will benefit to a large extent from this very
humanitarian effort on the part of our gov-
ernment to see that nobody will lose their
savings, or their homes and the things they
love, because of an unfortunate illness or
accident.
Now that we are on the topic of insurance,
I would like to say something about auto-
mobile insurance. I noticed the other day
that the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr.
Thomas) has put forward the suggestion that
we have an automobile insurance plan and
that it be operated by the government.
Now this is something that has been the
subject of a lot of talk and discussion over
the years, Mr. Speaker. I know that many
hon. members have made a study of the
problem, and it is one that certainly takes
a great deal of study.
We have one province in the Dominion
of Canada which at the present time has
compulsory auto insurance, the province of
Saskatchewan. It is a scheme operated by
a government insurance company, in other
words private insurers do not operate on be-
half of the Saskatchewan plan.
I am going to have more to say about that
as we go along.
There are jurisdictions in the United States
which have some form of compulsory auto-
mobile insurance, including the state of Mas-
sachusetts. Just a year ago, the state of
New York instituted a plan, and I under-
stand that North Carolina has now a plan
in effect. A neighbour province, down in
the Maritimes, has had a Royal commission
working on the problem.
I am going to give hon. members some
facts and figures out of that as we go along.
But the whole idea, as we know, Mr.
Speaker, in this problem of driving auto-
mobiles as related to insurance is getting to
be pretty serious, both from the insurance
company's point of view and from the gov-
ernment's point of view. Something has to
be done about it. We went a long way here
in Ontario when we increased the payment
into the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund effective
January 1, 1958, from $1 to $5, and by the
end of the year we will certainly have some
very authoritative figures to show the num-
ber of people in our province who do not
carry some form of financial responsibility.
It is estimated that between 85 and 90 per
cent, of all the drivers in Ontario do have
198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
financial responsibility, and if that is the case,
we are getting pretty close to an over-all
picture, and it may not be necessary to con-
sider any form of compulsory automobile
insurance if we are able to do that.
There are more cars in the province than
ever before. I understand the number will top
the 2 million mark-either they have or they
will very shortly, 2 million motor vehicles in
our province— and that is a great number to
think about.
The Massachusetts situation has been go-
ing on for 25 years, since they instituted com-
pulsory automobile insurance operated by
private insurers and the government. They
set the rates by means of a commissioner of
insurance, and generally speaking the situa-
tion there is not at all satisfactory from any-
body's point of view. Yet I cannot seem
to find out why the original statute has not
been rescinded, or why it has not been
changed. The plan is still in effect. The
insurance rates in Massachusetts, I suppose,
are the highest in the United States, and
there is not any likelihood of their coming
down. The legislators have a serious prob-
lem there.
Mr. MacDonald: They leave it in private
hands, do they not?
Mr. Cowling: Well, that is where it should
stay, in private hands, and I am going to see
that it stays there, too. And I am going to tell
the hon. members why. I will get around to
Saskatchewan in a minute and tell the hon.
member why I do not like the plan there.
In New York, they have instituted the same
thing with the companies and the government,
and it really has not been in effect long
enough to see how well it is going over, but
they are certainly going to have problems
there. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they
are going to have problems anywhere where
people are driving automobiles, that is all
there is to it.
I think one of the worst groups of drivers
that we have to contend with in our province,
anyway, and in Canada, are those between
the ages of 16 and 24.
It is a generally known fact that these
people cause twice as many accidents as any-
body else on the road. Now what we are going
to do with them, I do not know.
Our province has instituted extra-curricula
driving instruction schools, and they have
gone a long way to help out with the situa-
tion, probably more so in Ontario than in any
other province in Canada. But these school
instructions do not seem to be having any
effect on the young people.
It is a very odd thing, as many hon. mem-
bers who had service in the Royal Canadian
Air Force will recall, that the young fellows
—the 18, 19, and 20-year-olds, I was too old
at that stage to be in that class— were the
boys who were piloting our fast fighter air-
planes, and the older ones from 23 to 25 had
to pilot the slower-moving bombers. There
was no question in our minds in those war
days, Mr. Speaker, of the ability of the young
people to drive anything, and we entrusted
them with planes that were worth $1 million
each.
But somehow or other the same thing does
not hold good when they get to driving auto-
mobiles. I do not know why it is, probably
because there is a lot more room up in the air,
but they do not apply the same good driving
principles when operating automobiles that
they did in piloting the planes.
Now, a lot of consideration will have to be
given to that situation, and quite frankly I do
not know what the answer is, but we will
have to come up with one.
I think another thing that we might con-
sider, in order to prevent accidents, would be
the removal of many of the old cars on the
highway. I think we could maybe set a num-
ber of years as a saw-off date, and it would
be necessary to take these "old crates" off the
road, maybe 15 years, some date which would
be suitable to everybody, because we all
know, in driving on the highways, that many
young people get "souped-up jalopies" that
will move pretty fast and are pretty noisy,
and away they go, and they are causing
accidents.
I would like to tell hon. members some-
thing about the Nova Scotia plan, because it
is the most recent study that has been made
in Canada, and I think they have come up
with some mighty fine ideas. This is a copy of
the report of the Royal commission dated
September 30, 1950. They gave a very
detailed and thorough study to the problem of
automobile insurance, and I am going to read
some of their findings and conclusions,
because I think they are most important to
our thinking at the present time.
The commission says the answer to the
question, of whether legislation to provide for
a provincially owned and operated automobile
insurance department or bureau in Nova
Scotia is practicable and desirable, depends
on whether any saving that it might effect for
motor vehicle owners in the premium cost
would outweigh the increased cost of govern-
ment, and the inevitable economic dislocations
that would result, to the people of the prov-
ince as a whole, following the expansion of
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
199
the administrative branch of government by
creating and financing a government insurance
office.
The report mentions several things that
the commission is opposed to. I would finish
off by saying this, there is now no means of
obtaining data that is sufficiently complete
and reliable for estimating, even roughly,
the actual cost and other consequences that
would inevitably bear upon the economy, if
a plan similar to the Saskatchewan plan were
established in Nova Scotia, although the full
extent of the impact upon the economy is
largely now unpredictable.
The commission doubts that the total sav-
ing to owners of motor vehicles would out-
weigh the total cost of such a plan to the
people of the province as a whole.
Consequently, the commission is not con-
vinced of the practicability and desirability
of legislation to provide for a provincially
owned and operated automobile insurance
department or bureau in Nova Scotia. The
commission therefore does not recommend
such legislation.
In other words, they are not recommend-
ing that the government run the automobile
plan.
It is said that the commission has con-
cluded that legislation to provide for com-
pulsory proof of financial responsibility as
a prerequisite to registration of a motor
vehicle in Nova Scotia is practical and de-
sirable. The commission recommends that
the necessary legislation be enacted to estab-
lish a motor vehicle compulsory financial
responsibility plan, much the same as they
have in Massachusetts, New York and North
Carolina.
Now this is a problem, it certainly is a
problem, Mr. Speaker, and one that re-
quires a lot of thought and study. I know
that our government, through its various de-
partments—the new Department of Trans-
port and so on— is keeping right up to date
on the problems, and no doubt we shall
have a chance of discussing it further as we
go along.
Two of the things that will certainly help
to relieve the situation might be a speed-up
of payments by our Unsatisfied Judgment
Fund, and the point system whereby an
individual offender on the highways is marked
up with a black point for each offence and
when he has so many marks against him,
his licence is suspended. That might be an-
other way of remedying the situation, be-
cause that would be fair to everybody and
would certainly indicate whether a driver
is good or bad.
This whole matter of compulsory auto-
mobile insurance— and I do not like to use
the word "compulsory", Mr. Speaker— is one
on which we should move forward very cau-
tiously. We should look most thoroughly
into other jurisdictions before considering
introducing legislation into the province of
Ontario.
In any event, it is my very definite opinion
that, if the time ever comes where it is neces-
sary to have a compulsory automobile plan,
that it be a combination of government with
private insurers. I realize that, even at the
present time, the province has the legisla-
tive authority to set insurance rates, and
rates of course are very necessary to the
operation of an insurance plan.
But I think the idea of government with
private insurers can bring about the most
satisfactory solution to this problem. I do
not think the idea of a government-owned
insurance company, such as they have in
Saskatchewan, after the study I have given
it, is the answer to that problem at all,
because if they show any deficit in their
insurance plan for automobiles, they simply
take it out of the general revenue fund, and
in that way they do not have to report to
the public on the expenditure, and they can
operate on almost any kind of a premium.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. member is absolutely wrong. The Sas-
katchewan plan is a separate fund out of
which no money can be transferred either to
or from the general revenue. If it has a deficit,
they have to raise their rates, if they have a
surplus they can lower their rates. The hon.
member just does not have the facts.
Mr. Cowling: I have the facts, Mr. Speaker,
You have just set the hon. member straight
on something else and I am sorry-
Mr. MacDonald: It is difficult to keep all
hon. members straight.
Mr. Cowling: No, the hon. member cannot
keep it straight because I have studied the
Saskatchewan plan just as much as the hon.
member has, and I am not wrong, I am abso-
lutely right.
I say that if the premium payments into
that fund do not make the necessary equaliza-
tion they can take it out of the general fund,
and that is what they do every year, in addi-
tion to increasing the rates.
So that is how I feel about it. The last thing
we should ever consider would be an auto-
mobile insurance company controlled by the
200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government of Ontario as they have in Sask-
atchewan. That is at the bottom of my list.
My information is pretty accurate, as far as
I am concerned.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to
make one or two comments about the pro-
posed subway in Metropolitan Toronto, some-
thing that we are all interested in, something
that affects my people out in High Park and
every other section of the city.
I am sure every hon. member of this House
has followed very closely discussions in the
Toronto press about a subway, whether it
should be east and west, whether it should be
U-shaped, and there were several suggestions.
As far as I am concerned, I think there is a
very definite need for another subway in
Toronto. I think that the subway should be
a straight east-west affair along Bloor Street,
because in that way I think we are going to
get the people out to the west and east ends
faster than we would by a U-subway.
We have all had an opportunity to use the
north-south subway that is in effect now, and
I think we are all agreed that it is doing a
wonderful job of transporting the people, and
if the registration of motor vehicles continues
at a high rate in Metropolitan Toronto, and
the people continue to drive their cars into
the central area of the city, it is going to be
impossible to drive or to park, so I favour
public transportation.
The cost is supposed to be somewhere in
the neighbourhood of $200 million, and it
could be financed over a number of years.
Now, almost everyone who has been to Los
Angeles is very impressed with the highways
they have in and out of that great city, they
go up to 3 tiers but they have no subways,
and it just seems to me that, as far as Metro-
politan Toronto is concerned, it is a prac-
ticable thing to have subways, because we can
still build an overhead expressway to great
heights up in the air if we wish, but the public
transportation on the subway will bring more
passenger traffic to and from our downtown
area than can be done by any other means.
We were talking about unemployment and
how we can assist the municipalities. The
government might consider some sort of finan-
cial assistance to builders of the subway,
having regard for the service and convenience
that it would give to all citizens of the prov-
ince of Ontario. So I leave you with that
thought, Mr. Speaker— I think we should get
on with the subway, approve of the idea in
principle, and get to the building of it just as
quickly as we can.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to speak on this Throne debate to-
day, I, like all the other hon. members who
have spoken here previously, would like to
commend you on the very dignified and fair
way in which you handle your position in
this House. I might say I am perhaps a
little closer to you than some hon. members
are because, while all of us respect your
ability here sitting in the House, I had the
privilege of serving with you while over-
seas, and I am here to report that not only
do you do a good job here, of course, but
you did a very good one over there in
looking after the needs of chaps like myself,
and we were certainly very grateful.
This is the third time I have had the
privilege of speaking on the Throne debates,
and I might say that many hon. members
would think that I am not any wiser than
I was 3 years ago.
At the same time, I have grown to re-
spect the manner in which the business of
this House is carried on, the manner in
which the government operates, and also
perhaps even more so, to respect the very
difficult position in which the Opposition of
this House is placed, simply because we
are so vastly outnumbered.
I realize full well that, to be a good
Progressive-Conservative in the province of
Ontario, it is most necessary to stand up
and show where one's colours are, and stick
up for the government of this great province.
But, on the other hand to listen to all hon.
government members over a period of 3
years, one sometimes gets the idea that all
that is good that is in this province, or in
Ottawa, has come from Conservative think-
ing, and that on the other hand, we who
are so sadly outnumbered in this House have
done nothing to further the development of
this great country.
I might say that while we are sadly out-
numbered in this House with 82 Conser-
vative, 11 Liberal and 3 CCF members,
nevertheless, all of us agree, I am sure,
that the opposition is not quite as heavy,
outside of this legislative assembly, as it is
in here, to the idea that many great Liberal
Canadians have done much for the develop-
ment of this province, and indeed of the
whole country.
And I might say this, that we too have
our pride. When we listen to the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) and other hon mem-
bers talking about such things as human
betterment and the other developments of
this province and the whole country, we who
are sitting in the Opposition remember with
great pride that, while perhaps younger hon.
members like myself have had nothing to do
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
201
of any account with this type of betterment,
nevertheless there have been many great
Liberal statesmen, in this country, who have
done much for the human betterment and
individual rights from Vancouver to Halifax,
and indeed in this province of Ontario.
I do not think the hon. members who are
sitting on the other side of the House will
be too cross with me, particularly after the
very good medicine they got today during
the noon luncheon, if I remind them that
our leaders have also done much for the
development of this country.
We think of such human betterment legis-
lation as unemployment insurance, put
through by a Liberal government in Ottawa,
which does so much for the benefit of the
individual who is out of work in this prov-
ince today. I do not think hon. members
will mind in the least if we say that we,
who are Liberals in the Opposition, are
proud of that. I am sure that those on the
other side are proud of it, too.
When we think of such things as family
allowances, which the new government in
Ottawa have taken over, that hon. members
will not be cross when I remind them that
it was put through by a Liberal administra-
tion, and that we are part of that team.
When I think of such things as old age
pensions— and I am going to try to be fair in
this, I am not for one minute going to attempt
to take all of the credit for this— but I think
they will agree that it was a combination, not
just Conservative government or, as far as that
goes, not just Liberal government, but these
.are things that have been done for the better-
ment of the individual across Canada, and I
think that we can justly stand up and be
proud for what has been done by the federal
government in Ottawa during the past 22
years.
In my remarks this afternoon I, like the
hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay),
had thought that I might speak about other
topics. But in his speech the other day he
brought up certain things that I think should
be answered, at least to a small extent.
I might say that I listen to him with great
interest every time he speaks in this House;
I am full of anticipation before he starts, and
I greatly admire his enthusiasm and his down-
to-earth means of getting to the business at
hand. He certainly calls a spade a spade as
far as he can go. Although I do not agree
with everything he says, nevertheless I admit
that he has brought into this House, since I
have been here, many good thoughts.
I wish to deal with two points of his speech.
First of all, the unemployment situation as he
saw it in Canada, with the various causes,
and secondly, the debt situation in the prov-
ince of Ontario. I wish to make a few re-
marks about the general revenue of this great
province of ours.
First, in discussing the unemployment situa-
tion which, all of us will agree no matter which
side of the House we are on, is a serious affair
in Canada and in the province of Ontario
today. In discussing this unemployment situa-
tion, he said that management and labour to-
gether have priced us out of foreign markets,
and with that I most heartily agree. Goods
are costing us more than they are actually
worth, and I would like to remind all hon.
members of the House that, sooner or later,
there is a pay day. It is impossible for us to
sell France certain goods when they can buy
them cheaper in some other country in the
world. Management and labour are going to
have to get together to try to keep down the
cost of production, because if we cannot
export our goods, we just simply have no
chance, and there will be more and more
unemployment. So with that I certainly agree.
The second cause that he gave for un-
employment was the fact that the foreign
investment in this country is now but a trickle,
and I certainly agree with that.
I do not agree with him, however, when
he said, in talking about Canadian invest-
ment, he blamed unemployment, as far
as Canadian investment goes, on the fact that
our people have not saved enough money and
therefore there has to be a day of reckoning
and our capital expenditures cannot keep
on forever.
I would like to point out to the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale that our savings deposits in
the chartered banks across Canada today are
greater than they have ever been in history.
Our savings deposits as of December, 1957,
were about $200 million more than they were
in December, 1956, so we cannot blame our
own savings, or lack of savings, for the un-
employment situation in Canada today.
But the brutal truth is this, that we have
not got enough money, no matter how much
we save, to develop this country the way it
should be developed. We need foreign
investment.
Just for a minute, I want to tell hon. mem-
bers why, in my opinion, we are not getting
foreign investment. The reason is most simple.
Ever since the war, the amount of money
which has been invested in this country
primarily has been from the United States,
202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and I say most sincerely that the reason
American investment in this country is now
only trickling in is because of the very un-
fortunate statement made by the government
in Ottawa, when they said that they are going
to try to get more trade from England by
cutting down imports from the United States.
That is the reason, and our American friends
believe that a hostile atmosphere has been
created and the money is simply drying up,
it is as simple as that.
There is not an hon. member in this House,
or the federal House in Ottawa, who does
not agree that we should try to promote trade
with England and the United Kingdom. Of
course we should promote trade with them,
not only for our own good, but for the good
of England, who after all is still on many
occasions by our side and has done a great
deal for us in the past.
But while we are sticking up for England,
it seems to me rank insanity to try to stab our
best customer in the back, and that has been
done. We need American money in this
country in order to develop it. Let me point
to great projects like the St. Lawrence seaway,
developments of the aluminum industry and
the steel works and pulp and paper industry,
and the huge buildings that are going up in
the city of Toronto and right across Canada-
there simply is not enough Canadian money
to put these projects into operation. We need
American money, and as of the past few
months, we simply have not been getting it.
I ask hon. members who are sitting on the
other side of the House if they still hold up
their heads in pride when they think of the
statement that was made by the federal gov-
ernment in Ottawa, since June, that they were
going to cut down on American imports and
buy more from England. They said they were
going to try to divert 15 per cent, of the trade
to England, and cut off 15 per cent, of the
imports from the United States.
That is a reason, Mr. Speaker, why our
foreign investments are now only a trickle in
Canada, and that is one of the main reasons
why we have this great unemployment prob-
lem not only in the province of Ontario, but
right across the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. Macaulay: What about German money
not coming in here?
Mr. Whicher: In answer to the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale I would say this, that there
is still considerable German money and still
considerable English money coming into
Canada, and I would not be the least bit
surprised but what there will be more English
money. But the point is this, that there is far
less American money— in fact, there is hardly
any American money— coming into Canada at
the present time, because—
Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member said "a
trickle" himself.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member for High
Park said that it is a trickle.
Mr. Macaulay: I said that the foreign in-
vestment in Canada was reduced from a
torrent to a trickle— the total foreign invest-
ment, not American.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, but I daresay if the hon.
member would look up the figures he would
find that the trickle is coming in from England
and from Germany and those countries, and
there is just a very small amount coming from
the United States today.
In any event, whether the hon. members
agree with it or not, I am telling them now
that the American investor believes we are
hostile, and he is not agreeably impressed
with the situation. I am sure we would not be
either. What would we think if France, for
example, said: "We are going to try to cut
off 15 per cent, of our trade with Canada and
instead give it to Mexico"? What would we
think about it? I suggest that we would
have a certain amount of animosity toward the
French government, and that is exactly what
happened with the American investors.
Now then, the hon. member for Riverdale
said this, that the third cause of unemploy-
ment is psychological, in other words that
we have to have confidence not only in
our own province particularly, but in the
country as a whole, and in answering that
I might say that I agree with him.
But we cannot inspire confidence when
we see what is going on, when we see the
huge projects stopping to some extent. The
ones already started are being continued, but
there are things like mines which are closing
down, automobile industries are shutting
down to quite some extent, and I ask the
hon. member or anybody in the government
how we can inspire confidence in anyone
when these established facts are before our
eyes; I suggest that it is an impossibility.
The hon. member for Riverdale however,
did give at least 2 and perhaps 3 sugges-
tions that he thought would be acceptable
to the people, to alleviate the unemployment
problem, and certainly with 2 of these I
agree, in fact I agree with the 3 of them.
First, he said we should reduce costs. It
is obvious to any of us sitting here that, if
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
we do not reduce them, we have to keep
them where they are. If costs go any higher
the result is going to be tragic.
I suggest to the hon. member on my left
(Mr. MacDonald) that, when he hears people
like the president of the United Automobile
Workers of America make statements such
as he made last Saturday in Windsor, to the
effect that the workers are not only going
to ask for an increase in wages, but now
they are going to try to get 25 per cent, of
the profits, I suggest that he do something
among some of his followers to try to rectify
situations such as that.
Not only are we going to price ourselves
out of world markets, we are going to make
the price of goods so high that none of us
here are going to buy them. Labour, along
with management, I will agree, must accept
some responsibility for this.
Governments cannot control costs in in-
dustry because labour is demanding more
continually, and management in turn puts
it on the price of the article and passes it
on to the individual buyer. We must stabilize
this thing somewhere. It has gone too far
now.
The second point that the hon. member
for Riverdale quoted was increased produc-
tion, and once more I certainly agree with
that. We must have more goods. We do
not produce now as much as we require
across the board, and we must increase pro-
duction in order to make this country stable
and to cut unemployment to a minimum.
The third point was this, the hon. member
suggested that the government prime the
pumps. In other words, that all forms of
the government— municipal, county probably,
provincial and federal— take a programme of
public works and try to pump more new
money into the pocketbooks of the wage
earners of this province or across the country.
I want to make a few remarks about the
way the hon. Prime Minister tried to prime
the pump the other day when he offered,
out of the goodness of his heart, $5 million
to the people of the province of Ontario.
He suggested that they would—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is, to March 31.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, that is right. But it
was up to March 31 and had to be concluded
by May 31. And he offered to pay 70 per
cent, of the costs of public works, so our
newspapers reported. In fact I heard 4
radio newscasts this morning, and every one
of them said that the province of Ontario
was going to pay 70 per cent, of the cost of
public works in this province, up to the sum
of $5 million.
I never heard anything that was so "off
the beam" in my life. The hon. Prime Minis-
ter suggested that one of the things that we
could do is to put down sidewalks.
Well now, I ask this. In the first place,
we have to have machinery. The municipality
has to pay 100 per cent, of the machinery
cost for a project of laying down sidewalks.
In the second place, the foreman or who-
ever is supervising the job is an employed man
and the engineers who draw the plans and
make sure that everything is put down
according to specifications are employed men.
The municipality must pay 100 per cent, of
their wages. We may hire people who are not
drawing unemployment insurance, but the
municipality has to pay 100 per cent, of the
cost.
The hon. Prime Minister has offered: "All
of those who are either not working, or who
are not drawing unemployment insurance, we
will hire the rest of you, and we will pay 70
per cent, of that unskilled labour cost. "Now
that would be quite a thing, in the first place,
if we could lay the sidewalks. But it is far
too cold, it cannot be done during this
weather.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Spring is coming.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, spring is coming and so
is May 31, but I suggest this, that in the
matter of sidewalks, for one, the municipality
will be paying 90 per cent, of the cost and
this province will be paying about 10 per cent.
Let us take another instance that the hon.
Prime Minister gave. He said that we could
perhaps build a bridge. Well now, supposing
we were going to build a bridge. The muni-
cipality would have to pay 100 per cent, of
the steel, they would have to pay 100 per
cent, of the engineering cost, they would
have to pay 100 per cent, of the skilled labour.
"But if you can get any unskilled labour," the
hon. Prime Minister says, "we will pay 70
per cent, of the unskilled labour who help to
build the bridge." How could we build a
bridge in this weather?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not unskilled labour-
labour which is not qualified for unemploy-
ment insurance. It may be highly skilled
labour.
Mr. Whicher: Well, let us take for example,
the hon. Prime Minister said that we could do
some wiring. We could do some electrical
work.
I would suggest this, Mr. Speaker, that
there are very, very few electricians in this
204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
province who are not either working or who
are drawing unemployment insurance. I
would suggest there are very few. In fact,
if there are any, I would be very, very
surprised—
Mr. G. F. Lavergne (Russell): The labour
situation must be good.
Mr. Whicher: —because the skilled man in
the province of Ontario, the skilled tradesman,
except in places like Windsor or certain areas
like that, are mostly working at the present
time, and even if they are skilled in a certain
line, that does not mean that they can go and
paint or something like that.
Let us take the painting situation for a
minute. The hon. Prime Minister said: "Well,
we can do some painting." We cannot do any
painting outside, that is the first thing. In the
second place, the municipality has to buy 100
per cent, of the paint— put up every cent on
the dollar.
Then the municipality will start. But it has
to employ painters, it cannot have unskilled
labourers who are not drawing unemployment
insurance because these people have to belong
to the union. You have to have painters, and
I would suggest that there are very few
painters who are not either working or draw-
ing unemployment insurance in this province
of Ontario.
I say this, and I am sure that it will be
borne out, I was not the least bit surprised
when the board of control of the city of
Toronto today postponed their meeting this
afternoon because they said it was utter con-
fusion. They did not know what the hon.
Prime Minister was getting at, and they had
to get further clarification.
An hon. member: That is nothing new, of
course.
Mr. Whicher: They had to get further
clarification before they could go on with
this, and when the hon. member for High
Park (Mr. Cowling), only a few minutes ago,
remarked on what a great programme this is
and that he is so pleased to read in this
morning's papers that they are going to hire
men immediately, it is too bad that he did
not read this afternoon's papers because, in
this afternoon's papers-
Mr. Cowling: The hon. member must have
read the wrong paper.
Mr. Whicher:
High Park-
-and the hon. member for
Mr. Lavergne: The hon. member read the
wrong paper.
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I read a report in one of the Toronto
newspapers that said that this money would
be used to start-
Mr. Whicher: One thousand men— too little
and too late, as usual.
Mr. Cowling: —hiring men on Wednesday.
Now, it does not matter whether it was an
early, or a late, or any kind of a report, but
there was a report. There was no confusion
about it. The municipal government of
Toronto will start to hire men on Wednesday
because of what the hon. Prime Minister
announced on Friday. It is clear-cut.
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was
very little point of order but it was a very
interesting remark and I am sure we all
enjoyed it. The point is this, that the paper
the hon. member read was this morning's
paper, and in this afternoon's paper, all the
controller said was that there was confusion
in their minds, and that they had to postpone
the meeting, and that they are waiting for
further clarification from the hon. Prime
Minister. Well— is this another point of order,
Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Cowling: I was quoting the mayor.
Mr. Nixon: Is this another point of order?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): No, this is just a word of clari-
fication because I think it should be helpful at
this time.
Mr. Speaker: State your point of order.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Rising on a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does
not have his facts correct and I wish to give
him some of the correct facts.
Now the point is, that his worship Mayor
Phillips phoned me and told me that he
was delighted with the programme, that they
were confused abort some of the items
which might be included in the programme,
but they are prepared to hire 1,000 to 1,500
men by Wednesday or Thursday and he
thought it would help terrifically in solving
the unemployment situation here in Toronto.
Mr. Whicher: Was that this morning that
he called the hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: No, that was Sat-
urday evening.
Mr. Whicher: But they changed their
minds. They will be calling the hon. Min-
ister again because they certainly want
further clarification— and I would too.
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
205
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I will be here.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I like the hon. Min-
ister over there, and I do not mind if he
makes a speech at all. But the point is this,
that when the municipality has to provide
all of the material, 100 per cent, of it, when
they have to provide all of the skilled labour
because the men in skilled labour for build-
ing bridges are not out of work at the
present time, and then only get 70 per cent,
for the people who are not drawing un-
employment insurance, or extra welfare bene-
fits, then I say that the plan is completely
""phoney." It will mean nothing to this prov-
ince as a whole, and while they might be
able to do something in the parks of Toronto,
and I certainly hope they can, I suggest that
they will never lay one mile of sidewalks,
one mile of roads or build a single bridge in
the entire province, because the municipali-
ties cannot afford to do so when they have
to put up that vast amount of money.
In any event, let us look at $5 million for
a minute.
In the province of Ontario at the present
time, we have upwards of 300,000 unem-
ployed. The 300,000 unemployed receive
approximately $25 a week on the average
for unemployment insurance. Just suppos-
ing that it was $20, that certainly is a mini-
mum per week. That means that out of un-
employment insurance, every single week,
they are drawing $6 million, and here the
province of Ontario are offering them $5
million until May 31, and I warrant this,
that the municipalities are going to have to
put up at least $50 million in order to get
that $5 million.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. gentleman permit a question?
Mr. Whicher: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Last Friday, when I took
objection to the fact that 30 per cent, of
this was being left with the municipalities
and only 70 per cent, of the unskilled labour
was taken by the government, he stated that
he favoured this proposition of leaving the
30 per cent, with the municipalities. Has
he changed his mind over the week end?
An hon. Member: Oh yes, he changes his
mind every week end.
Mr. Whicher: I would like in reply to
the hon. member to my left to say that
I, like him, I presume, was in a way taken
off balance.
Mr. MacDonald: I was not taken off
balance, I saw its weakness right there at
the first.
Mr. Whicher: All right, but the hon.
member did not see this weakness. I agree
that the municipalities should pay 30 per
cent, of a project such as this, but they
should pay only 30 per cent, of the material
costs and of all the labour, not just that little
trickle of unskilled labour who are the only
people that we are going to get to come in
under this plan.
Mr. MacDonald: The confusion is great
all around.
Mr. Whicher: Well, it is not rectified any
when I look over at the hon. member, I can
assure him.
Mr. MacDonald: W'ell, that is a good
debating point.
Mr. Whicher: As far as I am concerned
there is no debate about the point at all.
It is a fact.
Now that we have the municipalities pay-
ing about $50 million in order to get this
$5 million back, I would like to turn to
another point of the hon. member for River-
dale's speech when he discussed, quite realis-
tically, I thought, the debt situation in the
province of Ontario and some of the revenues
that are derived each year-
Mr. Macaulay: I suggest—
Mr. Whicher: And, oh, I hope it is not
here. The hon. member for Riverdale sug-
gested that the net debt this year for the
province of Ontario would increase by $100
million this year. Yes, he suggested and,
in so doing, I believe that he suggested that
the next year, if revenues remained the same,
and if the gross national product remained
the same, that in all probability it would
increase by $100 million the following year
too. Which would mean this, that by the
end of the year 1960, the net debt of the
province of Ontario would be $1 billion ap-
proximately.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
House about the debt situation in the prov-
ince of Ontario, and how it has increased
during the past few years, and in so doing,
I want to remind hon. members of this, that
this is the only government in Canada-
Mr. Lavergne: We will agree with the
hon. member. It is the only government.
206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: —the only senior govern-
ment in Canada, where this situation has
continually become worse. In the year 1949,
the net debt in the province of Ontario was
$483 million. In other words we will say
roughly, $ .5 billion.
Now, according to the hon. member for
Riverdale, and indeed according to myself
for I agree with him entirely, within a 10-
year period, the debt is going to double. It
will be $1 billion.
Figures that we have here showing the
net debt increase from 1946 right to 1957
certainly prove this fact. The debt has been
going up considerably every year, and as
Opposition hon. members have pointed in
the past, up to last year the debt had in-
creased since 1949 by $275 million, roughly
$100,000 a day or (this sounds like a Cin-
derella story, but it is an absolute fact) that
since the hon. Prime Minister took office, the
net debt of the province of Ontario has in-
creased by $4,000 per hour-
Mr. Auld: Who said this?
Mr. Whicher: It is right here, hon. Mr.
Wardrope's figures. The net debt is increasing
by $4,000 per hour. He will admit it himself,
but now it has got to the point where it will
increase even more.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: No, I suggest this, Mr.
Speaker, that if our debt and the gross
national product remain the same and total
revenues remain about the same, if our debt
increases in the same proportion from now on
as it has this year and next year, if it is $1
billion in 1960, it is going to be $2 billion
by 1970, if the revenues remain the same.
Now the cost of keeping a debt such as
that is fantastic. Why, we will be paying out,
in interest rates, $100 million by 1970, there
is no question about it at all. This was a total
budget— yes, far more than the total budget-
that was put down by the Provincial Treasurer
years ago when my two hon. friends to the
right of me were sitting here.
Mr. Macaulay: We have a few people-
Mr. Whicher: We have a few people but
they also have a few people in the province
of Quebec, and they also have a few in the
provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba and there the debt has been going
down. There are a few people across the
Dominion of Canada, too, and up to now, the
debt has been going down. Where it is going
to go after the medicine at noon hour, I have
no idea. They probably have the solution
there.
Mr. Cowling: Would the hon. speaker
permit a question?
Mr. Whicher: I certainly would.
Mr. Cowling: Would he tell the hon. mem-
bers what the per capita debt is? Has that
increased?
Mr. Whicher: I do not have the figures, but
like the hon. Prime Minister says, I will only
be too glad to look it up and reply at some
future date.
Mr. J. Yaremko ( Bellwoods ) : Would the
hon. member permit another question?
Mr. Whicher: Certainly.
Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. member tell
me why he voted against increasing the
revenues for this province a year ago?
Mr. Whicher: I will come to that later. It
will be answered in just a minute or two. Mr.
Speaker, this is what I want to leave with
the hon. members of this House.
I agree that the gross national product for
the province of Ontario particularly, and par-
ticularly as it refers to the corporation tax and
income tax, is going to be steady for a few
years or for some indefinite period. We are at
a period of digestion, there is no question
about that, and if the revenues of this prov-
ince are going to continue the way they have
in the past, I believe, like the hon. member
for Riverdale, that we will be going into debt
to the tune of $100 million a year for some
time to come.
I am not sure, however, that the revenues
of this province will remain the same, because
since the year 1949 and through until last
year, there were really no major increases in
taxation except in the year 1952, when this
province entered the tax rental agreement and
we started to get 5 per cent, of the personal
income tax— that was a major increase for the
revenues of this province, but since then there
have been no major tax increases until last
year. But, in spite of the fact that we were
just riding along on the same taxes that we
had before, the revenues of the province were
always increasing.
When we come to such things as gasoline
and liquor taxes, I do not think that the gross
national product has got too much to do with
it. I suggest that the highways of our prov-
ince are going to be used more and more, and
that people will regard automobiles as an
absolute necessity, and they are going to buy
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
207
more and more gasoline, and the gasoline tax
is going to increase and our revenues are
going to increase also.
I say this, that if they do not increase, that
does not mean that they will not have more
revenues, because all we have to do is look
at what happened last year— the hon. mem-
bers on the government side know how to get
more revenue, there is no question about that.
All we have to do is look at the logging tax
that the hon. member for Riverdale has sug-
gested might be repealed. It was increased
last year. There is the mining tax and the
gasoline tax that was put on last year, an
extra two cents, not only for the automobiles
on our roads but for everybody using an
outboard motor in this province.
Did hon. members ever hear of anything
more ridiculous in their lives? A gasoline tax
for the highways of this province— charging
people for using an outboard motor when they
run across the lake! A gasoline tax on the
aeroplanes that fly over this province if they
buy the gasoline here! Again, did hon. mem-
bers ever hear of anything so ridiculous?
Mr. Speaker, the government will have no
trouble in getting additional revenue, and I
strongly suggest that the revenues will not
remain as they are. Take our diesel fuel tax
that was put through last year. When hon.
members increased its taxation by over 100
per cent., in one year it is terrible. It is not
so bad on the percentage basis when they go
from 11 to 13 cents on gasoline, but when
they go from 9 to 20 cents in one year, and
increase one single tax by over 100 per cent.,
I suggest that hon. members of the govern-
ment will not have any trouble getting more
revenue in the province of Ontario in the
future. They will just put some more taxes
on— the 2 per cent, corporation tax, for ex-
ample. Why, when they put 2 per cent, on,
is there any reason why the people of Ontario
will not think that they will possibly make it
3 or 4 per cent.? Well, I suggest this govern-
ment will do it. If they want it, then they are
going to put taxes on.
Our liquor tax has also been increased—
our tax on breweries and on beer. I suggest
that the hon. member for Riverdale made
just one little slip when he suggested that
the revenues of this province are going to
remain the same. They certainly are not,
they are going to go up and up and up, be-
cause our licence fees are going up and up
and up; when we go to buy them this year,
we will find how much farther they have
gone up; our permits are continually going
up, and where it is going to stop nobody
knows except the hon. members over there,
and until they take a definite stand for the
people of this province and try to lower
a few taxes instead of putting them up—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. member
should have been at Aylmer at election time.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member for Bell-
woods (Mr. Yaremko) wanted to know why
it was that last year I voted against the in-
creased taxes, when I said this afternoon that
the debt is continually increasing. There is a
most logical reason. Each year the govern-
ment has underestimated its revenues since
1949, and last year when we were debating
this point in the House, they said that the
revenues as of March, 1957, would be $420
million approximately. I point out that the
revenues were $479 million and that they
underestimated their revenues by exactly
$59,783 million or something like that. That
is not a bad underestimation, is it?
This government has been underestimating
its revenues for years and years, and we in
the Opposition properly said if they will
bring these revenues up where they should
be, if they tell us exactly how much they
are going to take in, and if they will show
us a plan for the reduction of debt in the
province of Ontario, that we will certainly
"string along" with them. Obviously they
must have revenues-
Mr. Macaulay: Is it possible that the hon.
member can be right on both scores, that
he voted against the tax increases because
the revenues were going to increase, and at
the same time he now says that the debt is
going to go up? He cannot be right on both
those scores, can he?
Mr. Whicher: I think I can certainly be
right. We certainly voted against the tax
increases because the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer underestimated the revenues by some-
Mr. Macaulay: In that case the debt should
not be up. That is why the hon. Opposition
members voted against the taxes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the speaker wishes,
the question will be allowed and I will per-
mit it, but if he does not, he can refuse.
Mr. Whicher: I am sorry, I have sort of
lost the trend of thought here, the question
I believe was if the revenues were more
how could the debt be more?
Well, the answer is, this government spent
more, a whole lot more; they spent exactly
$160 million more than they said they were
going to spend. That is why they are an
extra $100 million in the hole. They spent
208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$60 million in general revenue and they spent
$100 million on capital and put us, the people
of Ontario, exactly another $100 million in
the hole, and they will do exactly the same
thing next year if they do not increase the
revenues or cut down on some of this un-
necessary spending—
Some hon. members: Like what?
Mr. MacDonald: Like they asked in Ot-
tawa when they got into power.
Mr. Macaulay: Let him name an item.
Mr. Whicher: For example, like the people
down in Ottawa said before the election,
"cut down on some of this civil service, the
inspectors who inspect the inspectors." That
is how they cut down on the inefficiency of
the government that we have here in many
departments.
The hon. Speaker has asked me to curb
these hon. questioners, so in order to satisfy
the hon. Speaker, I am going to have to curb
them to some extent.
Now, the next thing I am going to speak
about— I am sorry to leave the hon. member
for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay) because I assure
him I was most sincere when I told him I
appreciated his speech and, while I think his
ideas are a little "screwy"— is that parlia-
mentary language?— that is given in a kindly
tone, and if he wishes me to withdraw it, I
certainly will. Some of his remarks, never-
theless, I did appreciate.
Now for a few minutes I wish to speak
and I am sorry that the hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Allan) is not in his seat, because I
do not like to be too critical of anyone when
he is not here, but I wish to speak for a few
minutes on some of the views that I have
with regard to the running of The Department
of Highways.
In so doing, I wish to point out some of
the greatly added revenue that we have had
on highways in our fuel taxes, licence fees
and so forth, in the province of Ontario, dur-
ing the past few years. For example, in 1949
we took $52 million in as a fuel tax. In 1957
we took in $112 million. I think everyone will
agree it was a great increase. Our licence fees
went from 15 million in 1949 to $49 million
in 1957, and I bring that out to you, Mr.
Speaker, and to all of the hon. members of
the House, just simply to prove the fact that
there are certainly a lot of monies being paid
into The Department of Highways. Of
course, the people of the province are paying
the bill.
I am going to propose something here, and
I wish the hon. Minister were here so he
could understand it, but in the province of
Ontario at the present time we have approxi-
mately 8,700 miles of provincial highways,
and The Department of Highways, through
the hon. Minister and through the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Frost) look after all the
expenses on these highways.
We also have such things as county roads,
and there are 9,384 miles of county roads in
this province of Ontario, and the province
pays 50 per cent, of the cost of those roads.
The subsidy, incidentally, is in the neigh-
bourhood of $12 million.
Now my argument is simply this, that
inasmuch as the province of Ontario is collect-
ing every single nickel from fuel tax, licence
fees, and so on, every nickel that has to do
with the driving on highways, therefore they
should pay more money out for such very
important roads as county roads. Inasmuch as
they have the machinery, the snowplows, the
graders and the men, the offices and the
engineers, they could very well take over all
of the county roads in this province.
Hon. members may think that is going a
little bit too far, but let me tell them this, at
the present time The Department of High-
ways is spending only $12 million on the
county roads, which means that the counties
are spending $12 million. In other words, it
would not be an expensive proposition, it
would cost in the province of Ontario out of
the coffers of the treasury, approximately
another $12 million, and I think it would cer-
tainly reduce taxes. I say it would reduce the
taxes on the home owner and the property
owner in this province of Ontario to the tune
of $12 million.
Now, let us look at it, let hon. members
just think about it in their own ridings. In my
own, I have a Department of Highways
garage on one side of the street and a county
highway garage on the other. Is there any
sense to it? I do not think there is. I have
The Department of Highways engineers in
one building and the county highway
engineers in another. I have stenographical
help of The Department of Highways in one
building and stenographical or clerical help
for the county highways in the other. And I
claim that there is a great duplication of effort
between the counties and the provincial
Department of Highways.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. member is not
suggesting that we do away with the county
council, is he? That is what Mr. Hepburn
suggested.
Mr. Whicher: I am not suggesting that, I
leave that up to the hon. Minister, but I am
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
209
suggesting this, that for the sake of efficiency
and for the sake of good roads the province
of Ontario could very readily take over the
county highways in this province. Once more,
to summarize: because they have the engi-
neers necessary to do the job, they have the
equipment to do the job, they have the
garages to do the job, and they have all the
material that is necessary, it could be done
very easily.
Now, quite rightly, I believe that the
property owners should have something to do
with the paying of taxes on roads, but let me
remind hon. members of this in case they
think from now on there would not be taxes
taken out of the property owner for the roads.
In this province of Ontario we have over
50,000 miles-well over 50,000, 60,000 miles
—of roads in the townships, the unorganized
townships and in the cities, towns and villages
of this province that the ratepayer or the
home owner would still be paying taxes on.
I feel it is strictly a matter of efficiency that
The Department of Highways has the men,
and in many instances, as hon. members
know, they are not too busy in some portions
of the year and they could just as easily as
not take over the county roads in their
particular locality.
Mr. G. F. Lavergne (Russell): Like the
Liberals did before.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member was
with the Liberals then.
Mr. Lavergne: Let the hon. member not
tell me who I was with. I happened to be
there.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Whicher: Now, in dealing with The
Department of Highways too, I wish to point
out something that has annoyed me, and
certainly the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Oliver) for some years. In reply to the
criticism of the hon. leader of the Opposition
of last year, and in fact for several years, the
hon. Minister of Highways announced what
he called a 20-year plan last year. It was
certainly no plan at all. All it said was this:
"We are going to spend so much money for
the next 20 years, and we are going to build
the highways to a certain depth of cement or
asphalt or whatever it might be, and our
bridges are going to be constructed this way."
But the announcment did not say where
these highways were going to go.
In answer to myself, the hon. Minister said
that if he showed a plan where the future
highways were going in this province of
Ontario, why then land values would sky-
rocket and it would be impossible for the
province to finance the highway-building.
But I suggest this, that inasmuch as we
have the powers of expropriation, he does not
have to worry about the land values increas-
ing tremendously just because we know that,
in the year 1965, there is going to be another
highway go a certain place. But I do suggest
this— for the sake of the individual of the
province of Ontario who is now living next to
provincial highways, there should be a plan.
If the hon. Minister does not believe me,
let him ask the motel owners who are out at
the Humber. They have millions of dollars
invested— or hundreds of thousands in any
event worth of investment— out there. The
highway has not come along and is skirting
them, and they are afraid they are going to
lose all the money they have invested in those
motels.
In my county, between the towns of
Southampton and Port Elgin, there was a
little garage owner who 3 years ago came to
The Department of Highways in Toronto and
asked the department if there was any chance
that the highway would be changed and miss
his place of business, because he was about to
buy it. The Department of Highways in this
building, or in the Parliament Buildings here,
told him that there was no chance of the
highway being moved.
So, taking their word for it he purchased
the garage and put a considerable amount of
money into the business.
The very next spring The Department of
Highways came along and made a corner
and missed his place by 300 or 400 yards.
Consequently the highway does not go by
his garage now, and it has made it most
inconvenient for him in a financial way; a
place that previously was worth a consider-
able amount of money is now worth con-
siderably less.
I suggest to the hon. members of the gov-
ernment that individuals still have the right
to be looked after in this province, particu-
larly people who are living on highways.
If we are going to change the road, we
should let them know it and not keep it hid-
den in the dark vaults of Queen's Park.
Two years ago I spoke on another matter
in connection with highways, and I am going
to bring it up again, as I saw it over the
week end.
In the province of Ontario, up until this
past storm in the area in which I live,
there has been very little snow, but it seems
that every day, whether there is any snow
210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on the pavement or not, The Department
of Highways' trucks continually go up and
down spraying sand and salt on the surface,
particularly salt.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): In our
country, if we did not have salt we could not
get started.
Mr. Whicher: Well, that may be true in
the hon. member's area-
Mr. Nixon: Where does the hon. member
live?
Mr. Whicher: Like the hon. member for
Bellwoods who checked me on this two
years ago, I too agree that if there is any
chance of saving a life or an accident, let
us put the salt on the road, by all means, but
if it is not needed, as is the case in many
instances, I suggest that the trucks remain
in the garage where they should be, because
it costs every motorist in this province at
least $200 or $300 a year for the
damage that salt is doing to the undercar-
riage of the automobiles. I think that where
it is necessary it should be used, but I think
the hon. Minister (Mr. Allan) should speak
to his engineering staff and orders should be
issued that when the pavement is dry, or
is covered with just a light fall of snow,
we should forget about the salt proposition
and think about the car owners of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
Now I had not intended saying anything
about this, this afternoon, but inasmuch as the
hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cowling)
brought it up, I must say a few words about
it, and that is about compulsory automobile
insurance.
Hon. members on the other side of the
House wonder why he does not like the word
"compulsory", but, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a strong plea to the government this
afternoon, to the hon. members of the govern-
ment, that some type of compulsory auto-
mobile insurance be brought into this prov-
ince as soon as possible.
To my knowledge, it is the only catastrophe
that can overtake any individual in this prov-
ince now where he cannot be looked after. If
our house burns down and we have no insur-
ance, it is our own fault.
Mr. Jackson: The same with an automobile.
Mr. Whicher: The same with an automobile,
if it is my automobile. If I run into somebody
and kill him, and I am sued for $50,000 and
I am not covered with insurance, why then
it is my fault.
If from now on, as of January, 1959, if I
get a catastrophic illness I can go to hospital
for all time with no cost, and I am looked
after there, but I ask the hon. members of
this House what happens if I walk down the
street or any of them walk down the street
and are killed, and the man who hits us and
kills us has not any insurance, what happens?
That is what I want to know.
Mr. Cowling: We should go to the Unsatis-
fied Judgment Fund.
Mr. Whicher: All right, then, we go to the
Unsatisfied Judgment Fund and after going
through courts and trials and tribulations for
months and months, why an injured com-
plainant may get paid off at $2,000 or $3,000
or at most $5,000.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
They get the same amounts now as the mini-
mums under policies-
Mr. Whicher: All right, in other words they
get $10,000. Now I ask the hon. member for
London North (Mr. Robarts) here how his
wife would like it if somebody went down the
street— and we hope it will never happen— and
killed him, and they pay her off at the rate of
$10,000 for his life? I know he is a good Con-
servative but quite frankly I think he is worth
minimums.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Even if there is com-
pulsory insurance, unless the liability is un-
limited you come to the top of the liability,
and today I think in the state of New York
it is the same as here, $10,000 and $20,000,
so that you would have the same position.
Our Unsatisfied Judgment Fund meets those
minimums.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, but the hon. Minister
forgets this, that I did not say that we should
have the same limits as they have in the
Unsatisfied Judgment Fund, because obviously
they should be increased and it would be at
no particular extra cost to the motorist or the
man who buys the insurance.
Now this is what I have in mind; I agree
with the hon. member for High Park (Mr.
Cowling) that it should be in the hands of
private insurance companies and not in the
hands of the government.
Mr. MacDonald (York South): They are in
the same bed again— Liberals and Conserva-
tives.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to point this out,
particularly to the hon. member on my right,
that-
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
211
Mr. MacDonald: There go the private
insurance companies. Keep the rates up.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to point out
that these insurance companies are in the
insurance business and they are in the busi-
ness quite frankly and quite rightly with the
thought of making money. There is nothing
wrong with that, that is the way our country
has been brought along and, in spite of the
fact there are some people who do not want
it to be that way, it will be that way for all
time.
The reason I want to leave it to private
insurance companies is as follows:
First, there are people on our highways
who should not be driving and I would make
it compulsory before a person can get a
permit, he must have an insurance policy.
Now then, our insurance companies will sell
it if it is at all saleable, but they will not
give it to somebody they may think is not
a fit risk to drive an automobile on the high-
ways of this province, and should not be
there in the first place.
The insurance companies are in a much
better place to cut them off, and not give
them the policy, than people in the govern-
ment are, because when a government
handles insurance, as in all other branches,
there is a certain amount of red tape. The
insurance companies should handle it, there
is not any question about it whatsoever.
And I think the rates should be put, in-
stead of 10, 20 and 5, I will just throw
in a suggestion here that we should
start at 25, 50 and 5, at least, as every hon.
member in this House knows the added cost
to an insurance policy from standard rates
of 10, 20 and 5, to 25, 50 and 5 is very
little indeed. Very, very little.
We should protect the people who are
walking down the streets and driving cars
in this province of Ontario, and the only
way to protect them is to demand that if
a man runs into my car or kills me, that
my wife and family can be properly com-
pensated, and there is only one way to do
that, and that is bring compulsory automobile
insurance into this province.
And while the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund
is a try— I give this government full marks
for the try— it simply does not meet the re-
quirements of the people. It does not meet
the requirements of the widow when her
husband has been killed.
In concluding my remarks this afternoon
I just want to say something in regard to
the bill which has been presented to the
committee on education. It was presented
very well in the House by the hon. Minister
of Education (Mr. Dunlop). With reference
to the loan fund that seemingly is going to
be granted to students who have a 60 per
cent., or thereabouts, mark in high school,
they are going to be allowed to carry on in
university and this province is going to loan
them the money.
Now I have a few thoughts about that
myself and, in the first place, I do not believe
that there should be any interest rate while
the student is in university. I think that this
province— and I bring this to the attention of
the hon. Minister of Education before he
presents it for its third reading— I do not think
that they should pay any interest rate while
in university and we could very well let it
go for one year after graduation from univer-
sity. That will give the student an opportunity
to get on his feet and start to pay back the
loan.
Secondly, I am most opposed to the sug-
gestion of the hon. Minister of Education,
and the suggestion that has been put through
the newspapers and radios of our province,
that the students will require an endorsement
by their parents.
I would simply like to say this, that the
education in this province and indeed in this
country is not just of benefit to the individual,
it is also a great benefit to the province and
to the country as a whole. Therefore it is up
to us, up to hon. members opposite, as the
government of this province, that inasmuch
as they are going to benefit by the further
education of the students of this province,
they must accept some of the risk.
It is not fair to ask a parent to guarantee a
loan of $1,000 a year for 4 or 5 years. May I
remind hon. members that the guarantee that
they are asking him would certainly reduce his
credit at chartered banks, mortgage companies
or wherever he wished to borrow while that
loan was in force. And indeed this guarantee
that they are going to force him to give
would hang as a threat over the parents for
years and years.
Also, would it be fair to ask someone else
to guarantee it if the parent was not in a
good financial position? I suggest that it is
not fair at all, and that hon. members are
putting the parent who is being asked in a
most unfair position, because obviously the
parent does not want to stop his son or
daughter from further education, and
obviously the neighbour or whoever it might
be who might be asked to guarantee the
212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
loan, also wants to see the student go further
as far as education goes.
But it is most unfair that this should be
necessary, and I suggest that the province of
Ontario can well afford to accept the guaran-
tee themselves, and accept the rates of repay-
ment back from the students under whatever
terms it suggests, for the good of the whole
province.
I would like to remind the hon. members of
the House about something that was said at
the Liberal convention in Ottawa only a
couple of months ago, in regard to education,
and I think that the hon. Minister could well
steal some of the thoughts that were ex-
pressed there as far as education and the
youth of this province are concerned.
This is what they said in dealing with youth
—that in consultation with the provinces, and
working through the national conference of the
Canadian universities, they would establish
2,500 Canada scholarships and 7,500 Canada
bursaries for university students, and with
federal capital establish a university loan
fund. Now that is what this province is going
to do now.
Mr. MacDonald: Why did they not do it
when they were in power?
Mr. Lavergne: What were they doing for
22 years?
Mr. Whicher: There is no question that
there were many mistakes made in the past.
We are talking about the future.
Firstly, regarding scholarships and bursaries
—scholarships would be awarded for 4 years
and be worth $1,000 per year.
Secondly, bursaries would be awarded for
4 years and be worth $500 per year.
The awarding of scholarships and bursaries
would be by open and competitive examination
conducted in the two official languages by the
national conference at Canadian universities.
In other words, the universities, and not the
government, are going to run this show. The
estimated number of scholarships and
bursaries from the fourth year on would be
40,000; estimated cost with 40,000 scholar-
ships and bursaries would be $25 million
per year— a small price I suggest, not only
for the teacher of the individual who is going
to the university, but for the future of all
Canada, because the educated race is going
to come to the forefront.
Firstly, regarding the university student
loan fund to be administered by the na-
tional conference of Canadian universities
and the hon. Minister, I suggest that that
is what should be done here. This loan
fund should be administered by the Ontario
universities and not by The Department of
Education.
Secondly, that they be available to students
according to conditions to be defined by the
conference, in other words, by conditions
defined by the universities themselves who
are surely in a better position to make these
decisions than the government.
Thirdly, loans should be interest free dur-
ing university attendance and for the first
year after graduation.
Fourthly, loans should be repayable in 4
years with interest at the rate of 4 per cent.
I wish to assure the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation, for whom I have a lot of re-
spect, that these thoughts are given sin-
cerely and I do hope, particularly, that he
will review the decision that he has evi-
dently made as far as demand that the par-
ents of children attending university or some
other guarantor sign a note, which would
be a threat over the head of the guarantor
or the parent for many years to come.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, may I move the adjournment of
the debate?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Order of business.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 59, "An Act to amend The County
Judges Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving second
reading, may I say this is a very brief
amending Act. The effect of the Act will
be that the oath of office of a county court
judge, which at present must be taken be-
fore a person appointed for the purpose by
the hon. the Lieutenant-Governor and this
requires an order-in-council, will be adminis-
tered by the senior judge in point of time in
any district, or by the second senior judge if
the first senior is not available.
Motion carried; second reading of the bill.
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 62, "An Act to amend The Public
Trustee Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill simply pro-
vides for a second deputy public trustee. The
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
213
division of duties in that office now would
appear to be of such a nature that two
deputy public trustees are desirable.
Motion carried; second reading of the bill.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 63, "An Act to amend The Sum-
mary Convictions Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides
for the granting of bail by any police officer
in relation to any police station in relation
to any offence under the provincial statutes,
and the effect will be that there will be a
widening of the right to grant bail which
should have a beneficial effect in smaller
municipalities. Also where a person is ap-
prehended on a relatively minor charge un-
der a statute, he can be released to come
before the magistrate at the proper time
without having to wait perhaps for two or
three days for a hearing.
Motion carried; second reading of the bill.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 64, "An Act to amend The Mech-
anics' Lien Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a
number of amendments to a technical Act and
has been prepared after a subcommittee com-
posed of experts in mechanic lien work of
the administration of justice committee has
recommended the changes. They are all aimed
at smoothing out the procedure and bringing
the Act up to date.
Motion carried; second reading of the bill.
THE CERTIFICATION OF TITLES ACT,
1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 66, "The Certification of Titles Act,
1958."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will go to
the committee on legal bills, and there I
expect that it will be discussed in considerable
detail, and unless some hon. member wants
me to repeat what I said when the bill was
introduced, I will say no more at this stage.
Motion carried; second reading of the bill.
THE TOWNSHIP OF KAY ROAD
ALLOWANCE ACT, 1958
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves second
reading of Bill No. 67, "The Township of Kay
Road Allowance Act, 1958."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to establish the road allowance between
lots 15 and 16, concession 8 of the township
of Kay in the position generally accepted.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PROVINCIAL LAND TAX ACT
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 68, "An Act to amend The
Provincial Land Tax Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to improve the administration practice
under the Act by dividing the province into 3
areas, and assessing the land in each area
once every 3 years.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 65, "An Act to amend The Land
Titles Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned when
this bill was introduced, there are a number of
self-explanatory amendments to The Land
Titles Act, and the main purpose of this bill
is to clarify beyond any question that an
absolute title to property under The Land
Titles Act cannot be defeated by adverse pos-
session.
Motion carried; second reading of the bill.
THE CANCER ACT, 1957
Hon. M. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 74, "An Act to amend The Cancer
Act, 1957."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite
the transaction of business, the quorum of the
Ontario cancer treatment and research founda-
tion, which consists of not fewer than 7 mem-
bers, and of the Ontario cancer institute,
which consists of 12 members, is reduced
from a majority of the members to 5 members.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE CEMETERIES ACT
Hon. Mr. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 75, "An Act to amend The Ceme-
teries Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
amendment is to remove any doubt that the
hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) may
direct a disinterment for the purpose of a
criminal investigation when no proceeding
has been instituted. As a matter of fact, may
I say to the hon. members of this House that
we simply added the words "criminal investi-
gation" instead of "proceeding".
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on the general principle, I do not
know whether I am speaking to the principle
of this bill or the general principle of The
Cemeteries Act, does the government intend
to bring in any further legislation to deal with
stricter accounting or supervision of the opera-
tion of the privately-owned cemeteries?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well now, Mr. Speaker,
what does he mean by "privately-owned"?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, last year
these so-called "memorial gardens" had con-
siderable debate in the House. The hon.
Minister will recall that the government took
steps to bring them under closer government
supervision.
Now, at that time, some of us in the
Opposition felt that the government had not
gone far enough. Their claim was that in their
opinion the government thought that this was
going to meet the need, and that we would
have to bide our time to see whether experi-
ence would prove this to be the case.
Is it the government's conclusion, in the
intervening period, that the tightening-up of
regulations last year was sufficient to meet the
situation, or does the government plan to
bring in further amendments to cope with the
supervision of privately-operated cemeteries?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Oh, the hon. member
means profit-making cemeteries, that is what
we call them. Mr. Speaker, may I say that
we have already put through regulations that
do bring them more in line, and I will be glad
to speak on that in this House, and also see
that it is brought before the committee on
health when it meets.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 77, "An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill which
provides for the payment of an unconditional
grant of $1 per capita with respect to per-
sons residing on Indian reserves, to the
county in which the reserve is situated, to
assist the county in the administration of
justice. w
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Would the hon. Attorney-General in-
dicate what he thinks will be involved in
that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, I think the total
amount is about 11,600 Indians living on
reserves.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Attor-
ney-General a question? I realize this is
for the justice end of it. They did not get
that before, but the other unconditional
grants, did they get those? That is, the $2
per head, or per capita?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am afraid that is not
within my jurisdiction to answer that speci-
fically.
Mr. Whicher: I thought the hon. Attorney-
General might know. We have not got the
hon. Prime Minister in.
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture): We will be glad to get the infor-
mation for the hon. member.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TOWN SITES ACT
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 84, "An Act to repeal The
Town Sites Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the substance of
this Act in revised form is being incorporated
in The Public Land Act, section 7 of Bill
No. 85.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Speaker, before
moving the adjournment of the House, on
behalf of the hon. Prime Minister and hon.
members of this House I would like to pay
a tribute to a valued civil servant who passed
away on Saturday morning after a short
illness.
As a matter of fact, the hon. Prime Minis-
ter is at this time paying his respects to
Colonel Ernest James Young, M.C., better
known to us who knew him well as "Ernie".
FEBRUARY 17, 1958
215
Colonel Young had a distinguished mili-
tary record, he served in World War I with
the Royal Canadian Engineers and went over-
seas again in 1940 with the Second Road
Construction Company of the Royal Cana-
dian Engineers.
He was born in Sherbrooke, Quebec, in
1883, and his early interest was railroad
engineering at North Bay, where his father
was one of the pioneer engineers with the
Canadian Pacific Railway.
In May of 1944, he was appointed by the
Ontario government as executive director of
veterans' rehabilitation, and subsequently he
served under 3 Prime Ministers as executive
assistant.
I know the hon. members of this House
Would want me at this time to extend sym-
pathy to Mrs. Young and her two daughters
and also express to the hon. members of this
House our feelings that he was a good friend
to those who knew him— he was a good,
competent, kindly, sympathetic kind of man
who was highly regarded as an able and out-
standing civil servant.
We pay tribute to him for his service over-
seas in two world wars, and for the excep-
tional qualifications he had as an executive in
the government services of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of
the House. We will continue with the debate
on the Throne speech tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock
p.m.
No. 12
ONTARIO
Legislature of (Ontario
Beuate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, February 18, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
- .; ■ ■ -
■
CONTENTS
■-
Tuesday, February 18, 1958
Township of Teck, bill respecting, Mr. Herbert, first reading
Child Welfare Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne,
Mr. Herbert, Mr. Wardrope, Mr. Fishleigh, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Lewis
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Root, agreed to
Teachers' Superannuation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Frost, second reading ...
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, 1954,
bill to amend, Mr. Frost, second reading
Public Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Frost, second reading
Separate Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Frost, second reading
Tourist Establishments Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cathcart, second reading
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to
219
219
221
242
243
243
243
243
243
245
.
219
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 18, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
TOWNSHIP OF TECK
Mr. A. R. Herbert moves first reading of
bill intutled, "An Act respecting the town-
ship of Teck."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE CHILD WELFARE ACT, 1954
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Child
Welfare Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the main amend-
ments of this Act are as follows:
Firstly, the amendments are designed to
clarify the limits of a municipality's lia-
bility to pay for the maintenance of a child
in the care and custody of a children's aid
society. Another feature is an order to pre-
vent unduly protractive adoption proceed-
ings; it is provided that a new application
must be made if the first application has not
been heard by the court for 12 months after
it was signed.
Where a child sought to be adopted was
born out of wedlock, provision is made that
only the mother need give consent, but for
the consent to be effective, the child must
be 15 days or more old or the consent may
be cancelled within 15 days. All consent
must be in writing, and can be withdrawn
only if the court is satisfied that it is in the
best interest of the child.
The other feature provides that an adop-
tion order may be made after the child has
resided with the applicant for a period of
6 months instead of the present requirement
of 12 months.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the fol-
lowing:
1. Copy of board and council No. 1175-
57 under The Northern Development Act.
2. Report relating to the registration of
births, marriages and deaths in the province
of Ontario for the year ended December 31,
1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I
would like to address a question to the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow).
Yesterday's edition of the London Free
Press carried a story date-lined Chatham, in
which a Kent shipper and farmer has indi-
cated that today he is reopening for business
in shipping hogs in an attempt to challenge
the Ontario hog producers' marketing board.
This shipper, Edgar Martin by name, has
indicated that hogs delivered to his sales
yard will be marketed in Montreal in direct
contravention of the board's orders. I have
two questions which I would like to ask
the hon. Minister.
First, what action, if any, does the govern-
ment plan to take in face of this open chal-
lenge of the marketing law of the province?
Secondly, since the shipper in question
states that he is taking this action because
preparations are not being made for the vote
announced by the hon. Minister in October
to be held in March or April, will the hon.
Minister indicate if and when the govern-
ment intends to hold this vote?
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the two
questions of the hon. member for York South,
I would say that I also read in the press where
it is alleged that Mr. Martin has challenged
the hog producers' marketing board.
As perhaps most hon. members of this
House are aware, both The Ontario Farm
Products Marketing Act and the federal
Agricultural Products Act were revised and
220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
amended at the last session respectively by
this Legislature and the House of Commons,
so that they are complementary to one
another.
Any contravention of a marketing board
plan within the provincial jurisdiction is
where the product is sold in contravention
within the province, but if, as is alleged, these
hogs are shipped out of the province, then it
is a contravention of the federal Agricultural
Products Act.
I might say that as far as the hog marketing
plan is concerned, the Ontario farm products
marketing board and the federal authorities
have given the hog producers all the powers
by regulation, under those respective Acts, so
that it is entirely a matter up to the hog pro-
ducers' marketing board as to what steps they
uphold or wish to take in respect to this
matter.
I might say that it is alleged that hogs have
been moving into Quebec province at the rate
of 500 or 600 a month for some time now,
and no steps have been taken by the Ontario
hog marketing board to lay any charges. They
are aware of this, so they tell me themselves,
and I presume that they will be taking the
necessary steps if they wish to stop this
practice.
As far as we are concerned, we stand be-
hind the Ontario farm products marketing
board, or Act rather, and we have given all
the powers to this particular commodity group
to enforce the Act themselves, the same as the
peach growers did in relation to the infrac-
tion of their marketing plan last fall.
In respect to the second question, it was
intimated to the hog producers that it was
felt advisable by the Ontario farm products
marketing board that there should be a vote
on their plan, and in order to make it effective
they should assure themselves that they have
the whole-hearted support of the hog pro-
ducers of this province. I feel that is im-
portant with any marketing plan, that it is
much better to be able to convince people
that we have something good to offer, and
get them to go along on a voluntary rather
than on a compulsory basis.
I think that is pretty sound in principle,
that we should have a predominant majority
of the farmers who are sold on the particular
marketing plan which affects their com-
modities.
In respect to a date for a vote which the
Ontario farm products marketing board might
decide upon, that will be decided in the full-
ness of time. I do not think personally that
it will be a good idea to have a vote on the
hog marketing plan at this particular time for
very obvious reasons, and I might say that
the farm products marketing board is a very
flexible board, and in this respect they have
left themselves in a flexible position.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a ques-
tion to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts).
Has the hon. Attorney-General undertaken
any investigation into the disturbing sug-
gestions that, in view of the great prevalence
of bank robberies, police should be ordered to
shoot suspects on sight?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, I assume that this question is
prompted by some report that the hon. mem-
ber for Waterloo North has read, some after-
dinner comments, and perhaps off-the-cuff
comments, of some municipal dignitaries when
disturbed about these robberies, perhaps at
some civic meeting. I would say that the
question, of course, is very clearly answered
in the code itself and in the instructions given
to police officers. I would draw the attention
of the House to the provisions of the criminal
code; section 25, subsection 4, deals with a
appear in sections 25 and 26 of the criminal
code; section 25, subsection 4, says that a
peace officer who is proceeding lawfully to
arrest, with or without warrant, any person
for an offence for which that person may be
arrested without warrant. Everyone lawfully
assisting the peace officer is justified, if the
person to be arrested takes flight to avoid
arrest, in using as much force as is necessary
to prevent the escape by flight, unless the
escape can be prevented by reasonable
means in a less violent manner.
Then, section 26 states that everyone who
is authorized by law to use force is crimin-
ally responsible for any excess thereof accord-
ing to the nature and quality of the act that
constitutes the excess.
And then, in the Ontario provincial police
book of instruction and rules to the police
force itself, on page 53 under the heading
of "Use of Force and Fire Arms," these
words are I think relevant to this discussion:
When a police officer is making an
arrest for an offence for which a warrant
is necessary, he is only entitled to use suf-
ficient force to repel the force used against
him and in no case is he to use such force
that may cause death or serious and griev-
ous harm. A peace officer, in lawfully pro-
ceeding to arrest a person whom he may
arrest without a warrant, is justified if the
person flees to avoid arrest, in using such
force as may be necessary to prevent his
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
221
escape by such flight, unless the escape
can be prevented by reasonable means and
a less violent manner.
which is just a paraphrasing of the code.
This permits the use of fire arms, but only
as a last resort when it is the only way to
prevent an escape. Under such circumstances,
the shooting will be deemed to be justified
under section 41 of the criminal code, but
the constable must not shoot except as an
extreme measure, and of course we know
that a constable who uses a weapon un-
necessarily, actively, and offensively is liable
to prosecution, and also of course— and what
may be more serious for him— is liable to a
civil action for damages.
I might say that with those provisions I
do not think I am required to investigate
any suggestion such as has caused the hon.
member to put this question. But I will say
that, since he refers to bank robberies in
this question, it has been my view during
this epidemic that there is a considerable
responsibility, Mr. Speaker, on the banks
themselves, and that by use of more uni-
formed guards in their own employ, they
can go a considerably greater distance than
they are going at present to meet this situa-
tion squarely face to face when it actually
occurs.
Mr. Wintermeyer: There is a supple-
mentary question to the hon. Attorney-Gen-
eral, and this is in all seriousness.
I gather that he personally does not agree
with the suggestions made in the past few
weeks by certain responsible officials, sug-
gestions which could certainly be interpreted
that responsible police officers should be
encouraged to make themselves legally res-
ponsible for the use of fire arms in un-
necessary cases.
Now I personally agree very much with
his observations about the banks. Would
the hon. Attorney-General publicly agree with
me that the type of statement which has been
made in the course of the last few weeks,
with respect to encouraging police officers to
use fire arms, is an undesirable thing?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I think perhaps
by just stating the law as it is and showing
the difficulties a police officer could quickly
get into if he does not keep within the
bounds, that that pretty well answers the
question, and I certainly am not one who
wants to see any indiscriminate shooting
going on.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, in taking part in the debate, it is my
privilege as the vice-chairman of the Ontario
northland transportation commission to speak
about our railway and its ancillary services.
The two great railways of Canada, the
Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian
National Railways, were built to traverse the
country from east to west for the purpose of
opening up our great country from coast to
coast.
In the north, the Temiskaming and North-
ern Ontario Railway, now the Ontario North-
land—the people's railway, which is owned
by every one of us in this province— was con-
ceived and constructed by the Ontario gov-
ernment solely as a development road within
this province.
When the idea was mothered, it was for
the purpose of giving northern settlers at
the Lakehead and at Temiskaming access to
southern markets, and at the same time make
available for further settlement highly pro-
ductive agricultural lands in our clay belts,
which exploratory surveys had disclosed, and
to exploit our extensive forests.
Unknown at that time was the untold hoard
of precious minerals at Cobalt, Timmins and
Kirkland Lake, and the base metals in the
Rouyn-Noranda area.
In 1904, the first work trains reached Cobalt
and as a result of this government project
"boom towns" grew up overnight which
affected the whole economic pattern of nor-
thern Ontario. The hoard of precious minerals
and metals had been detected and new settlers
flocked to the area.
As a result of these unforeseen and progres-
sive discoveries, splendid towns with all the
amenities of modern living have grown up,
and the agricultural economy of the country
has been placed on the sound basis of ever-
growing local markets. The railway has been
instrumental in the operation of great pulp
and paper mills and sawmills throughout the
territory it serves, and the natural beauties of
this lovely country of lakes and forests has
become a magnet to attract thousands of
tourists and sportsmen.
Now I would like to tell the hon. members
something about the operation and quality of
their railway. Although it was for many years
in a monopolistic position, since there was
neither a highway in its territory nor other
railway competition, its rates were always de-
vised to promote expansion of industry and
not to throttle it. That principle is in effect
today. Throughout the whole history of the
222
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
railway, there has been a consistent policy of
improvement of its services. What started as
a "bush" railway has become a first-class
system, modern to the fullest extent.
For instance, the Temiskaming and North-
ern Ontario Railway was the first in Canada
to have its passenger trains fully equipped
with steel cars. At present, and for the past
year, the railway has been completely diesel-
ized, which is not only a measure of great
economy but has also contributed to the com-
fort of its passengers and the general efficiency
of the railway.
A block signal system, which now extends
from North Bay to Swastika, is yearly being
pushed northward. Radio-telephones have
been installed in locomotives and vans to
facilitate train operation, and the roadbed,
year by year, is being upgraded by the use
of heavier rails and treated ties.
Not only is the physical condition of the
railway undergoing constant improvement, but
the train crews and station employees have
earned a reputation for courtesy, of which
the railway is extremely proud.
The ancillary services of the Ontario North-
land Railway are also worthy of more than
passing mention. To supplement the rail
passenger service, the railway operates a
highway service between North Bay and
Timmins, employing the most modern diesel
buses. There are also daily services between
Cochrane and Timmins, New Liskeard and
Elk Lake, Porquis Junction and Iroquois Falls.
Buses are also available for charter.
To promote and encourage tourist traffic in
the summer resort areas, the railway operates
fleets of boats, both for passengers and
freight, on Lake Nipissing and Lake Tema-
gami. At Moosonee the railway's comfortable
Log Lodge gives accommodation in that ro-
mantic and historic area, and, in the fall, the
Hannah Bay Goose Camp makes available
unequalled shooting to sportsmen from all
parts of Canada and the United States.
It may also be said that the rail head at
Moosonee, Ontario's only seaport, facilitated
greatly the construction of the Mid-Canada
Radar Defence Line, and it is not too much
to hope that, in the not-distant future,
Moosonee may be of major importance in the
development of the iron ore deposits on the
Belcher Islands and the nickel-copper deposits
in Ungava.
The railway also has a flourishing com-
munications department. This was born of
necessity in the early days, when the tele-
graph lines for railway operation afforded the
only immediate means of communication with
the outside world. From this developed a
system of long-distance telephones, until to-
day most of the local long-distance business
and all external long-distance calls are
handled over the railway's wires.
In addition, teletype services are afforded
throughout the railway's territory, and radio
and the audio portion of television broadcasts
make use of the Ontario Northland Railway
facilities.
Railways in general have been affected
by the levelling out of Canadian industrial
and business activities, and the Ontario North-
land Railway has been no exception. The
decline in traffic on the railway in the past
year followed an exceptionally busy year,
because 1956 was a near-record year for
the railway.
However, in view of the unemployment
situation, every effort has been made to con-
tinue the employment of persons who, nor-
mally, would have been subject to seasonal
lay-offs.
This is particularly true of the section
gangs, which have been kept up to strength
and, for shop employees, some extra work
of a minor nature has been found to keep
all employed.
While much outdoor work is impossible
under winter conditions, plans have been
made to start such work as soon as weather
conditions permit. The Ontario Northland
Railway appreciates the loyalty of its staff
and is making a concentrated effort to re-
tain them in full employment.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the
fact that, much as this railway has meant
to northern Ontario the benefits it has con-
ferred on the whole of the province are even
more outstanding. It is not too much to
say that Bay Street in Toronto is to a very
great extent a product of northern Ontario.
From 1903, when silver was first discovered
in Cobalt, until today, there has been an
ever-increasing activity not only in financial
circles but also in the industries of Ontario
as a whole.
Every mine in Ontario draws supplies from
40 to 50 industrial communities in the south.
Southern agriculture has also benefited from
the good markets created in the north. The
activities generated in northern Ontario have
spread far and wide.
In the days ahead, one can visualize more
belching smoke stacks of industry with the
refinement of our natural resources at the
source of production, due to the advent of
fuel from our western provinces at attractive
reduced costs as the gas pipe line snakes
its way ever eastward and southward.
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
223
I hope my remarks have given hon. mem-
bers some idea of the Ontario Northland
Railway, and that they will agree with me
that it is one of the most efficient and neces-
sary services to the people of northeastern
Ontario.
Where there are people, there is business,
and if we make it easy for them to come to
us, they can become our customers. It is a
service of which we may all feel proud, and
I would like to compliment the other mem-
bers of the commission who, through the
years, have so successfully handled the
affairs of this provincial undertaking, and
also to pay tribute to the officers and staff
for their achievement. The Ontario North-
land Railway, the people's railway, has
played a major role in our province.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, would
the hon. member for Temiskaming permit
a question?
Mr. Herbert: Yes, I will permit a question;
. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Wren: I would preface my question
by saying that I appreciated the remarks he
made about the loyalty of the employees on
the Ontario Northland Railway. I would ask
this question: Following the release of the
Kellogg Royal commission report of diesel
firemen, what action does the Ontario
Northland Railway commission propose to
take with regard to the diesel engine men?
Mr. Herbert: In reply to the hon. member
for Kenora, I would like to say that I am
very concerned, as are all other members of
our commission, and I have read at great
length the many submissions that have been
sent to me.
I would like to say that it must be remem-
bered that, in comparison to the giants of
the railway industry, our railway is only a
very small one. I would say that our firemen
have been very faithful employees, and have
worked their way into this position by
seniority which is respected.
Our commission will be discussing this
question at a very early date, and I will be
glad to inform the hon. member of their
conclusions. Personally, I would like to see
the firemen retained on our railway.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, as usual I am very proud to be
given the opportunity to address this august
assemblage, and in commencing my remarks
I want to again congratulate you on the
dignity with which you maintain your office
and the kindness that at all times you extend
to me.
You know, I believe, that a Speaker in
this House is one of the most important
parts of our governmental assemblage. The
public come here to visit us, we at times
become irate and get a little out of hand,
and the Speaker must be a man something
like yourself, sir, who has a very finely
trained, stentorian voice and a manner that
exudes confidence and fairness. He must be
able to adjust these things to the satisfaction
of the hon. members at all times, and dis-
cipline them if necessary, and also be a great
credit to the public who favour us with
their visits at the time of session.
So I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and
hope that you are spared for many years to
carry on in the gracious, expert way in
which you do in that office.
I might also congratulate your deputy
Speaker (Mr. Allen), an old friend of mine
from Middlesex South who has endeared
himself through the years to all of us, a man
of great standing and honour in this party,
and one whom we are all proud to see
elevated to that office which he now holds.
My congratulations also go to our new
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Spooner) from
Timmins. He is an hon. gentleman who has
a great faculty of building realism, a man
who is a splendid speaker and who in his
short term in office has endeared himself
very much to the hearts of my people in the
north country— especially those in the mining
business.
I would say that he will prove to be a
great asset to this government and one of
the finest Ministers of Mines that we have
ever had. His training would certainly indi-
cate that, Mr. Speaker.
Also, I extend congratulations to the
new hon. Minister of Reform Institutions
(Mr. Dymond). Might I say that mighty
"Scotch Adam". He is a great speaker, and
one who is efficient in his work at all times
and dearly beloved by us in the north.
In fact, if I might be permitted, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to repeat a story he
told when he made his first appearance at
our centennial. A young Scottish couple
were coming over to this country, and the
mother gave birth to a baby on the way
over. They were in very straitened circum-
stances, and the passengers, feeling rather
sorry for them, took up a collection.
When the captain was presenting it, he
congratulated the passengers on the round
sum they had collected, it amounted to
$333.03, and they could not understand where
the 3 cents came from until somebody sug-
224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
gested that there must be a Scotsman on
board.
There was a big laugh, and finally a voice
at the back said, "Aye captain, there were
three of us."
That is my friend, the hon. Minister of Re-
form Institutions, and he certainly does not
carry out that policy in the work he has
undertaken. May he be spared long to carry
on in that office.
Then there are many other things about
which to congratulate this party at this ses-
sion; one concerns the splendid new hon.
members that have been sent to us in great
numbers through by-elections in the last few
months.
My friend the hon. member for Lanark
(Mr. McCue) is an outstanding physician in
civilian life, and is a person who is going to
make a great mark in the political annals of
this province. I congratulate him and welcome
him to our ranks.
Then next, I congratulate the hon. member
from that famous old constituency of Glen-
garry (Mr. Guindon). He is the hon. gentle-
man who seconded the speech from the
Throne and made such a wonderful job of it.
I told him afterwards that, if I could speak
the two languages the way he can, I would
feel very proud indeed. I predict a very, very
rosy future for him in the future political life
of this province.
Then we have a great farmer from Middle-
sex North (Mr. W. A. Stewart). From speak-
ing to this hon. member, I believe he has
most of the answers to our agriculutral
problems. To him I extend the welcome
hand, and hope that his life will be long in
this House and be very happy indeed.
Then, last but not least, there is our newest
hon. member from Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the
youngest member I believe, and also the most
eligible bachelor and a great man in the hog
producing business.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of
interest the other day, when the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) was talking
about hog marketing, and as I listened I could
not help but think of the hon. member for
Elgin who knows so much about the business,
and I considered finally that the hon. member
for York South knew about as much about hog
marketing as I do myself. In fact, his educa-
tion I believe, was limited to looking at a
pork chop in the pump room of the Lord
Simcoe Hotel.
Mr. MacDonald: I have never been in the
pump room.
Mr. Wardrope: That is where the hon.
member had his meeting. I have often
thought, Mr. Speaker, that some of us who
are not versed in those things would be very
wise if, before speaking, we consulted some
of the experts such as my hon. friend from
Elgin.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Do not mention any
more about that, the hon. member will make
them feel bad.
Mr. Wardrope: I will try to spare them in
the future. I am also sorry to see that my
dear old friend, the hon. member for Peel
(Mr. Kennedy), is not in his seat. He is a man
whom I greatly admire, along with every hon.
member of this House regardless of politics.
He has been in this House, I think Mr.
Speaker, for some 39 years, and he moved the
Throne speech.
The hon. member's speech was full of
folksy lore, knowledge and wisdom, and I
would say to some of the younger hon. mem-
bers that if they want answers to their political
problems, or to their cares, if they would
spend a few hours with the hon. member for
Peel it would greatly enrich their future in
politics and make sure of their continuing
success at the polls, because he has a great
record and is greatly respected in this
province.
Coupled with him, I could not help but
think of my old friend, the hon. member for
Brant (Mr. Nixon) whom I have admired for
a great many years. He has a history in length
of 39 years in this House and is respected
by all.
The point came up, Mr. Speaker, when I
thought of those two hon. gentlemen, the
Indian chiefs, that I have heard the hon.
Prime Minister and the hon. member for
Brant speak so much about. We have many
of them in this House and in the federal
House. The present hon. Prime Minister of
Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) is Chief Eagle.
Our own hon. Prime Minister of Ontario
(Mr. Frost) is Chief High Water. The hon.
member for Peel is Chief Clear Sky. The
hon. member for Brant is Chief Trees of a
Level Height, meaning all men are equal
—a great name. Our hon. Minister of Plan-
ning and Development (Mr. Nickle) is Chief
High Sky and my own title, of which I am
very proud, as a chief of the Pays Piatt tribe,
is Okinanaw Yoa, the Coming Voice.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow)?
Hon. Mr. Scott: The hon. member for York
South should have been Bald Eagle.
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
225
Mr. Wardrope: I might say this, Mr.
Speaker, that I would like to suggest to our
hon. Prime Minister that it might be possible
to have a meeting of the chiefs, because we
must remember that these Indian chiefs are
very proud of their titles, as we are, and when
we are made chiefs, we are taught that it is
something to respect and something of which
to be proud. I know that I have constant
correspondence with Chief Muskwash, the
chief of the Pays Piatt tribe to which I
belong, and I think that we should give con-
sideration to having a reception, we brother
chiefs— I am suggesting this also to the hon.
member for Brant— and invite that great new
Senator, chief Gladstone, to be our guest of
honour.
I do not know where this meeting should
be held, but I give that out, Mr. Speaker, to
our hon. Prime Minister as something that
should be given consideration, because I
believe the appointment of Senator Gladstone
is a milestone in the history of this country
and I think we, as fellow chiefs, all feel very
proud of that appointment, and I am sure I
am speaking for the other chiefs when I say
that we would be glad to be guests at a dinner
held in his honour.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about
the Throne speech. To my mind, it was a very
fine Throne speech, one that heralded many
advances in human betterment and progress
for our people in this province. It further
advances the programme of human rights
which after all is the most important thing
in our political history.
Also, I am pleased with the health and
welfare services that were mentioned in that
speech, heralding the new great Ontario
hospital plan that will come into being on
January 1, 1959, something of which I think
we will all be proud. I know this will be of
great benefit to the people because it will
remove the catastrophic financial effect of
illnesses of long length, which in the past
has driven many of our people into a state
of poverty.
Also, may I mention the far-reaching re-
forms in our school grant system. I was very
glad to see that, and also the increases in
old-age assistance benefits, blind persons'
allowances, disability pension allowances and
the contemplated construction of new homes
for the aged. Increases in all these fields
should be always close to our hearts.
I cannot help but think of the first home
for the aged, Mr. Speaker, and its inception
which took place in England in 1919 under
the leadership of former Prime Minister Lloyd
George. They held a vote throughout that
country as to whether or not they would
establish these homes.
At one of these little polls there was a
very arrogant gentleman who did not believe
in what he called these "give-aways" by the
government. He was very much opposed
to Lloyd George's plan for homes for the
aged, and he stood in the poll, and a little
old lady came along.
The arrogant gentleman said to her: "I
suppose, Mrs. Smith, you are going in to
vote for that charitable give-away you hope
to get, the next thing Lloyd George will be
promising you will be a free trip to heaven."
She hesitated for a minute and then said:
"No sir, I don't think he will promise us
that, all he is trying to do is make the wait-
ing room a little more comfortable."
Mr. Speaker, we in this province have
given increased assistance to these beautiful
homes— I have a new one in my own city,
which is really a beautiful home— and when
I go up there and see these elderly people
living under the bettered circumstances they
are living in now, in comparison to what
they had a few years ago, it makes my heart
proud that I am a member of a government
which sees things that way, and is better-
ing the lot of those who are in the later
days of their lives.
And the increase in the old age pension
that our government brought in just recently,
what a great step forward that was in human
betterment! At the next election, I know
that our older people will express their ap-
proval in no uncertain way of what they
feel should have been done long ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to increasing
school grants, I will not dwell on that. The
assistance to students through the univer-
sities, by the way of loans and bursaries, and
also the decreasing of the burden on the
municipal taxpayer which is being constantly
furthered by this government, and the in-
creased programme of highways and public
works— these are things which are really the
hallmark of a government that is on the
march in doing things for its people.
Regarding forest and access roads and
parks, I have my own confrere, the hon.
Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Maple-
doram) with me, and I wish to say publicly
that he is doing a marvellous job in promot-
ing these lands, and I might say I am right
at his elbow constantly telling him of other
things that we can think of to do, and he is
doing a great job in getting them through.
226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think of one road, the Black Sturgeon
road— you will hear much more of it, Mr.
Speaker. When the Black Sturgeon road is
completed, there will be a road servicing the
people of a community that has been in
existence for more years than I can remember,
and it will be the first time in their lives that
they have ever had a road to the highways or
to any part of this continent.
Mr. MacDonald: It took them 30 years.
Mr. Wardrope: That is right, and we have
it now. The hon. member knows the govern-
ment which promised it and the government
which is going to do it.
Another road I might mention is the Savant
Lake road. When that is completed this year,
it will let the people of Pickle Crow and
Central Patricia Mines— I believe the farthest
mining community north in this country— out
by road to the city of New York or any other
portion of this continent.
Another first for this government, park im-
provements, a great new plan to provide parks
and playgrounds for our people.
Mr. MacDonald: What about Hornepayne
—when are they going to get out of there?
Mr. Wardrope: Hornepayne is now on the
way, it will be completed this year, and the
hon. member will see the announcement
within the next two or three days.
Regarding Seagram and Manitouwadge, I
might mention that by the time this govern-
ment gets through at the end of this year or
early next year, there will not be one town
in that whole north country in my area that
will be without a road. It will be the first
time in the history of this country, and none
of them were started until this government
took office in about 1943.
All has been done under a Conservative
government, and done without federal
government help until 7 months ago when a
change was made and a real government
was elected in Ottawa.
Someone mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that
the shelf for public works projects was being
dusted off. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say
that the Ontario shelf of public works has
never in my experience been allowed to
gather dust. An announcement made in the
past few days by our hon. Prime Minister,
regarding aids to employment, is ample proof
of that statement.
Might I be pardoned, Mr. Speaker, or I
ask your pardon, for mentioning a few things
about northwestern Ontario— that part of
Ontario of which I am so proud. Possibly
some hon. members get a little bit tired of me
speaking of northwestern Ontario, but after
all, Mr. Speaker, it is a great part of this
province, and it is going to provide the
natural wealth to keep this part of the prov-
ince going, and it is a very, very important
part of the economic future of this whole
country.
There is no area in the world so ready
and rich for development, and at the same
time so ready for experiment. By the free
enterprise system— and in the 212,000 square
miles of territory of northwestern Ontario,
the tremendous strides already accomplished
have, of course, been made possible by a
system of free enterprise— and the faith and
initiative of those who have pioneered in
the development of our natural resources,
they have reached the point today— a study
of them will convince most of us, Mr.
Speaker — where great benefits are being
derived from their products. Most evident is
the obvious good life in the communities
built up around these developments, another
first for our government in taking over the
planning and development of these bush
towns today.
One person per square mile is the popula-
tion figure for the area at the present. What
a terrific potential, Mr. Speaker, when
viewed in the light of these figures! Fanning
out from the Lakehead— and you know this,
Mr. Speaker, some may not — the pre-
Cambrian shield and beyond is as yet
hardly scratched for mineral wealth. Even
with the many discoveries in iron, nickel,
gold, silver, copper, zinc and lithium, to
mention but a few, much of the territory
has not been prospected.
In this field a very significant development
is under way, namely a geological and geo-
physical survey of the Canadian shield being
sponsored by 20 mining companies at the
present time. From this a great deal of new
knowledge will be forthcoming and perhaps
great new mining camps will develop.
This is another example of the dynamic
impetus being shown by free enterprise, and
I stress that, Mr. Speaker— free enterprise.
The forests, of course, are a known quan-
tity. A great deal of credit is due to our
forestry branch and our men of the forestry
industry because they have been at this for
some time, safeguarding this natural resource
through a vigorous programme of perpetual
yield. The few great areas available for the
further development of the pulp and paper
industries are being allocated to companies
so that they may be economically sound for
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
227
the harvesting of trees, and at the same time
allow strict adherence to the programme of
perpetual yield, which is most important.
And this is a field in which free enterprise
and government must work hand in hand,
and it is a combination which all peoples are
glad to see and be a party to.
Another fact capital appreciates is the ac-
ceptance by government of its request to
have all forest products processed in the
area. The opportunities are various and
many.
The area is the greatest in the world for
every type of vacationist, as our very able
hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr.
Cathcart) knows, and I think some 18 mil-
lion tourists came into Canada last year.
I have forgotten the amount of wealth that
came in but it is tremendous.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: $300 million-give
them the works.
Mr. Wardrope: $300 million, a tremendous
industry, Mr. Speaker. Private enterprise has
done a good job in the building of camps
and motels throughout northwestern Ontario,
but so much is to be done if we are to meet
the demands of the thousands who will come
to see its scenic beauty, to fish and hunt, and
enjoy a family holiday among its many
lakes and rivers.
Here too, the entrepreneur or the private
enterprise man finds capital hard to obtain.
It is hoped that the requests of the chambers
of commerce to have the building of tourist
accommodation included as an item eligible
for loans from the industrial development
bank will be considered.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that some of these
tourist operations are entitled to financial
aid greater than they are getting today. It
is a big problem. Many people say it is an
industry that runs for only a few months,
therefore it is not stable for a loan. I think
differently. These men have put thousands
of dollars into their plants. In the future this
industry is going to grow tremendously, and
I would like to bring to the attention of
our hon. Minister that some very definite
plan should be brought out to help these
men, because there is a great future in this
field of continuing wealth flowing into this
country from other parts of the world through
our tourist industry.
We have, as hon. members know, in the
last few months, our natural gas pipe line
and the new Ontario hydro electric power
development which is giving great impetus
to further expansion. All communities, in co-
operation with the northwest Ontario develop-
ment association through their councils and
chambers of commerce, are doing all they
can to help whenever an opportunity for a
new business occurs.
In this field the junior chamber of com-
merce is something that needs commenda-
tion with its young and vigorous outlook;
they can do a great deal, and it is a great
training for young men to obtain an insight
into the possibilities for future expansion as
they become apparent with study.
Now we know that the cause of north-
western Ontario can best be served, I repeat
again, by free competitive enterprise, we
have seen the fruits of it in the economy of
the area, in our standard of living and in
consumer prices— and, after all, we are all
consumers.
It was gratifying to me to find the Lake-
head cities setting aside waterfront property
for accommodation of ships which will be
travelling via the seaway, and it is easy
to visualize the products of this area, in even
larger quantities, being funnelled through
the twin cities to the open sea. That is a
great future picture, Mr. Speaker, and one
toward which we are all looking longingly.
Last, but by no means least, and I
think this is important, is the small business
man, the pillar of our communities. This
group as a whole give more to their towns
and cities than any other. Their unstinting
support of all community efforts is a recog-
nized fact, and it is to be hoped we never find
our economy without them.
It is good free world thinking, Mr.
Speaker, to be known as partly a nation of
shopkeepers.
Many believe planned economy nations are
best. We hear so much about planned
economy, about our planners doing things
according to a plan that has been laid out for
the whole country, Mr. Speaker, but I do not
go along with that talk. It smacks too much
of that country to the north of us, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, and at all times
when I hear about them I really get a pain in
my stomach, if not some place else.
Regarding these shopkeepers, many planned
economy nations envy our privilege of going
shopping where we choose. Loans for small
businesses should be supported by every fac-
tion of the economy as part of a plan. At the
outset, experiment was mentioned, the thought
was a free competitive enterprise plan in
which profit motive is an accepted fact, and
recognized by all as the best way to improve
the standard of living.
228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
My hon. seat mate here (Mr. Macaulay)
was talking about saving a little and spending
a little the other day. How true he was! It is
necessary for small business and big business,
labour and government, to pull together and
plan to see that no body or group pulls more
vigorously than the others in order that this
plan may stay on course for the ultimate
benefit of every one of us.
An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Wardrope: I would like to say some-
thing about our wood products of which we
are all so proud. I might mention that the
hon. Minister of Lands and Forests and
myself attend these meetings, and know these
gentlemen who tell us these things because
they live in our area. I notice my friend, the
hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Wren) and my
friend the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Monaghan), and other northern members in
their seats. They have a part in this great
work of producing minerals and timber and
so on, and they can take no small share of
credit in the things that I am saying at the
present time.
Northwestern Ontario's multi-million dollar
expansion programme of its forest products
industry continued without abatement through-
out 1957. The growth pattern involved most
of its 10 big pulp and paper mills and new
plywood and processing plants, despite the
levelling off trend.
Despite the levelling off trend in the in-
dustry, the pulpwood harvest of 1957-1958
is expected to reach 2.5 million cords, only
slightly less than last year's total, indicating
the general stability of the industry in the
northwest.
Forest cutting, now almost a year-round
operation, fluctuated from month to month
from nearly 4,000 employed workers to more
than 8,000 camp workers. The timber oper-
ators association reported the whole season
unmarred by interruptions such as strikes,
fires, poor weather or labour shortage.
Now, slight cut-backs are expected in pro-
jected harvests by companies, but these will
be balanced generally by increased purchases
from farmers, wood-lot owners, and others.
Much of this year's cut already has been
hauled to rivers and landings, and labour
needs will be lowered as a consequence.
Some of the tremendous amounts invested
in these projects, Mr. Speaker, can be run
over quickly. The spotlight naturally is
focused on the massive programme of expan-
sion affecting mills of the Great Lakes Paper
Co. Ltd.; Abitibi Power and Paper Co.; St.
Lawrence Corporation; Dryden Paper Com-
pany, and Ontario-Minnesota Paper Com-
pany.
At Fort William, the Great Lakes Company
brought into production its new newsprint
machine, the mill's third, and now is installing
the fourth machine in the project, costing $35
million.
No. 3 machine produced its first sheet of
newsprint June 14, just 13 months after
ground was broken for construction. It began
production on a commercial basis in July,
and is designed to operate normally at 2,000
feet per minute, 90,000 tons of newsprint a
year. A tremendous figure, Mr. Speaker. The
machine has been stepped up gradually and
will touch maximum output before the year's
end.
At the moment, that machine is the largest
in the world by a great deal and I think the
hon. Minister of Lands and Forests will bear
me out.
Work meanwhile has gone forward on the
machine for No. 4 project, and is ahead of
the construction schedule. It will be the
largest newsprint machine in the world, turn-
ing out a roll of newsprint 342 inches in
width, if you can imagine that, Mr. Speaker.
Also at Fort William, the Abitibi Power
and Paper Company is pushing a moderniza-
tion programme to cost $22 million, at Red-
rock. The St. Lawrence Corporation is
spending $18 million, and this follows closely
on the completion of a $14 million programme
that involved a new kraft board machine and
alterations to produce newsprint.
Now all these figures add up to a tre-
mendous sum and I might ask: What does the
future hold?
By May 1, 1959, the Anglo-Newfoundland
Development Company is expected to begin
construction of a $55-$60 million newsprint
mill at Sioux Lookout, utilizing some of the
last great accessible stands of conifers in that
area. When its current phase of expansion is
completed, the Great Lakes Paper Company
plans construction of a new mill for manu-
facture of cellulose products at Fort William.
This project will involve $25-$30 million.
There is every reason to believe, Mr.
Speaker, that the forest products industry
will continue to be a broad bulwark of the
economy, not only of northwestern Ontario,
but of the whole of the province of Ontario,
if not of the Dominion of Canada.
In reading the current issue of the Finan-
cial Post, Mr. Speaker, I noticed on the front
page a headline reading: Decision Ready—
BC Steel Mill Comes at Last, Watch
for Definite Plans Within the Year.
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
229
I would like to bring to the attention of our
government the great necessity for giving
consideration to a steel mill somewhere in
northwestern Ontario.
We know that steel is the very foundation
of a nation's industrial and economic strength.
Canada is becoming more self-sufficient, but
a wide gap still remains. Our great trade
deficit with the United States largely is
represented by steel and iron products. We
recognize that mass production economies and
vast technological advances of a nation of
175 million people on our doorstep are
among the realities of a free-enterprise, com-
petitive industrial system that we have learned
to live with to our mutual benefit.
Indeed, Canada has led the world in, and
this is important, her rate of industrial ex-
pansion since World War II. More than
one-third of it is concentrated in Ontario.
But, Mr. Speaker, are we as alert and ag-
gressive as we should be in sustaining the
tempo of this growth by greater processing
of our natural resources for both domestic
and export markets?
I refer particularly to our immense deposits
of iron ore in northwestern Ontario. There
are many. A happy continuation of these
conditions now looms on the near horizon,
and this would seem to offer glittering pros-
pects to diversify this basic industry by
processing and fabrication rather than by
exporting the raw ore from the northwest.
What are the prospects now, Mr. Speaker?
They include the availability of Alberta nat-
ural gas and the deep waterway with its
expectation of substantially lower transport
costs. Now those are two great things that
are coming into being at the present time,
Mr. Speaker, that have never been here be-
fore in the history of this country or this
province — natural gas and low transport
cost via a deep seaway to any ocean in the
world.
Now, to these two tremendous projects
must be added a third factor. It is the
development of a phenomenal new process—
and the hon. Minister of Mines knows about
this— for reducing iron ore to a steel stock
by the use of natural gas.
Now this discovery by Dr. Cavanaugh, out-
standing metallurgist of the Ontario research
council, is hailed as a revolutionary advance
in steel-making. It is estimated that if this
process were applied to the known iron ore
bodies in northwestern Ontario alone, the
natural gas requirements would equal the
total capacity of the Trans-Canada Pipe Line.
Now that is an astounding statement but
is a fact. The hon. Prime Minister recently
observed that the patents on the process are
owned by the Ontario government, the people
of Ontario, and they will be used for the
benefit of Ontario and its people. That was
one statement which I was certainly pleased
to see.
Mr. MacDonald: Where is the hon mem-
ber's free enterprise there?
Mr. Wardrope: It will be free enterprise
in time, but we are waiting until the time
is opportune. Is the hon. member opposed
to it?
Mr. MacDonald: No, I am not. I am
wondering when this government is going
to hand it over to somebody, though.
Mr. Wardrope: I believe, Mr. Speaker,
that the time is opportune to go one step
further. Ontario has the process, let us now
determine the economic feasibility of estab-
lishing a steel industry at some point in
northwestern Ontario.
I would like to plant this in the minds of
the government:
The Department of Lands and Forests has
an advisory council of widely experienced
and knowledgeable experts to assist in the
best use and perpetuation of our timber
resources. It is equally advantageous to enlist
the aid of competent authorities to survey
and report on the prospects of still greater
returns from our own iron-ore resources.
Cyrus Eaton, chairman of the board of
Steep Rock Iron Mines Ltd., has gone on
record indicating that the prospect was favour-
able even before natural gas was assured, and
others have been equally optimistic. Since its
formation a little more than two years ago,
the northwestern Ontario development associa-
tion has endeavoured to attract the attention
of steelmakers, at home and abroad, to the
region's resources and advantages, and deserve
credit for a most meritorious work.
Not too many years ago, we exported our
timber wealth in a raw state. Today, 10 huge
pulp and paper mills employ 15,000 in mill
and woodlands operations in northwestern
Ontario. That was made possible because of
the policies of the Ontario Conservative gov-
ernments; they resulted in the creation of
these new towns, and made possible the
prosperity and security of thousands of
families.
Let us attempt to duplicate this prodigious
performance by a dynamic approach to the
processing of our iron-ore resources.
230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would just like to say that, up in our part
of the country, there is no excess capacity of
anything. Now, if private capital investment
slows in the near future to the point where
some additional government investment seems
desirable to maintain economic activity,
Ottawa should take a good hard look at oppor-
tunities for development in the north. There
is certainly no excess capacity in northern
facilities of the type that makes settlement
possible.
Roads, railways, power plants, schools and
medical facilities are scarce. As a result,
most northern development must be under-
taken by giant firms which can first take the
risk of spending large sums to ensure them-
selves that resources exist in profitable quan-
tities, and then spend the colossal sums re-
quired to create working and living conditions
that will attract the necessary labour.
Many of the public projects suggested for
the north could be justified at a time when
private investment is plentiful, and govern-
ment spending must be kept down to avoid
inflation. But if plans and specifications were
made ready, northern projects could be under-
taken very quickly when the opportunity or
need arose. Up there, Mr. Speaker, we are
not at all afraid of air pollution. Let us have
lots of smoke stacks up there, with the smoke
coming out, and then we will look out for the
air pollution problem.
And now I would like to say something
about employment. One of Canada's con-
tinuing needs is more people. There is still
room for many millions more than we now
have, and the best welcome we can give to
those who come to Canada from other coun-
tries, is to have here political freedom,
economic freedom, incentive for the ambitious,
a legitimate reward for all willing and able
to work.
We must be able to show newcomers that
Canada is a better as well as a bigger country
than the ones they came from. Canadians are
proud of their country, many will say it is
the greatest of all countries, particularly since
there has been increasing development of iron
ore, uranium, other metals, and petroleum.
But greatness is more than the possession
of material things. The greatest of all coun-
tries is that with the best citizenship, a
country where people work and think and
thoughtfully deal with public affairs. It is a
great thing to be a Canadian in this day and
age, for we enjoy personal freedom, a beauti-
ful and varied countryside, high standards of
life and living, and the respect of most of
mankind. In the midst of all this natural
wealth and beauty, we should sometimes stop
and count our blessings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the
point of the gloom that is spread from time
to time by those who would use unemploy-
ment and the ever-rising figures as they say-
quoting 700,000; 800,000; or a million-abso-
lutely loose, irresponsible things which they
know themselves are not true, which they
hope will bring them political prestige and
perhaps power. I do not go along with that,
because I believe it is insidious, it is infec-
tious and most harmful.
Let me give hon. members a case of a
man in the city of Winnipeg to prove just
what is done when people talk about ever-
mounting unemployment and the depression
that is bound to come.
In the city of Winnipeg, there is a man
who has been saving for years to buy a parti-
cular automobile. He has now amassed the
entire sum required, all cash, but he has not
bought the car. The total purchase price has
been sitting idle in a special bank account
for 6 weeks. Why? No family calamity has
wiped out all other savings, the man has not
lost his job, he is not waiting for a price cut
or considering alternative expenditures. What
he is waiting for is some assurance about the
future.
His family has no particular reason to feel
uncertain. The husband is a union man with
a high seniority, he has the benefit of a union
contract giving him protection in case of lay-
offs or slow-downs.
Assessed on any detached basis, the chances
of a drop in the family income in the fore-
seeable future are remote. But this man is 48
years old, he was 20 when the depression in
the 1930's began, and he has not forgotten it.
When it comes to depression talk, he scares
easy. That is most significant.
Let us go back to the car sitting in the
showroom because it is not sold to a first-
time buyer for cash. Another straw has been
added to the load borne by the automobile
industry, creating real uncertainty as to the
future income of its employees.
Their uncertainty inhibits their spending
and so it goes, affecting retailers, whole-
salers, clothing firms, appliance manufac-
turers, all down the line.
What can be done to induce the man
with the cash to part with it? Add one unit
to the sales volume of the auto industry, and
put $3,000 into circulation. A hard sell on
the car will not do it, he has been sold on
the car for years. Showing up his personal
security will not do it, he is already sur-
rounded with pension plans, seniority and
perpetual savings.
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
231
There is only one way to lift the cloud of
gloom that has settled over this man's mind,
that is to quit talking ourselves into hard
times; let hon. members remember that.
Mr. MacDonald: Nonsense, nonsense.
Mr. Wardrope: We are not now on the
verge of another decade like the dirty 1930's,
we are not helpless to prevent the economy
from sliding into an abyss.
The level of unemployment is little more
than might be expected with a record 3.9
increase in the size of the labour force. The
impact of this unemployment in the economy
and on the individuals involved is not what
it used to be.
Methods available to mop up unemploy-
ment are infinitely better than they were in
the 1930's.
Mr. MacDonald: Mop up unemployment.
Imagine!
Mr. Wardrope: Some 5.5 million Cana-
dians are working at jobs that are better
paid than ever before; no one is asking
responsible public men to be Pollyannas.
There is no reason to conceal the existence
of economic problems, but there is excellent
reason to avoid exaggerating them, and there
is even better reason to demonstrate that
prompt and positive action will be taken to
deal with the difficulties as they arrive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no time for
those who go around "yelling gloom", it is
insidious and it is infectious, and it is doing
this country a great disservice. I do not think
that those who practice it have anything to
be proud of.
I heard somebody mention the other day
that a gentleman was talking about a million
unemployed, saying that the Liberals were
saying it was the Conservatives' fault, and the
Conservatives saying that it was the Liberals'
fault. We have not a depression, and unless
we scare ourselves into it by these irrespon-
sible remarks we will be well on the way to
prosperity before many months have gone by.
Hon. members see the constructive steps
this government is taking from time to time.
We have one of the finest hon. Prime Min-
isters who has ever been in this province, in
the person of "Old Man Ontario" (Mr. Frost),
and he has been doing things especially
during these last 7 months, the like of which
this province never saw before.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Wardrope: And in Ottawa, we have
another man in the person of our hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Dief enbaker ) , who I will say
is a man of firsts. When I say a man of firsts,
I mean that he is the first Conservative Prime
Minister in this country in 22 years. He ap-
pointed the first woman cabinet minister in
the government in this country, he was the
first man to have a Chinese hon. member in
the government of this Canada of ours, he is
the first to have a Ukrainian Minister of
Labour in this Canada of ours, and was the
first to appoint an Indian Senator.
Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker is the first Prime
Minister who ever placed so much beneficial
legislation on the statute books of this country
for the welfare and benefit of the Canadian
people in 7 short months, and he will be the
"biggest first of all" on March 31 of this year,
because he is first in the hearts of his country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Wardrope: The other day my young
hon. compatriot here ended his remarks with
a poem. I hope hon. members will pardon me
if I do the same thing, and it is a poem that
I want to direct to these cries of gloom and
doom on the unemployment situation. We in
this party, Mr. Speaker, are builders, and we
have no room in this country for what I will
call wreckers. This poem goes something like
this:
I watched them tearing a building down,
A husky gang in a busy town,
With the old heave-ho and a lusty yell,
They swung a beam and the side wall fell.
I said to the foreman, "Are these men
skilled?
The kind you would hire if you wanted to
build?"
He gave a laugh and said: "No indeed,
common labour is all I need.
I can wreck in a day or two, what others
have taken a year to do."
I thought to myself as I went my way
Which of these roles am I trying to play?
Am I a builder who works with care,
Living my life by the rule and square,
Living my life to a well-made plan,
Trying to help everybody I can?
Or am I a wrecker, who walks the town,
Content with the labour of tearing down?
Mr. MacDonald: Is this the hon. member's
own poem?
Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, we have not
in this province or this country, at the pres-
ent time, any room for those who tear down.
Let us all be builders and, if we do, it will
not be very long before this province and this
232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Dominion are on the road to new heights of
prosperity and betterment for our people.
Mr, H. F. Fishleigh (Woodbine): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the speech from the
Throne, I would like to heartily endorse the
very kind words spoken by the hon. member
for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) regarding our de-
ceased members: the late Mr. Tom Pryde,
Mr. Tom Patrick, and Mr. Fletcher Thomas.
We indeed miss them very much in this
chamber.
I would like also to congratulate Mr. Dana
Porter on his elevation to the position of chief
justice of Ontario. I would also like to men-
tion the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr.
W. J. Stewart), who has now taken upon him-
self a wife. May he live long to enjoy her
love and her affection.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 25th legislative
assembly, and 166 years ago we had the first
legislative assembly which was 300 years after
Christopher Columbus discovered America.
It was held first over at Newark, in the
Niagara peninsula, and at that time there
were only 15,000 people in the province of
Ontario, mostly all of whom were United
Empire Loyalists. Colonel John Graves Sim-
coe was their Governor-General. He bought
a tent from Captain Cook and pitched it on
a high hill over in Niagara because the mos-
quitoes were rather bad down in the valley.
The first legislative assembly was held in
a log cabin called Freemasons' Hall, and
next door was another log cabin called Wil-
son's Hotel. Of the 16 members elected to
the Legislature, only 13 attended, one mem-
ber could not take his seat because of the
fact that he was a Quaker and it was against
his religion.
Now, what were the nature of the bills
which they passed at that first legislative
assembly? Well, they had a bill whereby
they would encourage the destruction of bears
and wolves, and they also inaugurated trial
by jury. And then they put a tax on millers
for milling flour. They put a tax also on
stills of 15 gallons or more, and hon. mem-
bers know that in those days ministers of
the gospel were rather hard to find, some-
times the young people would get married
and they would not be married in a church,
so they passed a bill whereby common-law
marriages were legalized, and moreover the
illegitimate children were legalized too.
They had another bill at that first session
which was interesting in that they prohibited
Ontario people from owning slaves. Any-
body who owned a slave had to let him be
a free man when he was 25 years old.
Now the first session of the legislative
assembly was well attended, but only 4
attended the second session. In those days
they had no superhighways, they had to
come by canoe, by schooner from Kingston,
by horseback from London, so only 4 mem-
bers turned up.
Therefore the Governor-General decided
he would move the legislative assembly from
Newark in Niagara to York, the city which
was called York at that time and which
is now Toronto, which means in Indian "a
place for meeting."
So, Mr. Speaker, we have been meeting
here ever since. And strange to say, the
bills which they passed in those days were
similar to some we still have. They dealt
with taxation, housing and transportation.
In preparing my speech today, and read-
ing over some of my others, I was surprised
to realize how many points I had brought
up in this legislative assembly that have actu-
ally been passed. I would say at least half
of them have been put through.
There is an old saying that if one throws
mud up against a blank wall long enough,
some of it is bound to stick.
One day I was going to work and met a
little lad who was sitting on the curb. He
was about 3 years old, and he said to me:
"Do you know what I just did?"
I said "No," and he said, "I made a face
at that little birdie." So sometimes in speak-
ing here one feels he is just making faces at
those little birdies, the hon. cabinet Minis-
ters.
I remember talking loud and long that we,
the people of Ontario, should be allowed to
buy houses with 10 per cent. down. Up until
recently it was required that we would have
to have $2,500 or $3,000, and that we should
reinstate second mortgages, I am very
proud to state that now, under our good
government at Ottawa, a person can buy a
house with 10 per cent, down and moreover,
they have set aside $400 million to build
them, which is a great thing for the young
people in Ontario.
But, unfortunately, it does not do the
people in Toronto very much good, because
of the fact that a house cannot be
built for less than $14,000 or $15,000. We
have set up this Metro and the Metro have
planning boards, which seemingly have as
much or more power than the councils them-
selves, and they have put on very high
restrictions which prohibit building semi-
detached houses, for example, and as a
result the young people have to go to the
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
233
outskirts such as Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa and
Aurora in order to have a house for around
$12,000 or less.
But, should Metro decide they should
allow semi - detached bungalows, semi-
detached houses, the young people could
buy houses in Toronto.
In my riding of Woodbine, at least 50 per
cent, of the people live very happily in semi-
detached houses on 17-foot lots. The require-
ments for the outskirts is a 30-foot lot with
a private drive, but the outside municipalities
of Metro frown on these semi-detached
dwellings and they say it cannot be done.
Now, the reason that a house cannot be
built so cheaply is because of the cost
of the services. The cost of land is very
small in comparison with the cost of the
services. It costs about $50 a running foot
for the services. Planning boards demand
paved roads with curbs, sanitary sewers, storm
sewers, sidewalks, and so on, plus $5 per foot
for the privilege of sub-dividing a lot, so we
have $2,500 for a lot, let us say $1,000 for
the land, totalling $3,500, plus another $500
profit for the sub-divider. That amounts to
$4,000 which makes it prohibitive to build a
cheap house in the Metropolitan area.
I am very glad too, Mr. Speaker, to say
that the termites are definitely on the decrease
in Woodbine riding.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Fishleigh: The reason is this. There is
a wide valley going through Woodbine, and
in the old days this valley was filled with logs
and they decayed, and for some reason or
other the termites got in these old logs. But
this valley has been filled in for the most
part and sodded down, and we now have a
beautiful park there. There were old houses
around this valley and most of them have been
torn down. The materials have been destroyed
and burned, and as a result, the termites are
on the decrease.
One old-timer in the riding told me he was
looking out of his window one morning and
he heard a buzzing sound, and he looked out
and there were millions of termites swarming
around trying to find their queen, and
eventually they found her and they took off
to greener fields, I suppose to Lindsay or
maybe they were going to a convention at
Ottawa. Anyway, the termites have disap-
peared almost entirely, thank goodness.
Now, is it not very fine, Mr. Speaker, to be
able to stand up here before you and no
longer feel it necessary to talk about the old-
age pension, of the inequalities of $40 a
month? With the good government we have,
we now have $55 a month and the govern-
ment is planning ways and means of increasing
the $55. It is very, very fine to be able to
make this statement.
I have also learned, too, that a person has
to blow his own horn in this chamber. If we
do not blow our own horns, nobody is going
to blow them for us.
For example, one would have thought that,
regarding these very fine speakers which the
hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger)
installed for us, some hon. member would
have stood up and said that the hon. member
for Woodbine should be thanked for these
very fine speakers, because now the children
can visit us from the schools and also uni-
versity students, and they can peer down on
the bald heads and look at the silver locks
of the hon. Prime Minister and listen to his
melodious voice.
But nobody has said a word about the
speakers, so one must blow his own horn.
When I was an alderman I used to present
a number of motions to the council at the
beginning of the year. Some of them would
go through but others would not, so I would
saddle up to some other alderman and sell
him the idea, and he would put in a motion
and I would vote for my own motion through
him. So, in politics that is the way we have
to get things accomplished sometimes.
I would like to impress upon hon. mem-
bers the importance of our north country
for tourists, especially around Collingwood
and Gravenhurst. I have spoken on this be-
fore and I still believe that it is a good idea.
We should attract more skiers to this area.
Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo are located
in very flat country, and the young people
would just love to go skiing in our north
country. It takes a little organizing. I have
contacted the airlines and they would be
happy to co-operate. I have contacted the
mayors in these various towns and cities such
as Collingwood and Midland, and they can
feed thousands of people, so the problem
is not transportation nor is it feeding the
skiers when we get them at the ski jumps.
I do not believe any hon. member should
try to promote the government to do any-
thing that he is not prepared to do himself.
It is not fair, and maybe I will try this pro-
moting sometimes myself when I get up
enough nerve. The problem is that we might
organize an excursion, advertise in all the
newspapers in these 3 cities, organize for
hundreds of people to make the trip, and
there would be a thaw, and then the whole
trip would have to be called off and it would
234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be a dead loss to the promoter or travel
agents.
I am hoping that the new artificial snow
which is being used on the ski jumps in
Don Mills will eradicate this hazard. I do
not think we should be too pessimistic about
our tourist business in Ontario, it is growing.
I know it is not as great as we would like
it to be, but I believe that in the near future,
maybe 5, 10, 15 years, we will have a great
influx of summer tourists. For example
booms run in cycles, real-estate wise. Florida,
since the war, has had a terrific boom. Peo-
ple from Ontario alone spend $80 million
in Florida, and the boom has been so great
that it has overflowed into Cuba, Nassau,
Jamaica and the Dominican Republic where
they are building huge hotels.
One promoter in Florida, on a lake only
14 miles long, sold 7,000 lots by using a
nationwide advertising campaign. I predict
the same people that are going to Florida
will also come to our north country. They
will be like the geese, go in the winter,
come back in the summer, because where
is to be found a climate better than our
spring, summer and fall? It is so invigorating,
it is so healthy.
And where can people find more beautiful
clear, fresh water lakes, than our Great Lakes
and our inland lakes? I think our future so
far as tourists are concerned is very great.
The only thing is that the people of Ontario
and the United States have not realized the
potentialities of our northern Ontario beauty
spots.
I also mentioned that we should improve
our restaurant down the hall. I believe it
has been improved somewhat, but we should
have it open all the time so if some of my
constituents come down and I wish to serve
them a cup of tea, I could do so at any
time of the day. It is really just a makeshift
proposition.
I would also like to say a word about the
universities. I am very pleased that we, as
a government, are giving many millions more
to our universities. I am also encouraged
because private enterprise is also giving more,
and I think that everybody in Ontario is
aware of the fact that we have to do more
and more for our universities if we wish to
bring this country to the heights we wish.
I have spoken before, and others have also,
about a commuter train system for Toronto.
I would like to speak on this commuter sys-
tem again. It is one of the most important
problems that we should consider and it
would give work to people immediately. In
the city of Toronto we have railways coming
in from Scarborough, we have them from Lea-
side, we have them from Malton, we have
them from Oakville. It could be a natural
commuter service coming into the Union
station. The service is used now only for
freight and a few passengers. A commuter
service would in no way hamper the future
building of an underground railway east and
west. As a matter of fact, it would augment
the Toronto Transit Commission's rapid
transit service with customers.
All great cities have a commuter service to
feed the underground. For example, the city
of New York and the city of London, England,
bring millions of people in by commuter serv-
ice. They disembark at the stations and
continue underground to their places of work.
We have been talking about a commuter
system for years. I remember 5 years ago
appearing before the board of control. They
thought it was a good idea, and sent the idea
to the board of trade. The board of trade set
up a committee, they went to see the railway
board in Ottawa which said: "Thumbs down
on it, we will lose money," but I do believe
that our TTC, if they were given the com-
muter system to operate, would do a good job
and it would not show a great loss.
When I say commuter trains I do not mean
the kind they have from Toronto to Oakville;
they have to go to Hamilton to turn around.
A modern commuter train goes in both direc-
tions. It should be run every half-hour, and
it should be on a separate railway line
operated by the Toronto Transit Commission.
I am hoping this new government in Ottawa
will give it further consideration, and that
we will have a commuter service in the city
of Toronto.
I would also like to say a word about the
curtains in this chamber. Those curtains must
have been up there for 30 years. It would
be much brighter and pleasanter in here if
those curtains were taken down and replaced
with fibre-glass curtains. They have fibre-
glass curtains all over now; the United
Nations has them. They let the light through
but take out the actinic rays that hurt the
eyes and fade the rugs. They would be a
great asset to the chamber; they would cheer
it up.
I remember Mr. Salsberg saying one time
that this government is afraid of the light of
day, but be that as it may, fibre-glass curtains
around this chamber would be much brighter.
The press would be able to have the light
coming over their left shoulders, and it would
be much more pleasant.
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
235
An hon. member: What colour would it
have to be?
Mr. Fishleigh: Oh, just a light colour, it
does not matter.
I would like also to say a word about the
pension plan for the hon. members, not so
much for the back-benchers because, from
what I have seen around here, they do pretty
well for themselves. But I am thinking more
particularly of the poor hon. cabinet Ministers.
Now they should have a pension plan for
their old age and possibly the back-benchers
too, because many of them give their life in
service to public affairs and they end up very
hard up.
Not many of them go to the poorhouse but
it is possible that they could, and a pension
plan would not really cost the government
much, or would not cost the individual much,
because we have them in our own business,
2 or 3 as a matter of fact.
For example, I would put up $3,000 which
is tax-free, the government would put up
$3,000 which is tax-free, which would be
$6,000 you would save a year, and in 10
years we would have, say $75,000, which
would be quite a nest egg. It would, in effect,
keep the hon. cabinet Ministers happy, they
would not be playing musical chairs with
themselves so much, they would not be seek-
ing higher offices in Ottawa, and we would
have them here to do the work for the
province.
I am a great believer in security, Mr.
Speaker.
I would also like to say a word again about
the Jack Miner sanctuary. Mr. Manley Miner,
the son who runs the Jack Miner sanctuary,
is very happy indeed about the grant we gave
him last year. That increased grant was very
heartening. I believe that the Jack Miner
sanctuary is one of the greatest advertising
mediums we have in the province of Ontario
outside of Niagara Falls. It brings people
from the United States by the scores, to see
the geese in the spring and the fall. It is the
Royal York Hotel as far as the geese are
concerned, because they are fed well and they
have a good bed for the night, and they come
back year after year. It is a very grand work.
The people from the United States come
and take back plans of the sanctuary, and
spend millions putting one in their state to
harbour the geese as well. But we have this
Jack Miner sanctuary for nothing.
The consular corps would like me to
thank the government for their special
licence plates. They have these in every
country except Canada, and now they have
them here in Ontario. People will recognize
them when they see them on their cars— it
is CC1, CC2. Our hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Allan) has granted them these
special plates and they are very pleased at
being recognized.
I would like to say a word about our high-
ways. In the last year we have built more
highways than we have ever built in the
province of Ontario before. It was a record
year in construction, and plans extend 20
years into the future, as far as the provincial
highways are concerned. Other plans have
been made for the municipal highways.
I still maintain that we are building our
highways too slowly. As an hon. member of
the Opposition said, we will be old men
before the highway is built from Windsor to
Montreal. The fact of the matter is, we build
the highways only during the light of day,
and contractors should be asked to build
highways 24 hours a day.
We have good hydro electricity, we have
lots of flood lighting, they can play football
and baseball under flood lighting, and surely
they can build highways under flood light-
ing. I guess the contractors do not wish to
pay the time-and-a-half rates for night work,
possibly that is it, but the contracts could
be clarified at the time they are assigned.
We must of necessity speed up our high-
way work, both in southern Ontario and in
northern Ontario.
One hon. member ( Mr. Belisle ) told me he
had 6 mines close down, and 10 per cent, of
his people out of work; they would be glad
to go to work on the highways because up
in the Nickel Belt they are experienced
miners.
I would like to say again that we should
have an international airport in Ontario. We
are missing the boat by not having one.
True, the Toronto airport is to be enlarged
to take larger planes, but I have not heard
as yet whether or not it is an international
airport. Now every country in the world
seemingly has an airline, even little Ethiopia
has its own airline. Ireland has an airline.
But in South America they have 10 airlines.
I could not name them but they come up as
far as Miami, and I believe one comes as far
as Chicago. There is a plane going out of
these airports to places such as Miami,
Chicago, Honolulu every 3 minutes, one
coming in and one going out. There are
more people going from North America to
South America than go to Europe.
Yet we have not one airline from South
America coming into the province of Ontario,
and it is the airlines which bring in the
business men and the tourists and we are
236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
missing this business, we are missing the
boat so to speak, so I would like to stress
again the importance of having an inter-
national airport. It is more important by far
than a seaway port.
I would like to say a word also about the
international trade fair. We had an inter-
national trade fair for some years after the
war. The trade fair brought industry to this
part of the country. We have industries now
in London, Woodstock and Toronto which
we would not have had had it not been for
that trade fair, because trade fairs are the
natural way in which Europeans sell their
goods. They are not used to this modern
way we have in the United States and
Canada of advertising on the television,
radio and in the newspapers.
They depend entirely upon trade fairs.
Manufacturers circulate from one trade fair
to the other in Europe. I have seen the one
in London, I visited the one in Barcelona
two years ago. The manager took me on a
tour of inspection in a little electric car he
had, and there were 26 miles of displays
from all parts of the world. There was not a
stick of anything from the Dominion of
Canada, not one display.
In Montreal, they have a private trade
fair and I hope that they have success. We
could stand even two trade fairs in this
Canada of ours.
Canada is spending $3 million on one
building for the Brussels trade fair in
Belgium this year.
I believe there will be 25 million people
passing through this building, so the money
will not be wasted. But the point is we have
not a trade fair of any description here in
Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to my
final remarks. The culmination of my speech
is, I believe, the most important part. It is
that we have 400,000 people more or less
unemployed in the Dominion of Canada. I
read in the Wall Street Journal that when
the unemployment figure in the United States
—and it is 10 times the number in Canada,
they have about 4 million unemployed now—
when it becomes 5 million they will have a
special session, and they will consider ways
and means of cutting income taxes.
The cutting of income taxes is the fastest
way to get money into circulation. We can
plan for roads, we can plan for housing, we
will have to go to "umpteen" planning
boards and so forth, and if we build a bridge
it takes time to draw up the plans, it takes
so long to get these things rolling.
Of course, the cutting of income taxes is
a very bad procedure. It should not be taken
unless unemployment gets much worse than
it is today, because when we cut income
taxes we are budgeting for a deficit, and
the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Macau-
lay) said we will have a deficit of $100 mil-
lion anyway this year. So, if we budgeted
for a deficit we would have much more.
But would it not be better to budget for
a deficit than to have more and more un-
employment? I think it would, because it
is not the fault of the worker that he is
out of work, it is a government-made propo-
sition. He played no part in this semi-reces-
sion. I do hope that it will be over by fall.
But how did it come about? There are
many theories as to how this recession came
about, but several years ago England, the
people in England were buying far more
from Europe and Canada than the country
could afford. They had an adverse trade
balance, and as England is an exporting
country, of necessity she decided that they
should have a tight-money policy and I
believe rightly so.
Well, then the United States decided that
inflation was the cry. The chief enemy of
the United States is not Russia, they said, it is
inflation, so they must stop inflation by a
tight-money policy. So they have had a
tight-money policy and the cost of living
is higher than it was before due to in-
creased rates in interest and so on, so the
tight-money policy did not work in the
United States. They have 4 million un-
employed there.
For some reason or other, the Dominion of
Canada decided that it would have to adopt
the tight-money policy. We spoke of it in
this House but it was like drops of rain,
none of us were heard, so we have had a
tight-money policy in Canada, and when
they had a tight-money policy here they
really had a tight one. They killed it as if
they had killed a snake and now it is going
to be a problem to get the money rolling
again.
Although this legislative assembly plays a
very minute part in world-wide finances, and
although we get only 2 per cent, of income
taxes, I think we may have to do something
along this line in order to get the wheels
of industry rolling to capacity again.
Most hon. members went to the north
country on a trip last summer, and we were
thrilled, we were enthralled with the expan-
sion we saw there, the huge expansion of the
paper mills. We saw the Elliot Lake ex-
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
237
pansion of uranium, and the lumber mills,
the Geco Mine and the Wilroy Mine. We
were thrilled with all those things.
But 6 months have gone by and what
has happened? Ten per cent, of the people
are out of work in northern Ontario. Now
is it their fault they are out of work? It
certainly is not. It is a government-made
recession, and it is up to us as hon. members
of this Legislature to do what we can to
alleviate that.
I, for one, am sold on Ontario, I am sold
on its future, we have hardly scratched its
surface, but we need all the money we can
get from foreign countries such as Switzer-
land, Germany and United States to keep
it booming. We also need their brains, their
educated people and their immigrants. So
let us not sell Ontario short. We have a
great country here.
As Robert Louis Stevenson said, Ontario
"is so full of a number of things, I am sure
we should all be as happy as kings."
Mr. G. E. Jackson (London South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate
on the speech from the Throne, I want to
add my congratulations to those mentioned
by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr.
Wardrope), and the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Fishleigh), and in addition, I wel-
come the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to con-
gratulate you on your handling of the duties
of the office which you hold, and for the fair
and just manner in which you conduct the
business of the House. It has certainly set
a high precedent for any future Speakers.
I would, as is the custom, also like to con-
gratulate the hon. mover of the speech from
the Throne. I am sure that I will probably
never hear another speech quite like that one,
so full of truths, so moving, even if I am
fortunate enough to sit in this House for many
years.
May I also extend my congratulations to
the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Guindon)
on his seconding of the speech. I am sure
if his speech was any indication of the man,
we will be hearing more from him in the not
too distant future.
In speaking today, Mr. Speaker, in this
debate, there are two things I would like to
discuss briefly, and I offer them probably as
advice to the government. If by any stretch
of the imagination these points appear to be
criticism, I hope they will be accepted as
constructive criticism. I am sure nobody likes
to hear criticism for criticism's sake, and only
too often it seems to me we hear that from
the Opposition benches.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jackson: I feel constructive criticism
is welcomed by all, and I hope it is accepted
in the manner in which it is given.
The first point with which I wish to deal
is the situation which must be prevalent in
centres other than in my riding or in the city
of London. I know definitely that it is a prob-
lem in London.
Other centres where there are sanatoria
must be aware of the coming difficulties that
face the London Beck Memorial Sanatorium.
To illustrate to the hon. members of the
House, Mr. Speaker, just how vital the subject
is to the city, and to also point out part of
the problem, I would like to quote a short
excerpt from the London Free Press dated
February 14, 1957, which refers to Victoria
Hospital, which is a general hospital in
London:
Victoria Hospital reached an all-time
high in occupancy, 801 patients at midnight
last night. Faced with this situation and a
waiting list that extends into mid-March,
trustee chairman J. Ronald Chapman and
superintendent Dr. Kirk today said they
would ask trustees to send a delegation to
Toronto to try and persuade the health
Minister that empty beds at Beck Memorial
Sanatorium should be used for convalescent
purposes.
The problem is one, hon. members can
readily see, of empty beds, and in the case of
the Memorial Sanatorium in London, increas-
ing financial deficits.
Now the reason for the empty beds at the
sanatorium is not only because of the falling
incidence of tuberculosis, but because of early
detection and also because of advanced tech-
niques in treatment. Greater numbers of
people are recovering in shorter periods of
time.
Now this is most commendable, and those
responsible for this situation should be the
recipients of the very highest praise. Here
is a disease which a few years ago was of
great concern to the medical profession and
a great worry to the population as a group.
Today we find empty beds in our sanatoria,
not only in the Beck Memorial Sanatorium
but in the following, to name but a few.
These figures are those of December, 1957:
Brantford, 30 empty beds or 24 per cent,
vacancy; Fort William, 103 empty beds with
31.4 per cent, vacancy; Gravenhurst, 164
empty beds with 41 per cent, vacancy;
Hamilton, 264 beds, 36 per cent, vacancy;
29 empty beds, 18 per cent, vacant; Windsor,
238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
41 vacant beds, 20 per cent, vacancy; and
London, 228 beds, 42 per cent, vacancy.
There are in the province 1,013 vacant beds
or a vacancy of 24.5 per cent, in our sana-
toria.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is proof that the
disease is on the decline, in fact medical
advisors believe that the bed occupancy will
continue to fall.
I draw it to the attention of the House
because it is a problem which requires an
immediate solution. The problem is growing
worse and is going to continue to grow
worse.
Now what about the deficits that I spoke
about earlier, particularly those suffered by
the Beck Memorial Sanatorium?
I believe hospitals should neither make a
profit nor show a deficit in providing their
services. If they broke even, of course, this
would be ideal. The government was well
aware of this, I think, when they set up the
grant system when all sanatoria were full
and even had waiting lists. The provincial
grant, based on average cost of all sanatoria,
was equitable.
Now, however, when the percentage of
occupancy varies greatly, those sanatoria
which are full are still receiving fairly
adequate grants, but the institutions with
low bed occupancy are being penalized.
I might briefly explain here, Mr. Speaker,
for the benefit of the House, my understand-
ing of how these grants work. For purposes
of grants, patient bed-days, empty beds,
laboratory, dentistry and surgical services are
broken down into units, and a rate is affixed
to those units so that the amount paid per
unit is equitable to all hospitals.
Now, one of the catches seems to be, of
course, that there is a difference between
what is paid per unit to a general hospital
and what is paid per unit to a sanatorium.
Perhaps to illustrate more clearly, let us
assume there is certain dental work to be
required, the government supplies the sana-
torium with the lists showing the amount of
work equal to so many units. When this list
of what units are worth is compiled, it is on
this basis that the grants are paid.
Now regarding Beck Memorial Sanatorium,
and I think this may be true of many other
sanatoria in the province, the preliminary
statement showed that its overhead, broken
down into units, consisted of 198,608 units,
for which the rate is in this particular case—
and I assume it is probably the same
throughout the province— $1.47% per unit.
This equals $292,774.
I think this is what they would have
received had all the beds conceivably been
empty, and no services carried on.
However, for ward care they had 121,898
units of patient bed-days and received
$4.25% cents per bed, which equalled
$518,645. Now these added together plus the
grants on a unit basis for laboratory, dentistry
and surgical care amounted to $902,921.
The standard expense for which the
province is responsible, which is the standard
per capita expense multiplied by the collective
days' stay of patients for whom the province
is responsible, equals $660,000.
From this of course we can deduct 50 per
cent, of the revenue made or received from
the patients. Then we add to the grant the
amount received from workmen's compensa-
tions, department of veterans' affairs, the
armed services, Indian services and others,
and we have a total in-patient revenue of
$904,984.
Now what is the in-patient expense for that
period? It is $954,289 or a loss on in-patients
alone of $49,804.
Now in case any hon. member is of the
opinion that the hospital is not efficiently run,
which is one of the thoughts which passed
across my mind, I would point out that part
of active treatment and convalescent treat-
ment of tuberculosis patients is a good, well-
balanced food diet. This hospital, to show
how efficiently it is run, supplies 3 meals a
day, bearing that in mind, at the cost of $1.11
per patient per day.
This loss on in-patients alone is a signifi-
cant figure. If I took out-patients into con-
sideration plus building depreciation, the
figure would be some $80,000 for the year
1957, even when we include the amount
bequeathed by wills and gifts by donors.
It really means this, that the Beck Memorial
Sanatorium in London is losing 41 cents per
patient a day. Now this, I respectfully
suggest, is not good.
I would like to put forward a suggestion.
I read to hon. members the account in the
London Free Press pointing out that we have
a crowded hospital, and vacant beds in
another hospital. I am sure that if this situa-
tion does not exist in other sanatoria, it is
rapidly approaching.
My suggestion is this, that since the prob-
lem is one of empty beds in sanatoria and full
capacity in general hospitals, perhaps some
of the patients could be moved.
Now I do not mean that we should move
patients "willy-nilly." I mean they should be
moved with the thought in mind to consider
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
239
what they are suffering from. My suggestion
as to the financial deficits is this: Would it
not be possible to pay the same grant for this
year, at least of $4.25 V2, which was apparently
equitable when the hospital was full, and
which is presently being paid by the govern-
ment for full beds? Now this, by the way,
compares with $8.17 a day paid by govern-
ment agencies for patients of DVA, Indian
services, army, navy, air force and so on, so
I think my suggestion is not too far out of
line.
Secondly, I would suggest that the Beck
Memorial Sanatorium be made into a chest
hospital. I realize that this may be the first
one of its kind in Ontario, but this should not
deter us from investigating the feasibility of
this suggestion.
If all patients in the city, and those chronic
cases in the 7 counties which this sanatorium
services, who are suffering from any— and I
stress the word any— chest ailments such as
bronchitis, asthma and even pneumonia, were
put under the very excellent specialists' care
that is available in Beck Memorial Sanatorium,
it would have the tendency to alleviate the
crowded conditions, I am sure, in the general
hospital. It would also raise the bed occu-
pancy in the sanatorium and would, in effect,
have a tendency to at least lessen the deficit.
This would have the effect of increasing
the grant earned, which is the $4.25% as I
pointed out earlier, and I do want to stress,
Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this situation.
How long can we honestly expect an organiza-
tion to hold together, such as the London
health association which administers the sana-
torium, when it is losing almost $50,000 a
year on its in-patient expenses over revenue,
and upwards to $80,000 when all factors are
taken into account?
The second thing I wish to draw briefly to
the attention of the House is the subject that
was raised yesterday by the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Cowling) and the hon.
member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). That is
the subject of compulsory automobile insur-
ance.
I wish to say at the outset that I agree
whole-heartedly with the hon. member for
High Park in the remarks he made, that
care and caution should be taken into account
before any step is taken to make automobile
insurance compulsory.
Now, I imagine that all hon. members
heard his excellent address yesterday. He
stressed all the points that I wish to stress,
with the exception that I would like to point
out to the hon. member for Bruce that, while
he was very flattering in his statement that
I was probably worth more than $10,000
in the event of my death, I think he touched
unknowingly on one of the problems there is
in setting limits or deciding how much one
person is worth.
What is the correct amount to compensate
for the death of an individual? While the
hon. member for Bruce may feel that $10,000
for one person, or $20,000 for more than one
person, is not enough, which is the way it
presently stands, where would we draw the
limit?
Perhaps he has forgotten one of two things,
the first being the question of what is a
fair settlement, and secondly, that merely
raising the limits is not an answer.
Juries are comprised of people from the
province and if compulsory insurance were
in effect, what would happen? They would
recognize that everybody is insured and that
the awards would just go higher. That has
been proven in other jurisdictions.
I think the main problem with the un-
satisfied judgment fund, to which we now
look for settlement if we are innocent victims
involved in an accident, is the slow-
ness with which settlements are paid. This
is quite natural of course when we realize
the functions of the unsatisfied judgment
fund, and when we realize that the financial
background of the accused person has to be
studied and assessed before application can
be made to the fund. This is a problem with
all such unsatisfied judgment funds, and if
we try to speed up settlement, it is not
only dangerous but in many cases it allows
the person, who should be made to pay for
awards made in the court, "off the hook" so
to speak. It leaves the payment on the
doorstep of an unsatisfied judgment fund.
I am sure the hon. members will agree
that the main problem here, as I see it, is
the question of protecting the innocent vic-
tim who carries insurance from being un-
compensated after being involved in an acci-
dent by a financially irresponsible person.
To this end I would point out that there
might be another way in which to tackle
the problem. With hospitalization coming
into force, it is conceivable that we could
look after the immediate hospital bills of
such an innocent victim. I also point out
that in the state of Michigan, where this
problem was tackled in a different manner,
they actually look after the damages of the
automobile, I understand, compensating the
innocent victim for his immediate expense.
Now he is alleviated there from immediate
expense.
240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think then, the individual or the innocent
victim has his normal recourse to go through
the courts to seek further judgment or fur-
ther settlement. But his immediate financial
problems such as hospitalization, and damage
to his automobile, are taken care of.
Unfortunately, I have not received from
the state of Michigan, as yet, the full details
of the plan although I have written to them,
and I would like to speak on this matter again,
should the occasion arise.
Mr. W. B. Lewis (York Humber): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be afforded the
privilege of addressing you, sir, and pro-
nouncing my confidence in the fair, impartial
manner in which you administer your im-
portant office Of this government, in this the
fourth session of the twenty-fifth Legislature
of this province.
As is my custom, I will be brief in order
that we may expedite as quickly as possible
the agenda of legislation of this session.
The new hon. members of this House may
be interested to receive a geographical intro-
duction of the riding I represent.
York Humber is a riding in Metropolitan
Toronto bordered on all sides by sister muni-
cipalities of this now famous union. Although
hon. members can drive from one end of the
riding to the other in 20 minutes, it has a
population of approximately 60,000 people,
and embraces all or part of 5 municipalities,
namely Mimico, Etobicoke, Swansea, York
Township and Weston.
And now, Mr. Speaker, having outlined to
you the location and population of York
Humber, I might reiterate that it is part of
Metropolitan Toronto. I should like to speak
briefly of that great metropolis.
Metropolitan Toronto today is a federation
of 13 municipalities composed of 3 villages,
4 towns, 5 townships, and 1 city. Its popu-
lation is 1.25 million, and is increasing at
the rate of 50,000 people per year. Its total
assessment is over $2.5 billion, which is in-
creasing at the rate of $100 million per year.
This metropolis is an irresistible magnet.
It is where big business is located; year after
year it has drawn toward it the restless, the
energetic, the ambitious and the young men
and women who want to be at the centre of
things, where opportunity may be just
around the corner.
The movement of hundreds of thousands
of people to the suburbs of Metro is one of
the many phenomena which have occurred
during our generation. It is one of the major
changes of our times, and is designed to
affect the way of life of a large segment of
the population.
There is one thing of which we can be
sure, that is that our population will be 2
million in 20 years if not in less time.
I do not say or imply that cities are good
or bad merely because they are of a size or
otherwise, but what I do say is that, when
cities reach a population of 1 million, they
acquire a momentum of their own which no
one can stop. And may I add that we had
better get ready to serve its population and
its interests.
Because of that statement, hon. members
might conclude that I imply Metropolitan
Toronto is not getting its fair share of pro-
vincial assistance. Nothing could be further
from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Those of us
who take the time to analyze the huge
expenditures for highways, education, wel-
fare, hospitals, homes for the aged, and so
on, can quickly appreciate the assistance the
province gives to all of these projects which
in the end makes them possible.
But with a municipal giant such as Metro,
new problems of necessity occur almost daily
and when assistance is requested under a
new heading such as subways, we have a
tendency to brush it off as being beyond the
pale of our responsibilities.
At times, we do so with good and just
cause. But if we stop to consider that an
investment now on a project can save us
millions of dollars later on, on other projects
such as highways, then probably we should
take another look at it.
The expenditures we are making are not
expenditures, they are sane and sensible
investments in the capital equipment that
this area needs to service its rapidly expand-
ing industrial, commercial and residential
development.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
record my appreciation of the great effort
of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts),
and the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr.
Allan), in endeavouring to reduce highway
fatalities in this province. But as the well-
known character in television uses the
phrase, "It is greater than both of us." I
believe that expression is apropos of this
situation, because if our drive in the reduc-
tion of highway fatalities is going to have a
marked effect, then it is going to take the
combined efforts of every hon. member of
this House.
As of January last, all rates for automobile
insurance were increased again. These rate
increases were caused by higher losses
brought about by an increase in accidents,
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
241
higher repair costs, and greater values in
new cars. This increase was greatest for a
male driver under the age of 25 with either
the assured or an occasional driver named on
a policy.
If the assured or male driver under the age
of 25 had been involved in an accident within
the 3 years previous, the rates were propor-
tionately higher.
Take as an example, a medium-priced car
in a Metropolitan Toronto district, with basic
limits of liability only, amounting to $10,000
or $20,000 for bodily injury, and $5,000
for property damage. For a car being used
for pleasure only, no accidents and no male
drivers under the age of 25, the annual cost
is $32.
Now, take the same car under the same
conditions, but with a male driver under the
age of 25. The cost is not $32 but $54. That
is an increase of 68.75 per cent, for the privi-
lege—or penalty as the case may be— of being
under the age of 25 and driving an auto-
mobile.
Why is this? It has been proved by the
insurance companies that accidents caused by
this group are several times that of the parent
age group. When young men are involved
in accidents, Mr. Speaker, they "do it up
brown," and in most of them there is no one
to blame but themselves. While older drivers
die in car collisions, the young men seem to
go in for solo accidents, turning their cars
over while speeding or crashing into trees
or solid obstacles.
Now, what has been done about this terrible
toll which is bound to become worse if some-
thing is not done about it?
Well, a few insurance companies provide a
rate reduction of as much as 15 per cent, to
male drivers in that age group who are
graduates of recognized driver-training pro-
grammes in secondary schools in this province.
Now, what are we going to do about this
situation? At the present time there are
approximately 380 secondary schools in this
province, and of this number driver-education
programmes are conducted in approximately
23. These 23 schools are located in only 16
of our municipalities of all sizes. Why is this
figure so small?
The reason is because our government to
date, The Department of Education, makes
it optional to all school boards as to whether
or not they provide driver-education pro-
grammes in our schools.
We must see to it that driver-education
programmes are included in all secondary
schools, and we must be prepared to assist
the school boards to finance this operation.
Hon. members may have read recently
about a newly-elected school board chairman
who has indicated that he proposes more home
work, more discipline and less extras, such
or driver-education, for students who do not
obtain grades of a certain standing.
Mr. Speaker, I personally think that this
chairman is entirely wrong in instituting this
sort of penalty when we know all students are
not high-school material, much as we would
like them to be, and as such they will not
complete their secondary schooling. When
they leave school to go into the business
world, many of these students will find their
futures in driving cars and trucks. Would it
not be better if they entered this new life
properly trained and qualified in a safe and
sane manner?
Let me tell hon. members of the record of
the city of Kitchener, that has been operating
a driver-training programme in their secondary
schools since 1949. There have been 950
graduates in the driver-training programme,
and an accurate check has been kept by the
local police, and we find, of 950 graduates,
only 22 have been guilty of traffic violations,
and of this number only 3 were involved in
minor property damage accidents. Two pupils
guilty of more than one traffic violation were
sent to the local traffic clinic, and their con-
duct is under the careful scrutiny of officials
at all times.
Experienced authorities on the subject of
driver-training all recommend that this sub-
ject be administered and handled by The
Department of Education.
In the state of Michigan, a driver-educa-
tion law was amended as of February 1,
1957, and in part, reads as follows:
Beginning February 1, 1957, the com-
pletion of a course in driver education is
a requirement of an application for an
operator's licence by all persons under the
age of 18.
The state of Michigan, along with over
half of the states in the union, realize the
need, and I suggest we should, too. Our
success in dealing with young driver prob-
lems will be in direct proportion to the effort
that we are willing to put into it.
In coping with attitudes, we are faced
with the prospect of dealing exclusively with
intangibles, and that makes it both difficult
and, if we fall prey to it, discouraging.
With intangibles, it is inevitable that we
may at times feel that the results are equally
intangible, possibly even non-existent. Actu-
ally, however, the results can be as tangible
as the very hands, arms and legs of hon.
242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
members', or my own, sons or daughters.
For it could be a son's or daughter's life
that is saved by striking now at a high teen-
age traffic fatality incidence.
Obviously, the surest method of dealing
with this problem is through extensive edu-
cation. Inexperience can be overcome by
supervised practice behind the wheel, and
immaturity can be conquered by educating
young drivers to the heavy responsibility
which goes with a driver's licence. Both,
as we see, boil down to education, pure and
simple.
If we dilly-dally, leaving this education
to the teen-ager's father, family friend or
someone from around the corner, however,
we are not much better off than we were
before. It is common knowledge that mere
know-how does not make one a good teacher.
A person may be an excellent driver, but
has an hon. member the confidence to say
that he is capable of teaching his son or
daughter everything one should know about
automobiles? Can the hon. member tell him
or her all the provincial and city laws gov-
erning the use of cars? Can he explain the
mechanics of the car thoroughly enough to
impress on the pupil its power and potential
destructfulness? Above all, does he have
the time and the infinite patience that all of
this requires?
Automobiles these days are so complex
and powerful that a full understanding of
them requires more study and guidance than
ever before in history. The job is too big
and important now for anything but a sys-
tematic approach through regular high school
and preparatory schools. This move to in-
clude driver - training and education in the
curriculum of established high schools got
underway slowly, a little over a decade
ago, but has picked up gratifying momentum
since then. At present, the national safety
council of the United States estimates that
some 20,000 secondary schools have some
form of driver-education and training pro-
grammes.
This is a far cry from a few years ago,
when such courses were looked upon with
feelings ranging all the way from misgivings
to downright scorn. As young as they are,
high school driver training programmes have
proved that students having completed such
courses have from 40 to 60 per cent, fewer
accidents. They are involved in fewer viola-
tions, and the accidents are less serious.
If a programme such as this were effected
among all teen agers. throughout the prov-
ince, it could mean a saving of from 2,000
to 4,000 lives a year in the 15 to 24 age
group alone. It could mean a saving of lives
in the ranks of other drivers who might be
involved in accidents with them.
In any consideration of youthful drivers
and accidents, we must also bear in mind
that as a driver grows older, the good or bad
habits that he has acquired grows with him.
It is up to us to see that he carries the good
ones.
Behind this lies one of the reasons for our
high accident death rate. Too many drivers on
the road today just took up driving, and their
deficiencies increased as they became older.
How many drivers, for instance, in the 30
to 40 year class, have accidents today the
cause for which can be traced back 10 or 20
years to something they failed to learn or
learned incorrectly? It is a moot question, of
course, but it could account for a goodly
share of our present highway deaths.
One-third of the United States population
drive motor vehicles, and every day more
than 25,000 drivers are involved in traffic
accidents that kill an average of nearly 100
people a day, that injure thousands, and con-
tribute to a staggering property loss. In this
instance, I am using the figures from the
United States, as the ones in Canada are not
available, and it is my feeling that there is
such a close similiarity between actual
circumstances that they may be applied to
the figures in Ontario without prejudice.
I think that a proper driver-education and
training programme in every high school in
the province would knock this figure down,
farther than perhaps is now apparent.
Educating our annual crop of would-be
drivers can, over a period of years, change
the whole complexion of our accident-ridden
traffic movement.
The question then is not "does driver
training pay?", but rather, "what are we
waiting for?"
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the automobile
rates were quoted by the Canadian under-
writers association. The board of education
chairman referred to was the board of educa-
tion chairman of North York in Metropolitan
Toronto, the authority on driver-training was
the American automobile association, and the
Kitchener figures were supplied by the
Kitchener board of education and the city of
Kitchener police.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Duff erin): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to. .
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
243
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, if any of the hon. members would
prefer to have any of these bills held over,
we will do so. These matters all go to the
committee on education, and perhaps it
might be agreed that they be advanced.
THE TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. Frost, in the absence of Mr.
Dunlop, moves second reading of Bill No.
73, "An Act to amend The Teachers' Super-
annuation Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT, 1954
Hon. Mr. Frost moves second reading of
Bill No. 80, "An Act to amend The
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education
Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. Mr. Frost moves second reading of
Bill No. 81, "An Act to amend The Public
Schools Act."
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
THE SEPARATE SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. Mr. Frost moves second reading of
Bill No. 82, "An Act to amend The Separate
Schools Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TOURIST ESTABLISHMENTS ACT
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I wish you would leave this
over if you would. Are they going to send
this to the committee?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes. There will be an
explanation of the bill, and it will go to the
committee on travel and publicity.
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity): Our committee meeting is
called for March 4, if I might say that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. Minister might
say that.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart moves second reading
of Bill No. 76, "An Act to amend The Tourist
Establishments Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I take a
moment to enlarge on what I said in the
first reading of the bill, when I gave a short
explanation for the reason for this amend-
ment?
Over the years, I have had the responsi-
bility of not only inspecting but licencing the
many establishments that provide accommo-
dation in one way or another across this
province, with the exception of those that
are under The Liquor Control Board. We
have always inspected the outfitters but we
did not licence them. It was felt by both
my staff and myself that it left the outfitters
in a confused state of mind as to who was
supervising them, and as a result we have
had some complaints from those who operate
tourist outfitters camps.
Over the years, and particularly in the
last few years, our outfitters camps are gradu-
ally becoming what we might consider to
be tourist resort operations. In the early
days, I think maybe we could go so far as
to say that the tourist outfitters were the
originators of our tourist business, people
went fishing and hunting and went to the
camp where the facilities were average for
a man or a stag party and so on.
Today, if one stops over at an outfitters
camp, generally speaking he will find pretty
fine accommodation there. The place will
be heated and have the facilities which make
for comfort and convenience.
The tourist outfitters themselves do agree
with me, when I talk to them, that they
are becoming tourist resort operators as well
as outfitters. Of course they supply and do
provide the facilities that one looks for when
one spends a week or two at a tourist out-
fitters camp. There was some thought given
to this amendment, and as a matter of fact,
some of the tourist outfitters at their con-
vention, and previous to that, questioned
whether we should bring this amendment in
and give the licencing, as well as the inspec-
tion, over to my department.
However, I have talked with a number
of them, in fact a delegation of them came
down from North Bay after their convention
the other day. We spent some time discus-
sing the matter. Their concern was mostly
whether my department, in taking over the
licencing as well as the inspection, is going
to remove them entirely from the jurisdiction
of The Department of Lands and Forests in
regard to the zoning and the location of new
244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
outfitters camps. They were concerned about
that, but I assured them that it was only a
matter of bringing the inspecting and the
licencing over to my department, so that
they would know to which department they
are responsible when it comes to providing
proper accommodation in relation to health
and other things.
I have talked to the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram), and he
realizes that he must keep within his domain
the responsibility of location. Today, when
we inspect and licence, no matter what the
accommodation may be, we do not grant
that licence until we have been in touch
with The Department of Highways, The De-
partment of Health, The Department of Lands
and Forests, and any other department that
might be concerned about the location of a
resort operation or a tourist outfitters camp
or whatever it may be.
We do this because The Department of
Highways will be interested in the location if
it happens to be close to a highway; The De-
partment of Health in relation to the health
facilities, and so on.
This means that our responsibility is to
check and inspect that facility, and see that
it is up to our standards as outlined in the
Act, and then get in touch with the different
departments and receive their approval be-
fore we grant the licence.
I do not know whether there is anything
further I can add to that particular matter,
except to again say that the president and
the ex-president and a couple of other men
were sent down from the outfitters conven-
tion to confer with me, and met with the
hon. Minister of Lands and Forests as well,
and we discussed the matter very fully and
they went away quite happy and content.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, so far as bringing
the licencing under the department of the
hon. Minister is concerned, I think that has
much to be commended. I see nothing that
one should argue about very much in that
particular transfer. It seems to me it will
make for better administration of the depart-
ment.
My attention, Mr. Speaker, is drawn to
the explanatory note, and I want the hon.
Minister to tell me what is meant by the last
two lines which say: "to authorize the regu-
lation of tourist establishments licenced under
The Liquor Licence Act when the need
arises."
Now, will the hon. Minister suggest that
this is simply a transfer of powers presently
existing, or is there an extension of any kind
in relation to The Liquor Licence Act having
to do with the tourist establishments?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: In the case of a licence
where The Liquor Control Act is in force, a
place may lose its licence as a result of in-
fractions of the law, and we do not want that
particular establishment closed just simply
because it has not a licence to serve the
beverages. In that case, we are in a position
where we will take on the licencing of that
particular facility.
Mr. Oliver: The significant thing, as far as
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, is that in the
explanatory note it says that the purpose of
the bill is to include in The Tourist Establish-
ment Act provisions relating to the licencing
of tourist outfitters which are now contained
in, and which will be deleted from, The Game
and Fisheries Act.
Then it goes on to say— and it seems to me
either a new power or a new definition of the
power, it goes on to say— "to authorize the
regulation of tourist establishments licenced
under The Liquor Licence Act where the need
arises." Now, I do not know whether it is
clear from the hon. Minister's remarks if this
is giving the department additional powers to
those which were vested in another depart-
ment previously. Does it give the power of
extension of privileges beyond what they
presently are, or what is the situation?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Mr. Speaker, in the past
we have run into some difficulty where a
licence has been— we do not touch the place
which is licenced by the liquor control board
at all, that is entirely their responsibility. But
where the licence has been cancelled, we have
run into some difficulty in granting a licence
to that place. It might be providing the best
accommodation in the world, but for some
reason or another it has lost its liquor licence,
and they close the place, and as I understand
it, this is included to take care of that situation
should it happen.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Minister says that his
department does not deal with licences that
are issued by the liquor licencing board. I
would not expect him to. But then he goes
on to say something about his department
granting licences; have we gone that far, have
we given his department the right to grant
licences?
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say that I asked the
law clerks about that point, and if the question
of the hon. leader of the Opposition is
directed to this, "Would The Department of
FEBRUARY 18, 1958
245
Travel and Publicity have the powers to grant
a liquor licence?", the answer is "no".
I think the point arose this way, that an
establishment may be licenced under The
Liquor Control Act, but nevertheless its regu-
lation as a tourist establishment is required
under this Act.
One of the purposes of this bill is to take
at least one step in getting rid of some of the
complications we have in applicants and
operators obtaining licences where they have
to deal with several departments.
I can give a case in point which is in rela-
tion to certain of our new municipalities, our
improvement areas. I would say that this is
hardly relevant to this bill in a way, but
nevertheless I think the example applies. Let
us say that an improvement area has to deal
with The Department of Planning and
Development and then with The Department
of Municipal Affairs, The Department of
Education, and The Department of Health.
The council or the boards operating such an
improvement area are sometimes driven to
desperation.
Now to meet that, we appointed Mr.
Carter in The Department of Municipal
Affairs as sort of co-ordinator.
I would say that much the same thing
applies here. Where the tourist operators are
dealing with several departments, it was felt
that it would simplify matters if we had, in
The Department of Travel and Publicity, a
branch where they could deal with the sub-
ject that these people were conceried with.
Now that, of course, has nothing to do
with the issuing or the requirements of the
operation of the liquor licence, that is under
the liquor licence board, and I do not think
it would be wise to take it away from them.
I think the hon. leader of the Opposition
has asked a very pertinent and good question
there, and I would like to have that matter
thoroughly explored in committee to see
what the actual situation is, and the law
clerks can explain it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): There
is still one point of it that I have not got
sorted out in my mind. The hon. Minister
stated, on at least two occasions, that there
has been a few instances in which liquor
licences were lost, and it became necessary
to licence the establishment under this out-
fitters' Act. Now, if they were eligible as an
outfitters' establishment, why were they not
licenced in any case before they lost the
liquor licence? I mean why did this depart-
ment have to come in after they lost the
liquor licence? It just does not add up to me.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would think that
they were licenced also.
Mr. MacDonald: If the tourist outfitter
already had an outfitter's licence, he would
not have to get another outfitter's licence
because he lost his liquor licence.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I see it is
6 o'clock, and I think perhaps at this stage
I might move the adjournment of the House.
We will proceed tomorrow with the Throne
debate and such bills as we might possibly
consider.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock
p.m.
No. 13
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
Bebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, February 19, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
'
CONTENTS
— I _ ! C*
Wednesday, February 19, 1958
Queen's University at Kingston, bill respecting, Mr. Stewart, first reading 249
Farm Products Marketing Act, bill to amend, Mr. Whicher, first reading 249
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Daley, first reading 249
City of Belleville, bill respecting, Mr. Sandercock, first reading 249
Labour Relations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Daley, first reading 249
Ontario Dietetic Association, bill respecting, Mr. Rowntree, first reading 250
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 250
Survey Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading 250
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 250
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 250
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne,
Mr. Beckett, Mr. Wintermeyer, Mr. McCue, Mr. Lavergne 252
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nickle, agreed to 274
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Frost, third reading 275
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 276
249
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, February 19, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
8 Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by commit-
tees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AT KINGSTON
Mr. W. J. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting Queen's
University at Kingston."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING
ACT
Mr. R. Whicher moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Farm
Products Marketing Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
explain this bill. This bill will permit the
farm products marketing board to recom-
mend the establishment, amendment or
approval of the scheme where 60 per cent,
of those voting, vote in favour. At present
the percentage is left to be fixed by regula-
tion, and where the vote is to establish a
scheme, a prescribed percentage of all those
eligible to vote, whether actually voting or
not, is required. There is no change in the
provision for a vote to revoke a scheme
initiated by producers. This is simply what
the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have
asked in all their briefs.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. C. Daley moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Workmen's
Compensation Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the present time
all public hospitals are under The Workmen's
Compensation Act, schedule 1, also the 4
municipally owned hospitals. But there is a
question as to the legality of that, and this
is just simply to clear up and legalize some-
thing that is presently being done.
Another section is to insure that assess-
ments under the Act will be paid where
timber is cut under a Crown licence by a
person other than a licencee.
The amendment to section 3 increases the
allowance for burial expenses of a deceased
workman from $200 to $300, and amendments
to subsections 2 and 3 increase from $200 to
$300 the lump sum that is payable immedi-
ately upon the death of a workman to his
widow.
Regarding section 4, the only principle in
this provision is the right of compensation
in the circumstances described.
CITY OF BELLEVILLE
Mr. W. Sandercock moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Belleville."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Daley moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Labour
Relations Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the first amendment
will enable the hon. Minister, upon a request
to him for the appointment of an arbitrator,
to refer to the labour relations board, for
determination, the question as to whether a
collective agreement is in existence.
Amendments to sections 2, 3 and 4 are
designed to provide greater stability in
industry by giving greater protection to
long-term collective agreements. The other
section is j'ust to correct a typographical
error.
250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ONTARIO DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. H. L. Rowntree moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the Ontario
Dietetic Association."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Mining Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: On section 1, these amendments
will allow the engineer to require unworked
mines to be protected by means other than
fencing as a public safety measure.
Regarding section 2, subsection 1— in the
interest of safety, the requirement for temper-
ature indicators on air compressors are in-
creased.
The amendment to subsection 2 of the same
section will provide a safeguard against the
inadvertent release of a hoist brake.
On section 3, this amendment will permit
the changing of balance of shaft conveyances
carrying men on the fixed or clutched-in drum
while shaft sinking, inspection or maintenance
work is going on.
Section 3 of the bill also provides that certi-
fied copies of what is known as "party wall"
agreements should be filed with the depart-
ment when the party wall agreements are
registered in the department.
THE SURVEY ACT, 1958
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, "The Survey Act, 1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the laws governing
surveys in Ontario are as old as its history.
The first revision of these laws was made in
1849, and the most recent in 1920. Three
different systems of surveying townships were
in use before 1829; since that time, 3 other
systems have been followed.
The 1920 Act, which is in force at the
present time, did not deal separately with
each of these 6 systems, with the result that
difficulties were experienced in determining
the proper method to be followed in any
particular system.
This bill, which has been carried over a
period of years by the Association of Land
Surveyors and the surveyor-general, does not
change the basic principle of the present Act,
but extends these principles and deals with
each system separately and completely, even
though this results in some repetition.
It is felt that this method will make the Act
more readily understandable, bringing about
greater certainty in survey practices and re-
ducing the work of surveys.
The bill provides another feature which is
felt will be of real assistance to practicing
surveyors. Regulations will be made illustrat-
ing and complementing, by words and
sketches, the many difficult and highly-
technical procedures set out in the Act.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are just two
minor amendments in this bill which I think
can be spoken to on second reading. They
involve changes in the wording, but no
change in policy.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Report of the Ontario-St. Lawrence
development commission for the period ended
December 31, 1957.
2. Annual report of the Ontario research
foundation for the calendar year 1956.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. R. Whicher: (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, be-
fore the orders of the day, there is a question
that I would like to ask the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) arising out
of the debate which was held in this House
last Monday.
In view of the fact that the hon. Minister
stated last Monday in this House that his
worship Mayor Phillips of Toronto was de-
lighted with the $5 million provincial relief
programme, and that 1,500 men would be
hired by Wednesday or Thursday: Would the
hon. Minister inform the hon. members how
many men have been employed and if his
worship Mayor Phillips is still delighted?
The reason that I ask that question, Mr.
Speaker, is because of the headlines in today's
Toronto Daily Star which simply say: Would
Boost Taxes, Brand. Frost Plan Bad.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I
cannot give the hon. member much informa-
1
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
251
tion at this time by reason of the fact I do
not have the information at hand.
However, I can say this, that his worship
Mayor Phillips has written a letter to the
hon. Prime Minister expressing the apprecia-
tion of the entire board of control of the
city of Toronto for the assistance to be given
to Toronto.
I can also say to the hon. member that I
am meeting with the mayor and the board
of control tomorrow morning to go over
their proposed plan, and when I have gone
over that I shall be pleased to bring in the
results, as to how many men it will mean
will be employed, and also the question as
to his delight.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. Minister would permit
a question at this time?
Whatever agreement or arrangement he
comes to with the board of control and with
his worship Mayor Phillips of Toronto, will
he extend the same privileges to the other
municipalities of the province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, I would say,
Mr. Speaker, that if the principles set out by
the mayor and board of control are accept-
able to The Department of Municipal
Affairs and the government, the same prin-
ciples would apply right across the board.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
about the mayor of Hamilton? He was not
very happy either.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The mayor of Hamil-
ton was in touch with me by telephone and
I also saw a representative group from Hamil-
ton yesterday, and it is true they did come
down expecting they would get a lump sum
which might be used for capital purposes.
When it was explained that the purpose
of this money being set aside was to relieve
the unemployment situation, they expressed
approval and are now going at it to use their
ingenuity to bring different ideas which will
have the effect of putting a great many unem-
ployed to work in Hamilton.
Mr. Whicher: It will take a great deal of
ingenuity to use that plan, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
When the hon Prime Minister announced this
plan in the first place, he made it abundantly
clear that this was a plan to meet an emer-
gency, and that the primary group to be
considered was the group who were employ-
able but not presently employed and who
were not in a position for various reasons
to draw unemployment insurance.
Now, it happens in the case of the city
of Toronto that by reason of agreements with
local unions Nos. 43 and 45— particularly
43 in this case, which is chiefly the employees
who are on outside work— that under that
agreement the city is called upon, when
people have been laid off who were mem-
bers of that union, when work is available,
to make the first call back to those people.
Now that is probably a very reasonable
and sensible arrangement between employer
and employee in ordinary circumstances, but
is one of the problems which will have to
be discussed and looked at.
The hon. member should see at once that
would not have the effect of bringing in,
to work, people who are unemployed and
not drawing unemployment insurance in that
particular group until those who are draw-
ing unemployment insurance who are mem-
bers of the city union have been re-employed,
so in that respect it is a problem which is
local in its character.
Mr. Whicher: What the hon. Attorney-
General has said is quite true, but he did
not say it was going to cost the municipalities
about $10 for every $1 this government puts
up.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That of course is com-
pletely and utterly irresponsible talk. It hap-
pens that there are 150 people involved in
Union No. 43, and the hon. member him-
self, in his question, is talking about 1,000
or 1,500, so his answer in that respect is
completely irresponsible.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Speaker, I can hardly let the
statement of the hon. Attorney-General go.
I do not think it is correct to say it is com-
pletely irresponsible, when one says that, in
order to get $1 from the government under
this plan, the municipality can reasonably
be expected to have to pay $10. Now that
is not irresponsible, and the hon. Attorney-
General will find as he moves forward on
the plan that it is a rather conservative
figure.
By the time the municipality supplies the
engineering work required, the materials
necessary, and all that goes into this project,
if they spend less than $10 for every $1 they
get from the government, they will be lucky,
so it is not an irresponsible statement.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think the facts will
be clear in due course. I leave it to common-
sense discussions to accomplish and work
252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
out the details, but the fact of the matter,
in the question put by the hon. member for
Bruce, is that there are people who are en-
titled under contractural agreements to be
brought back on the payrolls before others
can be taken on.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised at the
hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas)
asking that question about whether this
would apply to all the municipalities in the
province. He has been an hon. member in
the House a long time and is a reasonable
man. I have never had any trouble getting
along with him, he or his municipality, at all.
But he knows that this government's policy
is not to make fish of one and flesh of another.
This is the people's government, they look
after all the people.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Speaker,
I notice the hon. member for Bruce is
accustomed to reading headlines. He should
read the stories that appear in the news-
papers. If he would read the Toronto
Telegram of this afternoon, he will see that
there is a memorandum that the works com-
mittee of the city of Toronto has prepared a
list of works to cost a total of $1.6 million,
of which they expect to recover the sum of
$1 million from the province of Ontario.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I want to say
"thank you" to the hon. Minister (Mr. Dun-
bar) for that remark of his that I am a
reasonable man. But the reason I ask that
question is this— on this side we are a little
suspicious, because they did elect only Con-
servative members to the committee to study
the Metropolitan area, that is why I asked
the question.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome to the assembly this
afternoon pupils from Edith vale Public
School, Willowdale, and also from Earl Grey
Public School in the city of Toronto.
Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me much pleasure to pay
my humble respects to you and to congratu-
late you for the efficient and fair manner
in which you conduct the office of Speaker,
and I certainly admire the dignity which you
give to it.
The speech from the Throne had some
reference to the question of unemployment,
and I would like to speak for a few minutes
on this subject and to suggest how it might
be eased, and, at the same time, save some of
the lives of our people.
I first want to go back a little bit in history
and tell hon. members that the first railway
in Canada was built in 1832; it was some 60
miles in length. By 1890 the mileage of rail-
way had increased to some 13,000.
Grade crossings became an immediate
problem, and at that time these matters were
handled by the railway committee on the
Privy Council which was established under
the provisions of The Railway Act of 1868.
The mileage of the railways continued to
increase during the following years, and by
1904 there were 20,000 miles of steam and
electric railways over which there were many
hundreds of level crossings. As a result the
public were demanding some adequate pro-
tection.
In 1903, The Railway Act was revised and
the board of railway commissioners was
established, and this board was given powers
respecting highway crossings over railways
and railways over highways.
The duty to insure adequate protection at
level crossings rests with the board, but the
cost of providing that protection fell upon
the railways and the municipalities.
I cannot understand why the municipali-
ties should be called upon to pay any part
of this cost when the railways were established
under The Railway Act of Canada and were
under the legislative authority of the Parlia-
ment of Canada; they were constructed for
the benefit of Canada and not for the benefit
of any local municipality.
However, as the Act provided at that time,
there were only two sources to pay for this
protection, as I have said, the railways and
the municipalities.
Neither of these bodies could afford to bear
this cost.
The danger at railway crossings was becom-
ing important in the minds of the government,
the railways and the public, and here I would
like to quote from the speech of hon. George
P. Graham, Minister of Railways and Canals,
made in the House of Commons in 1909:
This large question of level crossings is
one that must be dealt with. There are
level crossings, of course, where there is
practically no danger, being in long
stretches of level country where everyone
can see for miles, or at any rate for a
sufficient distance in each direction to pro-
tect himself against an oncoming train.
But the situation has become somewhat
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
253
changed from what it was some years
ago.
Let hon. members remember this was in
1909 when he was speaking.
During the past 10 years, at least, the
speed of trains has been increased to meet
the public demand for rapid transportation,
not only the express but other trains as
well, and the driver in any ordinary carriage
[and the word carriage back in 1909 was
used] is very easily deceived in judging
the time it takes for an approaching train
to reach him. Many a driver is apt to mis-
judge the time a running train takes to
reach a crossing.
A running train takes a very small period
of time to cover a quarter of a mile, when
it is running at a mile a minute: and in
this connection the public are not always
blameless. We grow careless in crossing
railway tracks, but this other question
arises, that in this, as in many other cases,
"the public ought to be protected against
themselves."
It does not relieve the situation at all if
we say that a man was killed on account
of his own carelessness. If some provision
could have been made to protect his life
even against his own rashness, such pro-
tection certainly ought to have been
afforded.
The question of level crossings is one
that involves 5 parties. The one most inter-
ested, of course, is the family to which
death has come by an accident. The
general public is deeply interested in hav-
ing some protection at dangerous level
crossings. Then there are the municipali-
ties, the provincial government, the federal
government and then there are the railways.
In point of liability, perhaps we had
better commence the other way. There are
first the railways, then the Dominion and
provincial governments, the municipalities
and the public.
That is the end of his remarks in the House
of Commons in 1909.
It will be noticed that the hon. gentleman
mentioned the municipalities as well as the
provincial government— but did not say why
the municipalities should be a party except
that they are deeply interested.
However, in that same year, 1909, hon.
Mr. Graham introduced the grade crossing
fund legislation, and The Railway Act was
amended, setting up the railway grade cross-
ing fund. That is the year that the railway
grade crossing fund was established.
The amendment to The Railway Act at
that time provided that Parliament should
authorize annually the sum of $200,000 for
5 years for:
the purpose of aiding and providing by
actual construction work of protection,
safety and convenience for the public in
respect of highway crossings of the rail-
way at rail level.
The maximum amount that could be con-
tributed to any one crossing was 20 per cent.,
and not to exceed in any one case $5,000.
This amendment— and this is an amend-
ment which very few pay much attention to
—this amendment provided that the provinces
be allowed to contribute to the cost of pro-
tection at level crossings, but as far as I
can find out, no contributions have ever been
made to the railway grade crossing fund by
any province in Canada, and that legislation
is still on the statute books.
This, then, is my suggestion, that the
provinces of Canada contribute to this fund
instead of the municipalities being levied
with a large percentage of the cost of pro-
tection at level crossings. The construction
of subways under railways, or bridges over
railways, in my opinion should not be a local
matter.
The people who are using the highways
in this province come from all parts of the
province, and of Canada.
The expense of a separation of grade is
a costly work, and municipalities should be
relieved of this cost, either by the railway
grade crossing fund or by some arrangement
between the provinces and the government
of Canada.
Since 1909 the federal government has
increased its contributions to the grade cross-
ing fund as follows:
In 1914, they put in the fund $200,000
per year for 10 years; in 1919, another $200,-
000 per year for 10 years; in 1929, $200,000
per year for 10 years; in 1947, $200,000 per
year for 10 years. Then, in 1948, they put
into this fund $500,000 per year for 9 years;
in 1950, $500,000 for two consecutive years;
and $1 million each year for 6 consecutive
years.
In 1955, they decided to put in $5 million
each year.
Besides additional amounts which the fed-
eral government put into this fund, the per-
centage of contribution to any one crossing
254
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was increased to 60 per cent., and a maxi-
mum of $300,000 for each crossing.
From 1930 to 1940, additional financial
assistance was made by the federal govern-
ment for this work, amounting in all to a
little over $5 million. This extra money was
to provide employment and had to be spent
in the year in which it was voted; whereas
the funds voted for the railway grade cross-
ing fund are accumulative and build up from
year to year.
The board of transport commissioners must
apply this fund for the actual construction
work for the protection, safety and con-
venience of the public at existing crossings
at rail level.
Section 262 of The Railway Act gives the
board power to apportion the cost of pro-
tection and to designate by which companies,
municipalities or persons interested or af-
fected, such costs are to be paid. But the
board does not have any power to order a
province, without its consent, to bear any
portion of the cost of protection, or grade
separation, although the highway may be
under the control of the province.
From 1909 to the end of 1953 the sum of
$32,496,000 was spent for the protection of
highway crossings in Ontario, and of this
amount the fund— that is the grade crossing
fund— contributed 21.53 per cent., munici-
palities and province (the province having
to pay its share of provincial highways) 33.8
per cent., and the railways 44.67 per cent.
The total amount spent in Canada during
those 7 years was $51,731,255, so hon. mem-
bers can see that nearly 60 per cent, of the
money was spent in Ontario, and that meant
a very large percentage of the cost was borne
by the municipalities.
As a matter of fact, in the year 1953, the
municipalities in Ontario paid 63.51 per cent,
of the cost of this protection.
I contend that the unprotected crossing
must be eliminated.
The increasing toll of death and injuries
at level crossings is a matter of grave concern.
During each of the years 1947 to 1953, there
were more than 400 persons killed at railway
crossings in Canada. For the same number of
years there were 4,226 accidents at level
crossings in Canada.
The present government at Ottawa has
seen fit recently to recommend that $15 mil-
lion be voted to the grade crossing fund, and
this amount should go far to eliminate many
dangerous crossings in Canada. I feel, and I
am sure the general public and in particular
the automobile owner feels, that it is time for
the two top levels of government to give
leadership in providing protection at the
dangerous railway crossings.
Today, the procedure to obtain a grade
separation— and generally it is done this way-
is for a local municipality to make application
to the board of railway commissioners, and
that board, after due notice to all the parties
affected, has a public hearing, and it takes
sometimes months to get a work started. I
feel the public feels that this system of getting
these works started is antiquated, and that
this method should be accelerated.
Since the hon. Mr. Graham made his state-
ment in 1909, other factors have been added
to the problem of level crossings.
In 1909 there were few crossings over
which there were telephone lines or power
lines, and there were few gas mains under rail-
ways. Today, and especially in the urban
sections of this province, nearly every railway
crossing has many utilities crossing over and
under. These utilities, by virtue of either
federal or provincial statutes, have special
privileges to construct their plants on the
municipal highways without charge.
Where grade separation is sought by a
municipality, the utilities oppose the applica-
tion on the ground that they receive no bene-
fit from a subway or bridge over a railway,
and that the cost of removing their facilities
should be paid by the applicant and in most
cases that means the municipality.
The attitude on the part of the utilities has
delayed many grade separations. They have
in many cases carried their objections to all
the courts and as far as the Privy Council.
The Supreme Court of Canada and the
Privy Council on numerous occasions have
held that these utilities must relocate their
plants at their own expense.
In the case of the Bell Telephone Company
vs. the Canadian National Railways in 1932,
and it is quoted in 39 Canadian Railway
Cases, the court said:
The primary concern of Parliament in
this legislation [that is, the Railway Act]
is public welfare.
These utilities have the free use of the
highways and as users should pay their
fair share of grade separation.
I might say that we should give some
thought at this time to a revision of our
public service works, in The Highways Act,
as given in chapter 318, RSO 1950.
This Act was first enacted in 1925 and
amended in 1929 but has not been changed
since that time. I do not know how many
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
255
hon. members are familiar with that Act, but
I would just like to read a provision of it.
This statute provides, among other things:
Where, in the course of constructing, re-
constructing, changing, altering or improv-
ing any highway, it becomes necessary to
take up, remove or change the location of
the appliances and works of a utility, the
road authority and the utility may agree
upon the apportionment of the cost of
labour employed in the work, and in
default of agreement the cost of the work
shall be apportioned equally between the
road authority and the utility.
"Road authority" includes not only The
Department of Highways but also a municipal
corporation or other body having control of
the highway. There is procedure for an appli-
cation to the Ontario municipal board for an
order apportioning the cost on some basis
other than 50-50, but so far as can be ascer-
tained this procedure has never been invoked.
The road authority is liable for one-half
of the cost of labour, and the balance of the
expense involved in the change of facilities
of the utility is borne by the utility itself.
The cost borne by a municipal road authority,
it is true, is repaid to it, up to one half or
more, by The Department of Highways,
under the provisions of The Highway
Improvement Act.
The provisions of this Act, I say, are incon-
sistent with the orders of the board of trans-
port commissioners of Canada. I want to say,
Mr. Speaker, that up to this date, and subject
to a hearing that ended last week in Ottawa,
the board of railway commissioners have
authorized the utilities to pay 100 per cent,
of the cost of moving their utilities when
there is any change such as on a grade
separation. That, I say, is at variance with
our provincial statute.
The Ontario statute authorizing payment
of 50 per cent, of the labour cost to the
utilities, which have free use of our high-
ways, should be amended to conform with
the board's order which in fact overrides the
Ontario statute.
If the cost of relocating the plants of these
utilities is passed on to the municipalities,
then the municipalities will shy away from
applying for grade separations.
I therefore feel that this government and
all provincial governments should urge that
all users of highways should share in the cost
of grade separations.
The utilities strenuously assert that the
reason for grade separations is different today
than it was in 1912, when the speed of trains
exceeded the speed of automobiles.
It cannot be argued that the Canadian
economy and culture have remained static
over the last 45 years. Many rural areas have
become industrialized, immense strides have
been made in the method of production, and
technological advance has been fantastic.
The change from wood, water, and wind
to iron, rail and electricity has had a pro-
found effect on the country. All methods of
communication and transportation have been
improved and many new ones invented.
Wheels have been made to run faster and
distance has become more meaningless.
In recent years the number of automobiles
manufactured has been colossal. Similarly,
trains have multiplied and grown in length.
Nothing can be accomplished by counting
the number of cars whether they be motor
or locomotive. However, it is evident that
coupled with expansion is expense. Hazard
is inherent in complexity and numbers.
Thus, regardless of the number of rail-
way crossings or the number of trains, the
imminence of accidents at level crossings is
greater as the volume of automobiles in-
creases. The reverse is also true. History
has shown that both automobile and train
traffic has increased.
The growing problem of accidents is there-
fore obvious. Greater effort must be made
to effect safe transportation and travel.
I say the welfare of the public is para-
mount. The free flow of traffic boils down to
public convenience. Public convenience is
inseparable from safety. Every railway track
heralds a potential hazard. Often it is not
only convenient but essential for the mech-
anized public to cross railway tracks in order
to reach their destination. Complete delay
in crossing would be complete safety. Safety
varies in direct proportion to convenience.
The only problem is to determine whether
the people who are enjoying the protection
are paying for it or whether it is being sub-
sidized by the utility subscribers and share-
holders.
It is submitted that the practice of the
board of transport commissioners for Canada,
in connection with the apportionment of the
cost of grade separations, manifests logic
and equity, in regard to the utilities. No at-
tempt is made to expound the argument that
the loss suffered by utilities compensates for
the free use of the highway to house its
plant and equipment.
It is submitted, however, that any damage
that the utility company may suffer by reason
256
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the necessity of a separated grade must be
viewed as a hazard peculiar to its particular
type of business. It must be absorbed as a
part of the cost of operation.
Highways were and are laid out, dedicated
and constructed to accommodate motor vehi-
cles, not public utilities such as telephone
plant and equipment. Admittedly it is con-
venient to use highways for the latter purpose,
but this must always remain ancillary to the
prime object of highway construction. This
being so, utility companies construct their
plant and equipment on highways at their
own risk, and should bear the expense of the
relocation of same if this becomes necessary
by reason of any changes made to the high-
ways.
I contend that the users of the utility are
also the users of the highways. This fact is
becoming more and more apparent as, for
instance, telephones continue to be installed
in our automobiles.
I would just like to point out the cost of the
grade separation in the case of Victoria Park
Avenue, which is the boundary line between
Toronto, Scarborough township and East
York township. In that case, the board
ordered the city of Toronto to pay 33^ per
cent., the township of Scarborough 20 per
cent, and the township of East York 13>$
per cent., for a total of 66^ per cent, which
the municipalities had to pay for that grade
separation. The railway, of course, paid the
balance.
Now, under the terms of The Highway
Improvement Act, RSO 1950, chapter 166,
the hon. Minister may direct payment of sub-
sidies with respect to the construction of
bridges. I might say that subways are con-
strued as being bridges.
In the case of townships, the subsidy may
extend to 100 per cent, of the cost of a bridge
in some municipalities, but the ordinary
amount that is paid to townships is 80 per
cent., and in the case of cities it is 33^ per
cent., and in Metropolitan Toronto 50 per
cent.
I would now like to tell the House, Mr.
Speaker, how important this matter of grade
separation is to one municipality— the town-
ship of Scarborough— of which I have a
pretty good knowledge.
As the hon. members know, the township
of Scarborough lies east of the city of Toronto
and the township of North York, and is
bounded on the north by the township of
Markham, and on the east by the township
of Pickering.
Scarborough has an area of 72 square miles,
and a population of 150,000. It is the largest
area municipality in Metropolitan Toronto,
and is the third largest in population. This
township is laid out by concessions running
east and west, a mile and a quarter apart,
and side roads running north and south a
half-mile apart. The total mileage for con-
cessions and side roads is 175.
In addition to these original road allow-
ances, there are 275.75 miles of streets laid
out on subdivision plans, making a total of
450.75 miles of streets in the township of
Scarborough alone, and at the present time
we have 64 plans of subdivisions ready for
approval.
Since 1946, there have been added to the
township urban development some 10,000
acres of land, and that gives the hon. members
an idea about the development.
In 1948, Scarborough had a population of
34,000. Today it has 150,000. In 10 years
it rose from 34,000 to 150,000.
We have in the township of Scarborough
running from east to west the main line,
double track, of the Canadian National Rail-
ways. There are at present 13 level crossings
over that main line, and included in those
crossings are such streets as Kennedy Road,
St. Clair Avenue, Midland and Eglinton
Avenues— very highly travelled highways, and
these are level crossings.
There is a branch line of the Canadian
National Railways in Scarborough, and on
this line there are 9 level crossings. And
on this branch line there are level crossings
over important highways such as Eglinton
Avenue, Lawrence Avenue, and Danforth
Road, all being main thoroughfares and
heavily travelled.
In addition to these highways we have had
subdivisions constructed along this branch
line in which there are 4 more level crossings.
There is also the main line of the Canadian
Pacific Railway running through Agincourt,
which is double track, and then from Agin-
court there is a branch going to Montreal
and one to Peterborough. On this main line
there are 8 level crossings including Pharmacy
Avenue, Ellesmere Avenue, Kennedy Road
and Sheppard Avenue, also very heavily
travelled. On the Peterborough line there
are 7 level crossings, and on the Montreal
line 7 level crossings.
Of the 22 level crossings, 5 have some
form of protection. There is only one grade
separation and that is on Victoria Park
Avenue, which is the boundary line, as I said,
between Scarborough and North York
townships.
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
257
This double main line of the Canadian
Pacific Railway crosses very important high-
ways. There is, of course, some form of pro-
tection at each of 5 crossings, but even that
protection, consisting of automatic signals, is
not sufficient protection to the public.
There are at present 82 railway crossings
in the township of Scarborough. There are
7 grade separations on the Canadian National
Railways, 4 on the Canadian Pacific Railway.
There is some form of protection, such as
wig- wags, on 11 crossings, leaving 60 unpro-
tected crossings in one municipality.
When we consider the population of Scar-
borough—and I might say there are 32,899
public and high school pupils— the danger
there is to human life can well be imagined.
I would like to recommend, Mr. Speaker, to
you and to all hon. members, that they read
the leading editorial in the Toronto Telegram
of Monday, February 17, 1958, when it said:
How long will Canadians continue to
tolerate the appalling toll of death, mutila-
tion and injury in level crossing accidents?
Surely it is not the cost of adequate signals,
safeguards, overpasses and underpasses
which deters action in this matter, for who
is to place a price on human life?
The vast majority of level crossing acci-
dents could be prevented by adequate
signal systems. Still the toll continues to
mount. Here is a sampling of the Tele-
gram headlines during the past two months :
At Window Friend Sees Guests Killed
Two Trains Kill Trucker— Dad, Boy
Sixth Victim Dies at Worst Crossing
Flyer Cuts Car in Two, Kills Both
Occupants
Car Stopped Second, Train Killed
Two
Two Killed at Crossing.
So, my point is, Mr. Speaker, it is time
that all levels of government, and especially
the federal government and the provincial
government, should get together and do
something to protect the people, as the hon.
Mr. Graham said, "protect the people against
themselves."
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join in this
debate, and like the others who have pre-
ceded me, to express my congratulations to
you personally for the very fine way that you
have conducted this House, and I am sure
you will continue to do so.
I was very much impressed a few days
ago when you said that you are responsible
for the administration, not the determination,
oi- the rules. Maybe with the enthusiasm that
you demonstrated, you could be prevailed
upon to investigate some of the rules that
might assist us in some little respect— such
as doing away with the requirement that we
submit all our questions long in advance.
Now, we are required to receive special
permissions in circuitous fashion before we
ask questions. I suggest that we be serious
about it. I think there might be something
in that suggestion that you be prevailed upon
to investigate.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join
in this debate, and I am going to try to
confine my remarks today to the issues that
others have brough forth, and debate those
issues as they have progressed in the debate
thus far.
Before doing that, however, I want to take
this opportunity to express my appreciation to
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver).
He has been particularly good to me and
to all hon. members of the Liberal Opposi-
tion, I am sure. We have a particular fond-
ness and liking for him, and I welcome this
opportunity to express this opinion, and this
expression of appreciation, to him publicly.
I for one, hope that he will long continue in
public life, where I am sure his heart and
mind find their happiest times and places.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I was going
to tell the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost),
and maybe the Speaker of the House will
convey this message to him, that we all have
real respect for his person. Maybe I, in the
past, had permitted that personality to becloud
some of the real functions of hon. Opposi-
tion members. That great cloak of personality
that suddenly descends on the hon. Opposi-
tion members, to smother even some of their
best criticisms, is a tactic of the hon. Prime
Minister that is well known to all of us.
Perhaps some of us should be a little more
persuasive and determined in our position than
we have been heretofore.
Nevertheless, it is my personal expression
to the hon. Prime Minister that we respect
his person and I hope, in this session, we will
not permit the same degree of dissuasion and
"soft soap" to overcome our official position.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of
the issues that certainly has been put into
debate thus far, in this Throne debate, is the
question of fiscal arrangements, and I intend
258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to spend a few minutes in discussion of that
problem.
The hon. leader of our party and I believe
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) taunted the hon. Prime Minister,
and I think with just cause, for the manner
in which he accepted a compromise arrange-
ment with respect to the final arrangements
between the federal and provincial govern-
ments. They suggested that it was rather
unusual that the hon. Prime Minister who,
a year ago, demanded $100 million, settled
for 22 cents on the dollar, and settled in a
rather extraordinary fashion— that is, by the
acceptance of a telegram rather than debate
around a conference table.
I think there is much merit in the criticisms
that have been levied. For myself, I would
underscore that particular arrangement with
this comment— all hon. members in this House
will remember our hon. friend from Port
Arthur ( Mr. Wardrope ) when, in moving the
speech from the Throne a year ago, he rose in
this House and in great anger in effect said:
Look at those terrible people in Ottawa.
They are assembling a surplus that is over-
flowing, it has now reached $500 million.
One-half of that is ours in all equity, in
all fairness, and they must disgorge part
of that. We must bring it back to the
people of Ontario if we are to be respon-
sible to our job in this Legislature.
And it was not long thereafter when the
hon. Prime Minister took up the cudgels
and said:
What the hon. member for Port Arthur
has said is true and I add only this, that
I would say that in all charity, the fairest
thing that can be said of that government,
that inequitable, unfair and unrealistic
government in Ottawa, is that it is un-
realistic in its approach.
And I say this, that we cannot accept
a cent less than $100 million by way of
arrangement and settlement of our fiscal
arrangements.
We hon. members of the Opposition said
that this government was receiving substan-
tially more than it had in previous years,
and we were told that we were "stooges" for
the people in Ottawa. We were told that
we should either stand up and be counted
by the "little people" of this province as
stooges of Ottawa, or as supporters of the
good administration of the people of Ontario.
We argued that point in great detail, and I
think all hon. members know very well the
issue as it evolved.
And then a surprising thing took place, a
surprising thing to hon. members and to me,
on June 10.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: More to the Opposition
than to us, though.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Unexpectedly I say, the
hon. Prime Minister found himself in the
position where he had to deal with a Con-
servative government in Ottawa. The hon.
Prime Minister, who had gone about the
countryside, from place to place and city to
city— and in all fairness, I say he did more to
defeat the Liberal government than any man
in Ontario and he defeated it on one score,
that is his fiscal arrangement.
The hon. Prime Minister who, by his
reputation, his genuine appearance of
honesty, good judgment, and trust in the
people of Ontario, said to the people of
Ontario:
They are unfair to me, they owe me
half of that surplus but I am willing to
settle for $100 million and the rascals will
not listen to me. Now I say to you, they
have to be thrown out and others replaced
who will deal with me at arm's length and
in a fair and equitable manner.
And thus the people voted, and thus the
people rushed to the polls to assist this "great
white father," and then what happened?
In November, or thereabouts, a conference
took place, an extraordinary conference that
resulted in nothing concrete except a love-
matching arrangement, at the conclusion
whereby each congratulated the other on the
great progress that had been made.
In terms of reality, what practical advan-
tage or progress was made? I believe that
Ontario at that time received an additional
$5 million by virtue of certain adjustments,
and the hon. Prime Minister called that a
great achievement, one worthy of note. More
progress had been made in those two days
than in any two years of previous conferences.
We in the Opposition benches stood by and
watched. Maybe there was something more
to come, and then surprisingly— as the hon.
leader of the Opposition has said— 5 days be-
fore the election announcement, something
did happen. We were told that the people
of Ontario would be paid an additional $22
million, not in this year 57-58, but in the year
58-59.
Mr. Macaulay: So was everyone else.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Exactly, we were all
surprised, but I say to the hon. member for
Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay) that the issue is
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
259
simply this— if the hon. Prime Minister was
sincere a year ago, then he must be sincere
today. If he asked us to stand up and be
counted by the little people of Ontario, he
has to accept the same responsibility today.
If he was right a year ago that we are equi-
tably entitled to $100 million, we are en-
titled to that today, and his job today is
to go to the same housetops and tell the
hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, in no uncertain terms,
that he is still entitled to the $100 million.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. Prime Minis-
ter is still asking for it, he will get it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: He chose political ex-
pediency to principle. He chose, when he
was put to the test, the machinations of the
Conservative government to the little people
of Ontario, and he is the man who must now
stand up and be counted. Either he was
right or wrong then, and if he was right then
he must, in all fairness and honesty, continue
to fight for the little people of Ontario-
Some hon. members: He is! He is!
Mr. Wintermeyer: —and he must continue
to fight for his $100 million. He settled for
22 cents on the dollar.
An hon. member: He did—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wintermeyer: He certainly did. Now
Mr. Speaker, I will argue this point in a
few moments, but I am not going to be
precluded at this particular stage. At the
conclusion—
An hon. member: Will the hon. Attorney-
General kindly sit down?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am asking for an op-
portunity to ask a question.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, I am not going to
to get side-tracked.
An hon. member: Let the hon. member
not make a charge that he cannot sustain.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the fact is
as obvious as one and one are two. I am not
arguing now, that I said something a year
ago or did not say something a year ago.
What I am arguing is the simple principle
that if the hon. Prime Minister was right a
year ago, we are still owed $100 million and
we have not got it, and we will not have it
in this fiscal year.
And all we are promised for the next fiscal
year is $22 million, nothing more, as the
hon. member for Riverdale acknowledged
a week ago. The agreements have not been
amended at all, but by virtue of the gratui-
tous attitude of the hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, we
may, under fortunate circumstances, receive
$22 million.
But remember this, we may not get it.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member
watches, he will see what happens in the
next 5 years. Rome was not built in a day.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, now that
is the exact attitude of the hon. Prime Minis-
ter as well as the hon. leader of the federal
government today. Are we not entitled to
know what is going to happen? Is this a
secret arrangement between the hon. Prime
Minister and the hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, or is
it an arrangement for the benefit of the
people of Ontario? What do they know that
the people do not know? What right has the
hon. Attorney-General to make that statement
unless he has some secret information that
he is not divulging?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would just say this,
that if the hon. Prime Minister was in his
seat, he would say it will all unfold in the
fullness of time.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The fullness of time is
not good enough, Mr. Speaker. These men
have used this cloak of deceit for too long.
Now is the time they must stand up and be
counted. If they were right a year ago, then
the hon. Provincial Secretary and the hon.
Attorney-General and others should go to the
wayside, speak from the housetops as they
did a year ago, and criticize the hon. Mr.
Diefenbaker for failing to live up to his
promise of a year ago. They have let the
people of Ontario down, and the sooner the
people of Ontario realize it, the better for
the people of Ontario.
An hon. member: I am going to interrupt
again on the matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Water-
loo North has the floor.
An hon. member: Ask him to deal, but if
he will not deal, all right.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member for
Waterloo North can speak for himself, he
does not need the other 10.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Will the hon.
member permit a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I will
allow the question in just one moment. I
think I can anticipate one or two of the
questions that they are going to ask me, of
260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
course, and I would hope that my hon.
friend for Riverdale— whom I respect very
much and who I am delighted is in his seat
today to defend this government in regard
to its fiscal programme— I suppose he or
somebody else will say to me: "Well, what
you say is all right, but what position did
you take a year ago?" Well fine, now here
is the position.
Mr. Jackson: What did the hon. member
say a year ago?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, a year
ago, I contended that agreements which
were then proposed by the government were
fair and equitable, and I said, over and
above that, that I acknowledged very frankly
the fact that if this government were to get
away from the deceitful form of demonstra-
tion of budgeting, wherein the capital expen-
ditures are not shown against the ordinary
revenue of the government and thereby
demonstrating fictitious surpluses each year;
if they would scrap that system and if they
would acknowledge, as they do in Ottawa, a
balance sheet wherein the total revenue and
total disbursements, ordinary and capital, are
shown, I would acknowledge a need for
more money.
That position we took very emphatically,
and I am not ashamed of it today. I think it
was an intelligible position then and it is now.
The principle that I am contending for
today is simply this— that the positon, the
inconsistent position of those responsible for
the fiscal programme of this government, is
wholly inconsistent with the position they
took a year ago, and they have resorted to
political expediency at the expense of the
people of Ontario, and that in short is my
submission with respect to the fiscal arrange-
ments.
Now if the hon. member for Bellwoods
wishes to ask a question in respect to what I
have said thus far, I am quite prepared to
accept it.
Mr. Yaremko: The hon. member stated
his own position. I just want to ask him—
in his opinion— does he think that the hon.
Prime Minister was right a year ago?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, I do not, very
frankly. I think this. I think the hon. Prime
Minister needed more money. I think this
government needs more money, but I, for one,
do not believe that the place to raise all
revenue at the municipal, provincial and fed-
eral level— as is now becoming the custom-
is by virtue of income tax and corporate
income tax.
I think there are other far more equitable
sources of revenue that can be devised for the
good administration of this government. That
is my answer in respect to the hon. member's
particular inquiry.
Mr. Macaulay: May I put a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Mr. Macaulay: My hon. friend has just said
that he believes that this government needs
more money and did then. If that was so,
why did he vote against the bills which would
raise more money?
Mr. Wintermeyer: My hon. friend from
Riverdale knows very well, and if he will
examine Hansard for the last year, he will
see that repeatedly I took the position that,
if this government would do away with the
unfortunate habit of confusing capital and
ordinary revenue and capital and ordinary
disbursements, and show us an over-all bal-
ance sheet— and he will recall very well my
argument about the highway reserve fund—
I would acknowledge the need for more
money.
Mr. Macaulay: He would acknowledge the
need for more money. How does he know
now that we do need, and did then need,
more money if he could not read the balance
sheet?
Mr. Wintermeyer: That, I cannot under-
stand.
Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member said a
moment ago that the province was, and is, in
need of more money. How did he come to
that conclusion, if he could not decipher the
balance sheet?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well now, Mr. Speaker,
I could decipher that balance sheet very well,
and so could the hon. Prime Minister and I
hope that the hon. member for Riverdale
could, and that he saw the fraud in it.
I think the hon. member for Riverdale got
up on repeated occasions and complained
about the presentation of the budget, com-
plained of the very thing of which I am
complaining.
Certainly we saw it, but in order to drama-
tically demonstrate to this government that
it was not being fair to the people of Ontario,
we were asking the government to change
its form of presentation— and had they done
so, we would have gone along with them.
They refused our request, and now we are
in perfect justification for contending that if
they had a surplus, as they contended they
had, which I will acknowledge they never
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
261
did have, but if they had as they said, they
did not need the money.
Now, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Whicher: They will have another sur-
plus next Wednesday.
Mr. Nixon: What is the hon. member for
Riverdale's answer to that?
An hon. member: The hon. members of the
Opposition should not lose their tempers.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And now, Mr. Speaker,
may I talk for a few minutes about the
great subject of education. I am sorry that
the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Dunlop) is not in the House, but I assure
hon. members that any of the remarks I
have are not directed in any personal respect
against him, but instead—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: He is down in Ottawa
for that conference.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, and I am delighted
that he is, and we hope that he will partici-
pate in that programme to the advancement
of education in Ontario.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well Mr. Speaker, the
hon. leader of the Opposition did highlight
one important factor in respect to education,
and that is the fact that we must differentiate
in our responsibility toward this great prob-
lem as between finances and technical aspects.
I believe that the hon. member for York
South pointed out and highlighted the same
thing.
I think that for too long we have adopted
a cash-register attitude toward education. The
great reforms of education have not been
introduced in this House by the hon. Minis-
ter of Education, but instead have been
introduced by the hon. Provincial Treasurer.
For too long we have had a dollar sign in
front of the whole problem. We have been
perplexed by dollars, and we have failed to
get to the heart of the matter, failed to
understand the needs of the people of Ontario
with respect to education.
What are these needs? I will acknowledge
that there is a financial problem, and we
will have an opportunity to debate that on
the occasion of the budget. What I am
interested in right now is the technical
aspects. In that respect, I hope that hon.
members will all agree with me that we
have a crisis, but if they do not, then maybe
I can persuade them by reference to an
article which appeared on the editorial page
of the Toronto Globe and Mail a few days
ago. I will read it in part:
There is a crisis facing our educational
system. It is a crisis of numbers, in which
the immense increase in our child popula-
tion has forced the rapid building of many
new schools and the acquisition of many
new teachers. This problem is shortly go-
ing to hit the secondary schools and uni-
versities with a heavy impact.
There is also a crisis of quality and pur-
pose. Are we providing the right kind
of education and to what end? Can we
maintain the traditional values of our
society against the pressures of a civiliza-
tion alien in spirit? Are the standards of
teaching and the demands of excellence
high enough for a civilization growing
constantly more complex?
The values of education are reflected by
the respect people have for it, the amount
they are willing to pay for it, and the
use they make of it.
Now I underscore that article only in the
hope that I will persuade this House that
there is a crisis facing us in respect to the
people of Ontario education-wise. I hope that
hon. members will agree with me, and that
we can go forward from this point and cease
and desist the detestable attitude that has
prevailed thus far, where we try to explain
away the whole essential crisis in terms of
expansion in schools and teachers occupying
each schoolroom.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you and I
will acknowledge at the outset that, in respect
to what the hon. member for York South
said in regard to discipline, we have a
problem, in that respect, that may be beyond
our educational system.
I think maybe the answer is in what the
hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) said
a few days ago, in that very exemplary and
moving address wherein he referred to his
church and his family as the fibre of our
society. I think all in this group will agree
with him in that respect, agree that unless
we maintain those traditional standards, we
cannot hope for good discipline in the school.
We cannot hope for the type of educational
system that we all want.
But over and above all that, once a child
gets to school, what do we do with the child?
Do we discipline that child? Do we teach
that child the things that are required to
make of that child a real citizen of this
province? Do we give him the tools with
which to go forth as a scientist or as a mem-
262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ber of some other profession or in some other
capacity?
I do not think we do. I think our attitude
toward education is that of mass production.
We cater to the mediocre person.
What have we done about assisting those
persons of excellence? What have we done
about the superior student? What have we
done to encourage boys and girls to go on
to the professions? What have we done about
the teaching profession as such?
A few days ago I made a survey, and to my
amazement I found that, in attendance at the
Ontario Educational College at the present
time, there are approximately 150-160 people
taking specialist courses. These are boys and
girls who have completed university or are
now at Ontario Educational College prepar-
ing to teach high school.
One would expect those specialists to
include persons interested in the sciences, in
mathematics, in English, in history and the
like, but what do we find? In the year 1953-
1954, Mr. Speaker, there were 152 such
persons in the said college. Fifty, one-third of
them, were in the physical education depart-
ment.
Now, I ask the hon. members of this House,
are we more interested in producing football
players than scientists, or are we more in-
terested in telling people how to build their
bodies, than in telling them how to build
their minds?
In that same year, there was not one
specialist registered in the chemistry and
biology departments, not one in physics and
chemistry. Four were registered in science,
16 in English, and so on. In mathematics,
there was not one. That was in 1953-1954.
Lest hon. members think that was an un-
usual year, in 1954-1955 there were 165 such
persons, of which 55 were in the physical
education department. Three in that year
were in physics and chemistry, one in
chemistry and biology, one in English and
Latin.
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are we
going to do about this problem? I do not
think there is an hon. member in this House
who hates communism, as such, any more
than I do, but let us acknowledge it in realist
form.
Russia has done something about develop-
ing scientists, about developing its educational
system that has become the envy of the
world. And unless we are prepared to make
sacrifices, unless we are prepared to do some-
thing about this problem, we might as well
stop talking right now, because the intellect
is the greatest faculty that God has given
man. It can be developed only by ingenuity,
by training, by exercise and by assistance in
the educational system.
If we are not going to be interested in that,
and if we are going to become easy-going
and subjects of materialism, as such, taking
the easy way out and failing to exercise the
discipline that is required, we are going to
end up as a second-rate nation, and I do not
think there is an hon. member in this House
who wants that.
Now it might appear that I am talking
theory, but I am not. Facts and figures
demonstrate that, in our educational system,
we are not encouraging boys and girls to get
in there and do the job, for our young people,
that is required to be done. We need more
professional teachers, honour teachers as there
have been in the past, teachers who have
been respected because of their positions, who
have been trained to do a particular job. That
is required to be done at the present time.
Unless The Department of Education
acknowledges that in a realistic way, and
undertakes the job shortly, we will be in a
chaotic state in this particular province. I
do not suppose the day is too late, we still
have an opportunity, but for goodness sakes,
I say to the hon. members, let us wake up.
We cannot go on indefinitely in this manner
and hope in some miraculous fashion that we
are going to compete in international affairs
in any intelligible way.
This world is becoming more complex all
the time. I am not a great advocate of the
signs that say such, far better I think that we
train men who can think.
But we are not even doing that. We are
training physical educationists. That seems to
be our genius in life, that seems to be the
objective of the department.
Now, I am being blunt about it in a delib-
erate effort to be provocative, because, in this
respect, I do not intend to upset the depart-
ment as such. What I intend to do, and what
I hope to do, is to ask hon. members to join
with me in assisting the hon. Minister in
publicizing this whole thing. Dollars will not
do it but certainly he, by good public rela-
tions, can encourage young boys and girls to
get into the teaching profession, to accept it
as a privilege, finance them if need be, give
them what encouragement is required, but
for goodness sakes, let us do something.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the third point to which
I want to make reference, at this time, is a
matter of the administration of justice in this
province. Now in this respect fortunately, we
have the responsible officer, the senior hon.
member of the cabinet, with us.
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
263
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, in the
last number of years, there has been a decline
in tire appreciation of justice in this province.
It used to be that this portfolio, that of the
Attorney-General, was the senior portfolio as
I understand it, in the government. Now I
am not sure just where it is, but certainly it
is considered inferior, or below Treasury, in
matters relating to finances.
In the old days it was important because
we believed in certain things. We believed in
the administration of justice as such. We be-
lieved that every man should have his day in
court and could have it. We believed that
justice was something, divorced if you will,
from government to which every man had
access. We believed in a certain principle of
government.
I want to express myself clearly here, and
in this particular respect I am not trying to
be critical of the hon. Attorney-General or
the department, but it seems to me that in
years gone by, we had a keener appreciation
of what government was for— the purposes of
government. We had an appreciation of the
fact that the government was a servant, and
not the master, of the people.
I am afraid that now our attitude towards
government is that of a paternalistic form of
oligarchy. That is, instead of the people be-
ing masters of government they are subject
to it. The attitude of government to the
people is that of paternal favouritism, instead
of that of stressing the right whereby a man
can go to his government, and if his govern-
ment does not do right by him, go to a court
and say they have not done what they should
do. This is my complaint.
Now I want to point out one specific
criticism that I think can be levied at those
responsible for the administration of justice
in this department. May I say to the hon.
Attorney-General that this criticism stems
from a time previous to that when he assumed
the office.
It is my understanding that in 1952 or
thereabouts, an Act was passed called The
Proceedings Against the Crown Act. Now
that was considered a great step forward in
the administration of justice in this province.
That Act in 1952 has never been promulgated.
It has never become law as such.
Let me explain a little about the technical
aspects of this problem.
In Ontario today, if the hon. Provincial
Secretary is driving in a government car— and
I have no objection to that whatsoever— and if
that car becomes involved in an accident,
and suppose that it is due to an error in
judgment on the part of the driver of the
car and somebody is injured, or physical
harm is occasioned by virtue of that accident,
that person cannot sue this government or
take any legal redress against it without the
permission of the hon. Provincial Secretary
or the hon. Attorney-General.
Now I think that is a terrible situation
and that any man in Ontario should have
the right to pursue what claim he has against
this government.
Who does this government think it is, that
it should set itself above the people of the
province?
Hon. W. Nickle (Minister of Planning and
Development): Would my hon. friend permit
a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, my question to
the hon. member, who belongs to the same
legal profession that I do, is this:
I think he will agree that, if a car being
driven by one employed by the government
is involved in an accident and damages
ensue, although if he wishes to sue the Crown
as owner he may have to get permission, at
least he will agree with this, as a good
lawyer— he could at least sue the driver,
could he not?
Mr. W7intermeyer: Oh, certainly, one can
sue the poor driver or an employee of the
government, but he cannot sue the govern-
ment. Man alive!
Hon. Mr. Nickle: But the hon. member,
as a good lawyer, should have learned by
some expereince in the courts that one must
put all sides before the court.
Mr. Wintermeyer: All the sides! I ask, Mr.
Speaker, let us ask the hon. Minister: can a
complainant without a fiat— and for the edifi-
cation of those people who are not familiar
with all this legal talk, fiat means permis-
sion—that is, can he sue the government
without the permission of the government?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Certainly, he can cer-
tainly sue, but he may not succeed. But one
can sue the driver, the hon. member knows
that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Certainly it could be
done, but does the hon. Attorney-General
think that is good?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Certainly, I do.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, I am disappointed.
264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Roberts: And the hon. member
has done the same thing.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Speaker, I
think there is a more serious problem than
this particular illustration that I have given.
What does this really mean? It means that a
citizen cannot sue the government except
with the permission of the government.
Before I go on, let me assure all hon.
members that this is not the question in the
federal government. At the federal level, a
citizen can sue without anybody's permis-
sion, granted that one must use a certain
form of writ different from those normally
used, but nobody needs to approve of the
citizen's action, nobody has to give his con-
sent.
But here in Ontario, one cannot sue the
government without the government's con-
sent.
Now I suggest to hon. members that what
is really happening is this. It is permitting
certain inefficiencies to be hidden from view.
I am not complaining now of wrongdoings
as such, or graft, or any of that nonsense,
at all. I know of no instances where anybody
has neglected to give permission, or refused
to give permission, to sue because of some
political advantage that he might gain. That
is not what I am interested in.
But I am interested in persuading the
people of Ontario that they are entitled to a
fair deal if they have a complaint against
the government.
What does a man, who is dealing with The
Department of Highways have to say when
he goes to the department complaining about
an interpretation of a contract? He has en-
tered into a contract to do work for the
department for hundreds of thousands, and
maybe a million dollars, and he goes to that
department and says: "I interpret this con-
tract differently than you do."
And what does the department say? "Well,
we interpret it in our way, you interpret it
in your way."
The normal thing, the natural thing for
that man to do is to say: "Let us refer it to
a judge, let us take this to court and have
it settled by an independent person." But the
department official will naively remind that
man that he cannot pursue his right unless
he has the permission of the department offi-
cials—unless he is given permission by this
government.
I say that is an intolerable situation, and
one that is bound to lead, eventually, to bad
administration. It is bound to hide inefficien-
cies in departments.
Let people who have a right, who think
they have a right, pursue those rights in
courts. We will have far better administra-
tion as a result. If there are certain wrongs
in contracts, they will be clarified in that
manner.
If a certain man or a certain official of this
government has done or said something to
a citizen of this province, whereby he thinks
he has been wronged in tort, why should
he not have the right to sue the government?
Certainly he should.
The position of the government is abso-
lutely indefensible, and I do not think it
should be tolerated any longer. We have
an Act on the books, an Act which was passed
—as I say, to the best of my knowledge— in
the year 1952 or thereabouts, and it has
never been enforced in law. Why, a person
cannot even sue Hydro at the present time,
and hon. members know and I know—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member knows
how that one got on the—
Mr. Wintermeyer: All right, we know that.
But the fact of the matter is that a citizen
cannot sue without permission, and I would
remind the hon. Attorney-General that in
New York state right now, there are liter-
ally $30 million worth of claims in the courts
with respect to the seaway contracts.
Now, let us not think that New York state
is going to lose $30 million, but it is demon-
strative of what interest people have in the
determination of their rights outside of the
Parliaments of the respective jurisdictions. In
New York state today, they are judicating on
these problems with respect to the seaway,
and we, the people of Ontario, are denied this
right. Why should we be denied the right,
and how long should we continue to be so?
I know the answer, and, Mr. Speaker, if you
think, you too will know the answer.
The answer is simply this, that the gov-
ernment can, very conveniently, persuade
people to effect settlements that they would
never be able to persuade them to accept;
this government can hide inefficiencies of
people and departments that they could never
hide if these citizens had the free, God-
given right to pursue their rights in court,
as we in the Dominion of Canada and under
British justice have always presumed they
had those rights.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the third thing that I
want to refer to in respect to the adminis-
tration of justice is something that has come
up in this House on several occasions. Par-
ticularly, I refer to the matter of appeals
from administrative boards.
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
265
I brought this up on two or three occa-
sions and, in charity, I would say that the
hon. Attorney-General disagreed with me.
I think that we must recognize today that
much of the administration of government
is done by boards and commissions, and I
suppose it cannot be otherwise.
But these men are performing semi-judicial
functions. They are judicating on the rights
of individuals. When a person goes to the
liquor licence board and says: "I would like
a licence to operate a hotel at such and such
a place," the chairman of that board can say
whether or not he has the right.
Now I make this emphatically clear, Mr.
Speaker, I have the highest respect for the
hon. chairman of the liquor licence board
(Mr. Collings), personally, and I do not
think that he would ever do anything
deliberately dishonest as far as he is per-
sonally concerned.
But let us remember this. He is, like hon.
members and myself, an ordinary man
and he is going to make mistakes, and his
mistakes cannot be appealed to any court of
this land.
Certainly they should be. Why should they
not?
Likewise, with respect to all the other
boards.
Let me repeat what I said, I am not
interested in personally criticizing those in
charge of the boards and their particular
administration, but I am criticizing the refusal
of this government to acknowledge the basic
rights of people to pursue their legitimate
complaints in an impartial tribunal outside
the government.
Now, for an example, why should we have
to sue before the municipal board, while sub-
jects sue in the courts? All these things that
I am trying to say boil down to the simple
proposition that we in Ontario have not
exercised imagination. We have not kept
abreast with the development of our complex
governmental system, in assuring that the
little people of Ontario have and maintain
their rights, and that they have the right
to pursue, in an impartial tribunal, those tradi-
tional rights that they have in other jurisdic-
tions and for which we have been and said
we were so proud.
Our acts belie our statements. Where is
the imagination, where is the confidence
that this government wants to give to the
people of Ontario? If it wants to make them
more confident, if it wants to acknowledge
them as its masters, and not as its servants,
then I say give these little people the oppor-
tunity to dispute decisions in an impartial
forum.
Mr. Speaker, the next subject to which
I want to make some brief reference is the
matter of the unfortunate traffic-accident loss
that is occasioned on our highways.
Now, we will all acknowledge that as we
grow and our population grows, and our
highways are populated by more and more
cars, there is bound to be more accidents.
I made an investigation recently in the
state of Connecticut, and took the opportunity
to call on those people responsible for the
administration of their highway traffic safety
project. I was told the essence of that
very successful project. I do not think I have
to tell this House that the state of Connecti-
cut has an enviable record on all this conti-
nent in safety traffic regulations.
The essence of their whole programme is
this:
They contend, firstly, that speeding is the
basic cause of most accidents.
Secondly, they contend that usually a
driver cannot be dissuaded from speeding by
telling him that his life is in jeopardy, but
he can be prevented from speeding, stopped
from speeding, by telling him that if he is
caught speeding, his licence will be sus-
pended—an unusual thing, but a human and
realistic thing.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this govern-
ment has not faced up to the realistic fact
that the only way to stop the terrific toll of
accidents in this province is to impose an
absolutely iron-clad regulation with respect
to the suspension of licences for speeding
violations.
The sooner we determine that that is the
way we are going to stop the terrifically in-
creasing toll in our accidents and deaths on
highways— the sooner we acknowledge this
realistic fact— the better it will be for all of
us, and the sooner we will start reducing the
total number of fatalities.
If a man is caught speeding, suspend his
licence for 30 or 60 days. In Connecticut it
is 30 days for the first infraction. Forget all
about fines. That will riot do the job. Then,
when he is caught a second time, suspend his
licence for a longer period of time, and if
he persists in this, suspend his licence indefin-
itely.
We must get tough about this, and there
is only one thing to do and that is to try to
persuade the hon. Attorney-General to take
some courage, and to stand up and determine
that he will do the right thing for the people
of Ontario.
266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They are ready to accept this type of
legislation, they are desirous of accepting it,
but we have to have somebody who will take
the responsibility, the inconveniences and
the criticisms that will be levied at the outset.
But the great governor in Connecticut like-
wise took those criticisms for a few months,
and thereafter he was the subject of great
praise from all people in that particular state,
where now the actual death rate is declining
each year instead of mounting as it is here.
It is going down and down in Connecticut.
The numbers of cars are, I believe, just as
great or maybe greater than here, and yet
their death rate has declined from something
like 350 to 250 per year.
If we are really sincere about this, I suggest
that is a realistic answer to our programme,
and we should be thinking about it and doing
something about it.
Mr. Speaker, necessarily I must get on to
give others an opportunity to take part in
this debate. There is only one other subject
I really want to make some reference to
today. I will have the opportunity, on the
budget, to speak of other things that might
legitimately be discussed now.
This subject I am going to discuss relates
basically to the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development. We have heard much discus-
sion in this debate thus far about unemploy-
ment. I ask him why his department does not
do something about the low-cost housing
situation? Why does he not try, ingeniously
and imaginatively, to promote housing
schemes?
I would suggest for his consideration some-
thing of this sort. I would suppose that, if
he were prepared to commit the government
of Ontario to guarantee all monies deposited
in a co-operative bank— or say the provincial
bank of the province— at a reasonable rate
of interest, in the knowledge that those monies
would be used for mortgage purposes, he
would get the support of many depositors in
this province without cost to the government,
and would make available, to the people of
this province, funds in unlimited source.
I acknowledge that, at the present time,
many of our private financial institutions are
not investing in mortgages. They are not do-
ing it, for the simple reason that the interest
rates on bonds and other securities are prefer-
able, or higher if you will, or just as high
as mortgage rates.
Now, I think the one way to get money
back into the mortgage department, or the
mortgage field, is to persuade the ordinary
people of this province to invest their savings
in a bank wherein the deposits are used for
that purpose, providing they are guaranteed
by the government.
If the hon. Prime Minister were here, I
am sure he would jump to his feet and say:
"Why, you foolish fellow! Do you not recall
what the late Mr. Hepburn said in that
respect? He referred to such money as 'hot
money'."
He certainly did, but the fact of the matter
is that all our financial institutions are issuing
what are called "guaranteed investment re-
ceipts." That is, it is true that this money
could be withdrawn very quickly from deposit,
and would not be available when needed
for mortgages, but the hon. Minister could
make a contract with the depositor, the same
as every trust company and every financial
institution in this province does, whereby he
is required to leave it in there for a specific
period of time whether it be 1 month, 6
months, or 1.5, 3 or 5 years.
That type of undertaking by the govern-
ment would cost this government, I venture
to say, by way of loss and makeup of bad
mortgages, less than .8 per cent, of the total
investment, because that is about the regular
rate of loss on mortgages.
It would cost, in terms of dollars, next to
nothing. An ingenious method, the type of—
what did the honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor (Mr. Mackay) say? He said that we
should be looking to the future with great
confidence and— I am sorry, I forget his exact
words— but he said that we should be devis-
ing ingenious methods to handle and solve
the problems of the day.
Here is one that would not cost anything to
speak of, and it would give the housing
development in this province a great impetus
at this particular time, particularly at a time
when we are talking about unemployment.
I venture to say that such a programme
would meet the needs of the unemployment
situation and the unemployed people of this
province just as effectively— and I dare say
far more effectively — than the suggestion
which was made a few days ago by the
government, much as we might approve of
that suggestion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the interest rates on
this would not have to be very high. People
investing in banks by way of deposit at the
present time, the little people of the province
investing their savings of $1,000 or $2,000,
are getting next to nothing interest- wise. The
hon. Minister knows it. What is it, 3 per
cent.? Suppose we offered them 4 per cent.
We would attract their attention, and it is
common knowledge that a good administrator
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
267
can invest such money at an additional 1
per cent, or 2 per cent.
In other words, the mortgages could be
invested at 5 per cent, or 6 per cent., which
is lower than the prevailing rate, and still
pay the investor more than he would get at
a regular commercial bank.
I suggest this, because I think that it is
the type of thing that we are required to do
at this time. Too long we have thought in
terms of dollars only. What is it going to
cost us? How are we going to assist?
Here is one way in which this government
can take the people of the province into its
confidence, and co-operatively work together
for a solution of a problem that we will all
acknowledge is serious. We in Ontario today,
all of us, want good housing facilities for all
the people of Ontario, particularly for those
persons on low incomes.
As I said, it will be my opportunity to
speak again on the budget, and I hesitate to
take more time than I have already taken to
discuss some of the issues that have been put
in focus by the debate thus far.
I simply conclude by saying that it is my
pleasure to be permitted to join in this
debate. I have tried to be provocative to a
point, and I hope that I have made some
slight contribution to the development of
the debate thus far.
Mr. J. A. McCue (Lanark): Mr. Speaker,
in rising for the first time as a new member,
1 should like first to add my appreciation
of the dignity and fairness with which the
Speaker conducts the affairs of this House.
This is particularly apparent to me be-
cause I entered the Legislature of this great
province of Ontario with the viewpoint of
a newcomer.
I wish also to advance my congratulations
to the hon. member for Middlesex South
(Mr. Allen) on his appointment as deputy
Speaker, a position which he has filled with
grace and distinction even in the short time
which has elapsed in this session.
I desire further, as a new member, to
extend my appreciation to hon. members of
all sides of this House for the kindness and
friendship which has been extended to me
on my entry into the Legislature.
This has been apparent from the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost), the hon. mem-
bers of the cabinet, the seasoned hon.
veterans of many a doughty battle in this
House, both of my own party as well as of
the Opposition parties, and from the other
hon. members who, like myself, are entering
into this political scene for the first time.
I would like to direct my first remarks,
Mr. Speaker, toward the subject closest to my
heart, the county of Lanark and the people in
it who chose to extend me the honour of
being their representative in this Legislature.
It is my desire to tell this Legislature some
of the interesting facts about this great riding,
and to speak on behalf of the needs and
aspirations of the people of Lanark.
Lanark is indeed a historic riding. Settle-
ments on a small scale commenced near the
end of the eighteenth century. The era
following the Napoleonic war saw the first
great influx of settlers into Lanark county.
These people were of sturdy Scottish, Irish,
and English stock and to this day their
descendants form over 90 per cent, of the
racial distribution in the riding.
Particularly since World War II, however,
we have seen fit to welcome into the riding
many new Canadians of European origin.
These people have been received in the true
spirit of democracy which exists today in
Canada, and have become good friends and
neighbours.
Yet, many fascinating links with mainly the
Scottish and Irish origin of so many of the
people remain, and in many parts of the
county there are people who speak with the
soft Scottish burr of their ancestors, and a
bit of the Irish brogue and sayings may still
be detected. On occasion, there is an inherent
lob of the Scottish and Irish reels of their
ancestors to be noted at rural dances.
From the labours and efforts of the pioneers
evolved our major towns— Smiths Falls, Perth,
Carleton Place and Almonte— a number of
villages of which Lanark is the largest, and
12 townships.
Smiths Falls, which is my home, is a town
of 9,000 people. It is situated on the Rideau
river near the entrance to the beautiful chain
of Rideau lakes. It has long been a most
important divisional point of the Canadian
Pacific Railway and was, for over a century,
a producer of farm implements.
Ideally situated between the centres of
Toronto and Montreal, on both the Canadian
Pacific Railway and Canadian National Rail-
ways, it has attracted in the past few years
a number of new industries of diversified
types.
Smiths Falls is well endowed with new
schools and hospitals, and due to the great
programme undertaken by this progressive
government, was the site chosen for the
location of the Ontario hospital school, an
institution containing 1,900 patients with a
staff of 850 people employed.
268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Perth, located 12 miles away, is the county
seat for Lanark. A town rich in tradition,
history and architecture of the district, it is
a beautiful and fascinating place well en-
dowed with schools and hospitals.
The progressive attitude of its people was
demonstrated a short time ago by the build-
ing of an airfield. Industrially, it is the seat
of textiles, pharmaceuticals, shoes and other
diversified types of industry. It has the facili-
ties and ambition to become much further
industrialized.
The town of Carleton Place was at one
time, in the history of the community, a
booming place due to the lumber trade. For
many years its main industries have been
textiles and the production of stoves and
furnaces.
Like other areas in my county, Carleton
Place has suffered due to the general slump
in the textile industry, and I feel it is one
of the places which requires increased indus-
trialization. It is a farm town situated only
35 miles from Ottawa, and already is begin-
ning to attract home owners from the capital
who commute from Carleton Place to their
work in Ottawa.
Almonte, located a short distance from
Carleton Place, while having some diversi-
fication of industry, has felt the impact of
the slump in textiles. It is a picturesque
town, possessing I believe on its river the
only set of illuminated falls at night apart
from Niagara. Nearly 200 residents of
Ottawa have settled in Almonte over the past
several years, and commute from their homes
to the capital daily. Almonte is another town
which is anxious for increased industrializa-
tion.
What are the needs for Lanark for which
I speak? They are these, and I relate them
with full appreciation for the many great
advancements extended to the county of
Lanark by this great government of Ontario
in the past. But I relate them because we in
Lanark are an ambitious people looking for-
ward to further development for our county
in the future.
In the rural areas there are many needs,
but perhaps the two greatest are the further
development of roads and hydro.
The change which has taken place in our
road system since this government assumed
power in 1943 has been very great and for
this assistance we are extremely grateful.
However, Lanark is a big county, and we
have great need for even further develop-
ment of our roads so that transportation in
our rural areas may be always further bet-
tered.
Due to the forward and advanced policies
of our Ontario Hydro Electric Commission,
hydro will now become available in the less
densely populated areas. Our ultimate aim in
Lanark county is to see no more lamps in the
kitchens nor lanterns in the barns.
In the urban centres and villages, our
ambition is increased industrialization. With
the vast St. Lawrence seaway nearing com-
pletion, and the great increase of electrical
power therefrom, it should result in eastern
Ontario becoming the golden triangle of
Ontario, as it has indeed already been termed.
The towns of Lanark county are therefore
ambitious and anxious to acquire all the new
industry possible as this great eastern part
of the province develops. They have the
sites and facilities to deal confidently with
new industry as it locates in eastern Ontario.
This feeling, I am sure, is shared mutually
by the good hon. members representing rid-
ings in eastern Ontario, as this state of affairs
applies to their ridings in this part of the
province.
In conclusion, I may say that it is our
hope and our aim, as hon. members from the
east, to do all in our power to make eastern
Ontario a great industrial part of this great
province.
Mr. G. F. Lavergne (Russell): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in this debate, it is
indeed a privilege, a pleasure and an honour
to add my words of tribute to those of my
fellow hon. members of the House who have
preceded me in saying to you that we really
appreciate and respect the manner in which
you conduct the business of this House.
I would say this, that you have set such a
standard that, in the future if any other
Speaker lives up to it, he will be in a very
high category indeed.
To the deputy speaker (Mr. Allen) I
say this, that the choice of this House could
not have been a better one, one that was
accepted by all the hon. members of this
House and to him we extend our congratu-
lations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend to the
hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy), the
mover of the adoption of the speech from
the Throne, and my good friend the hon.
member for Glengarry (Mr. Guindon), who
seconded the motion, my deepest congratula-
tions and say that they did a magnificent job.
Mr. Speaker, it is my fondest hope and
greatest desire that, regarding some of the
wisdom and some of that know-how that is
so prevalent in that honoured member for
Peel, if in any way some of it could brush
off onto me through my association with him,
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
269
I indeed would appreciate it, and I would
say that it would make me a better hon.
member indeed.
I have listened and paid attention with
great interest to the wild rantings of the
Opposition-
Mr. MacDonald: Obviously the hon. mem-
ber is going to add to that.
Mr. Lavergne: —and I would like to draw
this to their attention. They say that this
government is not doing what is right for
the people of Ontario. I would like to draw
to their attention— although I should not
have to, they are mindful of it, although
they do not like to speak about it, in fact
they hope to forget about it and it is this—
that in the last year we had no less than 4
by-elections in this great province and the
proof is there, Mr. Speaker. I say the wild
rantings of this Opposition fall on deaf
ears in the province of Ontario, because each
and every hon. member who was returned,
and returned with substantial majorities, were
members of the Progressive-Conservative
party.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Some of them
were close.
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw something to the attention of the
government, to the hon. Prime Minister and
to every hon. cabinet Minister in this govern-
ment, and it is this, that we in eastern
Ontario— and when I say eastern Ontario I
forget some of the ridings, but I would start
from Kingston, and include Renfrew, Fron-
tenac, Lanark, Leeds, Carleton, Grenville,
Dundas, Russell— I will even include Stor-
mont in that—
Mr. Manley: Good for the hon. member.
Mr. Lavergne: —Stormont, Prescott and
Glengarry, and I will say to you, Mr. Speaker,
and through you to the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. members of this cabinet, that
eastern Ontario has the utmost of confidence
in this government, that eastern Ontario has
been a loyal friend to this government and
to the hon. Prime Minister. Now that we
are gaining recognition in our area, I ask
the government not to let us down. I ask
them to continue the work that they have
started in eastern Ontario, and we the people
of eastern Ontario will show our recognition
by returning each and every time, to this
House, members of this Progressive-Conserva-
tive party.
In making reference to Stormont, may I
point out that the hon. member for that
riding sits here not because of the policies of
the Liberal party, but because of his own
personal, pleasable personality.
Mr. Manley: The hon. member is very
kind.
Mr. Nixon: That is a pretty good reason, I
would say.
Mr. Manley: The hon. member for Russell
is here only because he got in behind the
hon. Prime Minister's—
Mr. Lavergne: My hon. friend, I will say
this, that as long as we have an hon. Prime
Minister such as we have, his is a star to which
the hon. member over there and anybody
else should hitch his wagon.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is certainly the only
way the hon. member for Russell would ever
get in.
Mr. Lavergne: Well, that may be true, to
that I may bow, but I will say this, that as
long as this government continues to—
Mr. Wren: Give away bridges and roads.
Mr. Lavergne: —continues to enact legis-
lation in human betterment for the people
of Ontario, then we will continue to have a
Progressive-Conservative government.
I will also say that it is going to be a long,
long time before the fortunes of the Liberal
party will increase in any way in this prov-
ince, and as for the hon. member for York
South I would say this, that the little star
that he came in on is waning, and I will
agree with other hon. members who have
said that his will be a short stay in this
House, and his will definitely be a short stay
in this House.
An hon. member: Where will he go?
Mr. MacDonald: Back to teaching, they
tell me.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): May I ask the
hon member a question?
Mr. Lavergne: Oh, by all means, what is
that? I do not know how I am going to
answer it.,
Mr. Nixon: Should the time come when
the Liberal party is more popular, will the
hon. member be supporting them again?
Mr. Lavergne: Would the hon. member
for Brant repeat that?
Mr. MacDonald: He heard the first time.
270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, frankly I did
not hear the question, and I would ask the
lion, member to repeat it.
Mr. MacDonald: He would be more
embarrassed if he did hear it.
Mr. Nixon: I asked the hon. member, and
I think he heard me, should the time come
when the Liberal party is more popular with
the electorate, would he be supporting them
again?
Mr. Lavergne: I would say there is no
better time than now to set the record
straight and it is this, that I have oftentimes
said that I personally came from a long line
of Liberals, I never at any time said that I
myself supported the Liberal government.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, but the hon. mem-
ber did.
Mr. Lavergne: Oh, the hon. member
would be so surprised that from my time—
I am not too old, as hon. members know,
although I may look it— from my time the
type of government that the Liberals were
giving to this country and to this province
was such that no sane person would have
supported them.
Mr. MacDonald: He just wanted the pot-
holes in the main street of Eastview filled
after years of waiting, so he switched to the
government and got them filled.
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, I will agree
with the hon. member on that. While the
Liberals were in power in the province
of Ontario, and while they were in power
in Ottawa— that great Liberal family that
was to do so much for the people of this
country— while that was going on, I will
agree with the hon. member for York South
that the main street in Eastview, which is
part of the Trans-Canada Highway today,
was nothing but potholes. I will agree with
him.
I will say, like him, that it was only when
the Progressive - Conservatives came into
power that they did fix, not only the Mon-
treal road which is part of ours, but fixed all
the highways in the province of Ontario,
fixed the roads that this Liberal government
had taken over— hundreds of miles— that was
one of the provincial Liberal promises, they
took over hundreds of miles of county roads
and said: "We will take that away from the
counties."
That was wonderful, my hon. friends, they
took it away from the counties, and what did
they do with them? Nothing. One could drive
better along the ploughed fields than he
could along the county roads, or supposedly
county roads, that the Liberals had taken
over, and it is only since this government
has come into power that each and every
year they have increased their assistance and
are completing these roads taken over under
the system by that "great" Liberal party.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, his—
Mr. Lavergne: I wish the hon. member
would speak a little louder, I find him inter-
esting.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: He is probably down one
of those potholes.
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, before going
on further in that which I have to say, I
would like to draw the attention of the House
to one point, I believe it was mentioned last
year by the hon. Minister of Public Welfare
(Mr. Cecile) who pointed out that last year,
for the first time I believe in the history of
this House, and again this year, the one and
only daily French newspaper was represented
in this House. I would say that is a wonderful
innovation. I am sure that every hon. member
appreciates that. While on the subject, I
would say that, regardless of our radio pro-
grammes, regardless of our television pro-
grammes, that which reaches the greatest
number of homes today, and has in the past,
is our daily newspaper. And I think we owe
much to them, whether they agree or disagree
with that which we may have to say, but at
least they bring it in proper form to the people
of this great country.
In speaking on this matter of newspapers,
Mr. Speaker, and listening to the hon. member
for Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer) in
speaking on the matter of education, and I
am not going to get into any controversy over
it, but I would like to say that I was inter-
ested in the thinking of the French-Canadian
people in the province of Ontario through
their paper, he Droit, and this is what they
had to say, that in the matter of education
in the province of Ontario and of the loans
as pointed out by the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Dunlop), he Droit, which has never
been accused of being a Conservative paper
—it has often been accused of being a Liberal
paper— that it has this to say, that if every
province in the Dominion of Canada were to
follow the example set by the hon. Minister
of Education and this provincial government
in Ontario, our fears would be allayed in the
matter of education and for higher education,
and they pressed it strongly upon the other
provinces to follow that which our govern-
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
271
ment has seen fit to do just a few short days
ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I sat here and listened
—I always listen to the hon. member for
Waterloo North— I find there are many points
on which I may agree, and many on which
I disagree. But I say this to the hon. member
that when he spoke about this nation, saying
this country could become a second-class
nation— I believe that was the term he used, I
may be wrong, but that is what I caught—
that he need have no fear, and I need have
no fear, that as long as we have Canadian
citizens with the heart and courage that we
have today, we need have no fear of this
great Dominion of ours ever becoming ^a
second-class nation.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Will the hon. member
permit a question? Is he at all concerned
about the figures that I related in regard to
attendances at the Ontario College of Educa-
tion at the present time?
Mr. Lavergne: I would say that I am greatly
concerned.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well then, if the hon.
member is greatly concerned-
Mr. Lavergne: But I say this to the hon.
member, that when the need arises, and I
will agree that the need has arisen, and I am
sure the hon. member will agree with me,
unless he is tied to the apron strings of the
Liberal policies— that the forward step taken
by this government is a firm and a giant step
in the right direction.
I am sure the hon. member will also agree
with me that, as long as we have this type
of citizen that we have in Canada, we will
never under any circumstances become a
second-class nation. I am sure the hon.
member will agree with me.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Certainly, I will agree
with the hon. member.
Mr. Lavergne: Well, that is all I wanted
to put over, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Wintermeyer: My question is simply
this: Who advocated these loans in the first
place?
Mr. Lavergne: Who did?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, who did?
Several hon. members: The CCF! The CCF!
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Lavergne: I will say this to the hon.
member for Waterloo North, and I think he
knows it, that this government is not a self-
centred government. It is a government that
will take the opinions of all people, and then
formulate a policy that is best for this country
or this province.
I am sure that as long as I have been sitting
in— well, as the hon. member says, the back-
benches—I am proud to be a back-bencher in
this government. I would rather be a back-
bencher on the Progressive-Conservative side
of the House, than to be right up in the
exalted place that the hon. member for York
South holds in the front benches, especially
with the CCF.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There are no back-benchers
in this chamber. They are all front-benchers.
Mr. Lavergne: I am sorry the hon. mem-
ber for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) is not in his
seat, because he is a very close friend of mine.
The only thing we differ on is that the
policies that he embraces differ from those
I embrace. But I would say to the hon.
member that I am disappointed in him,
because he rises on many an occasion and
says that he was mayor of Wiarton which is,
I believe, a wonderful municipality, and I can
assure hon. members that with people such
as my friend coming from there it must be a
wonderful place. He criticized the govern-
ment for the amount of money that the hon.
Prime Minister made a statement about last
Friday for municipal aid and aid for the un-
employed. He goes around in a roundabout
way and says that the government is only
paying so much.
Well, let us get down to facts and figures.
The government is paying 70 per cent, of
all the additional labour, and I see the hon.
member for Waterloo North looks, and I am
sure he will agree, that 70 per cent, is 70
cents on every dollar, is that right? Of all
the money that is going to be expended to
help the people in this unemployed category,
this government is paying that 70 per cent.,
and I will say this, and the hon. member
who lays claim to knowing so much about
municipal matters, he will agree with me that
it is very seldom that there is not some work
that will have been set aside, or something
that will not have been proceeded with,
because of the amount of money involved
for the labour.
Mr. Oliver: Completing a bridge in winter.
Mr. Lavergne: I am sure that he will also
agree with me that labour today is the big
cost factor in any project. I believe he will
agree with that.
272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Filling pot holes. Un-
skilled labour.
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, I see they all
agree with me that labour is paramount in
the cost of anything that is going on today,
and I am sure they will also agree that it was
a great step towards helping the employment
situation in this province.
Mr. MacDonald: Not very enthusiastic-
Mr. Oliver: Let us say it was a step and let
it go at that.
Mr. Lavergne: Well, the hon. leader of the
Opposition will agree it is a forward step, and
that if the situation was reversed, and if
those hon. members were sitting on this side
instead of this government, that the step they
would have taken would have been a back-
ward one.
Hon. Mr. Frost: They have been going back
for years.
Mr. Manley: Would the hon. member per-
mit a question at this time?
Mr. Lavergne: Certainly, I could listen to
the hon. member all day.
Mr. Manley: The question is this: Is the
municipality of Eastview going to avail them-
selves of the opportunity of getting into this
forward step?
Mr. Lavergne: I say to the hon. member
that the municipality is not going to, it has.
Mr. MacDonald: That is another first.
Mr. Lavergne: There are nothing but firsts
in this government, the hon. member must
admit it.
Mr. Speaker, I, like the hon. member for
Waterloo North, will say that I do hope to
have the opportunity of preparing something
for the budget debate, and if I would be per-
mitted—and Mr. Speaker, I will accept your
ruling, I may be out of order, and should I
be out of order I will accept that ruling— but
I would like to draw to the attention of this
House a few things that we see, that we hear,
and that we even listen to from across the
House.
I have listened to the hon. member for
York South, when he has accused this govern-
ment of being "in cahoots," I believe that
is the word he has used, he has accused this
government of crawling into bed with the
Liberals—
Mr. MacDonald: What bed did the hon.
member crawl into?
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak
for the government, but I definitely can speak
for myself, and in this instance I am going
to.
To the hon. member for York South, I
would say that if at any time he ever accuses
me of crawling into bed with the Liberals
I will say that I would rather be in bed
with the Liberals any time than even close
to the bedside of the CCF party.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition will agree to this,
that a great Liberal once said that the
CCF'ers were Liberals in a hurry.
Mr. MacDonald: I think they are Tories in
a hurry.
Mr. Lavergne: I think the hon. member
for York South will agree to that, though,
he is in very agreeable nature today, he will
agree with that. And let me say to every
hon. member in this House, that if ever this
country needed— and I am speaking of the
country— that if ever this Dominion of Canada
needed a Progressive-Conservative party, it
needs it now.
I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that that which
the CCF and the Liberals have in common
is this, they endeavour to centralize every-
thing, they believe in this, they believe that
it should be just one government, one party,
everything centralized—
Mr. MacDonald: Oh Maurice, Oh Maurice-
Mr. Lavergne: Let me say to my hon.
friend that this is a very wonderful name
he has spoken. If he is making reference to
the hon. Prime Minister of Quebec, then I
would say that he has raised a very worthy
name in this House.
Mr. Macaulay: Particularly among CCF
hon. members.
Mr. Lavergne: Over in Quebec they do not
call them CCF. They are ashamed of that
name the CCF, they are ashamed of it. They
call it-
An hon. member: I hope he will use parlia-
mentary language.
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, I would sound
this as a warning, now let it be construed as
it may, let it be used as it may, but I will
say this to every hon. member of this House,
that if at any time they had any compassion
or any thought about this great Dominion
of ours, I would say to each and every one
of them, "get out and support your Progres-
sive-Conservative candidate in the next elec-
tion."
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
273
I would say that for this reason, Mr.
Speaker, that we have seen in the past, not
too long ago, some 22 years of domination
by a party that was drunk with power, sit-
ting up in an ivory tower in Ottawa; that
forgot about the needs and wants of the
people of this country; that endeavoured to
have control of this great country and to
make it a one-party system— no opposition
but just one party.
I would say this to you, Mr. Speaker, if they
or the CCF ever come to power, then you
will live to rue the day and you and your
children, and your children's children will
live to rue that day, that I will live to rue
that day, and my children's children, because
if that happens, in this land, this great world
of ours, there will be two countries with only
one government and that will be Russia and
Canada.
Mr. MacDonald: Just imagine that.
Mr. Lavergne: Imagine, I would say to my
hon. friend. He has a great imagination. I
hope that the day never comes when that will
happen in this great country of ours. I know
that the people of Canada are far too intelli-
gent for that. As they are in the province of
Ontario, so they are throughout this great land
of ours.
I would say this, that at the present time
the people of this land know that the only
salvation for this great country is in the
return of hon. John Diefenbaker and the
Progressive-Conservative government.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The French Canadians
did not like him to begin with.
Mr. Lavergne: I would say this to my hon.
friend from Waterloo North (Mr. Winter-
meyer), that the French Canadians of this
country are great admirers of hon. John
Diefenbaker. I speak as a French Canadian,
and I know the thoughts of my compatriots.
I will say this to my hon. friend, that the
good people of the province of Quebec will
return at least 25 to 30 members with the
next Diefenbaker government.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is the minimum.
Mr. Lavergne: That is the minimum, of
course.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. MacDonald: They are hard up for
something to clap about.
Mr. Lavergne: Mr. Speaker, for the in-
formation of the hon. member for York South,
I will say this, that I come from a great riding
where the two basic tongues are spoken,
where we have many other races. My riding
is a place from where this great country of
ours could tear a page of history. In that
great county the French and the English
work side by side. They live side by side,
they work side by side, and they think side
by side, and the proof of that is this, Mr.
Speaker, that those two great basic races in
our riding always think intelligently and in
doing so they know they have no alternative
but to support the government that will do
the most for them.
They have supported the hon. Prime
Minister and his Progressive-Conservative
government. They have joined together in
that support, and I would say, in going back
to and making reference to my hon. friend
from Waterloo North, I say to him, he is a
great Canadian and I will say this to my hon.
friend, that if he is fearful of this nation
ever becoming a second-class nation, let
him stand up and be counted, and support
hon. John Diefenbaker. Then he will not
have to worry about it.
An hon. member: At such a price-
Mr. Lavergne: That, let me say to my hon.
friend, will be not a price but a privilege,
and I am sure that we in the Progressive-
Conservative party will welcome all hon.
members of the Opposition if they get
out and speak, and work, for this great
country. Let us set aside party politics to
get out and support the one truly great
Canadian, hon. John Diefenbaker.
Mr. Nixon: Lester Pearson is a greater one.
Mr. Morrow: Who is he? We have never
heard of him.
Mr. Lavergne: Well, I would not want to
make any disparaging remarks about hon.
Mr. Pearson. He is a great Canadian, but I
will say this to him, and I will say this to
my hon. friends over there, I respect each
and every one of them. If they come into
this House with great ideals—
An hon. member: Let us not overdo it.
Mr. Lavergne: —here is the difference
between these two parties, the Progressive-
Conservative and the Liberals— hon. Liberal
members must pledge their allegiance to the
Liberal party, they have to sit down and be
dictated to, they have to get out and speak
about what the Liberals have to say, and
that is where hon. Mr. Pearson is today.
Although he himself is a great Canadian, we
274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
saw that in the House of Commons he passed
that motion, one that was pathetic in all its
sense-
Mr. Nixon: He never passed it.
Mr. Lavergne: At least he tried. I am
sorry, I was corrected. As my hon. friend
said, it passed the conference and that is as
far as it got, but I would say this, that even
the most naive could not accept that. The
hon. Liberal members today are in poor
straits, because the Liberals are falling away
and are becoming, I would say—
An hon. member: They have seen the light.
Mr. Lavergne: They have seen the light.
That would be the best thing, and in seeing
the light, they have turned over to support
the Progressive-Conservative party.
Mr. MacDonald: Does the hon. member
know what they did in Port Arthur?
Mr. Lavergne: Would the hon. member
please repeat that? Mr. Speaker, I would like
to hear this because I find it interesting, if
he would only speak a little louder.
Mr. MacDonald: He heard me the first
time.
Mr. Lavergne: No I missed that and I
really enjoy it.
An hon. member: It did not sound any
better the first time.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
Russell has only 15 minutes to fill. Let
him go ahead.
Mr. Lavergne: To my hon. friend, about
filling 15 minutes, I would say this, that if
anybody took up the time of this House in
every shape and form of such nonsensical
tripe— I may be wrong, I do not know if I
should say that, whether it is parliamentary
or not— but I would say that my hon. friend
from York South is a master at it. He is the
champion of champions.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not think that a
back-bencher should malign his own hon.
Prime Minister, because he was awfully
bothered with a lot of this nonsensical tripe.
Mr. Lavergne: I would say this to my
hon friend, that every time the hon. Prime
Minister gets up, the hon. member for York
South is learning something, but every time
the hon. member gets up, he says nothing
but nonsense. That is ths difference.
Mr. MacDonald: Fifteen more minutes of
verbal garbage. Go ahead.
Mr. Lavergne: The hon. member will tell
it if I do not.
Mr. Grossman: Why, one-third of the
CCF party here is in the back benches.
Mr. Lavergne: I would say this. I see that
two-thirds of the party have folded their
seats, and I do not know why.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is
finished but he does not know it.
Mr. Lavergne: I would say this, that if I
was ever as finished as he and his party, I
would walk out of this House.
Mr. MacDonald: This is the height of
the session.
Mr. Lavergne: This is, and perhaps if the
hon. member will listen, he will learn some-
thing.
Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity and all seri-
ousness I will say this, that through my
short stay in this House— and before my hon.
friend from York South says it is going to
be a shorter one, may I say I hope it is going
to be a long one— through those short years
I have gained something here that very few
people are privileged to acquire. It is this—
the friendship of this House, whether it be
on the government or on the Opposition side,
and I do hope this, Mr. Speaker, and it is
in all sincerity— I do hope that these friend-
ships will stay with me for all time.
I know that I have gained a lot through
my association with each and every hon.
member of this House, and I pray God that
some day I can put to good use that which
I have gained, the knowledge that I have
gained, through my association with every
hon. member.
In resuming my seat, I say this, that never
in the history of this great province has any
government taken to heart the requirements
of the people of Ontario, and stepped out
with a very firm step in the right direction
to look after them. I am sure that every hon.
member of this House will agree that the only
government which could have done it is the
government of which I am proud to be a
part.
Hon. Mr. Nickle moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
FEBRUARY 19, 1958
275
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES COMMISSION
ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Frost moves third reading of
Bill No. 45, "An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Act, 1957."
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before you put the motion, may I
say that his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor
(Mr. Mackay) has agreed to give assent to
this bill tomorrow. This bill, I think, makes
possible the completion of the agreement be-
tween Canada and Ontario which will be
signed within a very few days.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): On that point, may I inquire of my
hon. friend, when the agreement is signed
between Canada and the province of Ontario
in relation to hospital insurance, will it be
required, or will it be deemed expedient, that
the agreement be validated by the Legis-
lature?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I would say
that actually, in the terms of our Act, in
section 15 thereof, I do not think that any
validation is necessary. But I am not adverse
to validating the Act, and it may be that
legislation will be brought in subsequently
to do that.
I would say that, of course, as hon. mem-
bers will have noted in the provisions of the
statute as it now is, the form of the hospital
bill, or the agreement regarding the hospital
insurance itself, is really by the way a formu-
lation of orders-in-council, under the section
that I mentioned.
Now, of course, those orders-in-council
have to be subject to amendment from time
to time to meet varying conditions. They
must be within the term of the federal
statute, and if they are outside of those terms,
then of course the province would deprive
itself of any subsidy or contribution from
federal sources.
The agreement itself is a very lengthy
document, but it is to a very large extent
enabling legislation to permit the carrying
out and the operation of an insurance scheme
within the ambit of the federal offer which is
contained in the federal Act.
I would say that, as soon as the agreement
is completed, I shall certainly table it here
with the regulations that are enacted to date,
or that will be enacted to that time, and if
it is necessary to have any validation, then
that can be done.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, may I say
that tomorrow we shall proceed with the
Throne debate, and also with bills that are
on the order here. I move the adjournment-
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Before we
adjourn, would I be in order to ask a ques-
tion of the hon. Prime Minister? I am sure
he will not object.
I noticed in the front page of this after-
noon's Toronto Daily Star, which I had not
seen before I entered the House, this head-
ing: Bar Pearson's Speech, Hear Him Off
the Campus, OAC Students Warned.
It appears that a group of students— I do not
know whether or not it is a political club-
requested permission that hon. Mr. Pearson
appear at the college, as I presume he did
at the University of Toronto last Saturday.
They went to the principal of the college
with that request. They were told by the
principal that authority to grant permission
was not in his hands.
Well then, in whose hands would it be to
grant permission for hon. Mr. Pearson to go to
the Ontario Agricultural College? Because it
was not in the principal's hands, he refused to
grant permission to Mr. Pearson to go there
to meet the students.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I may say, Mr.
Speaker, that I never heard of the situation
before. I have not the slightest objection to
Mr. Pearson meeting the students or any
group of students, none whatever. I have no
objection, and if it is referred to me I can
assure the hon. member that it will be a free
right-of-way.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
Mr. Speaker, I just want to add this briefly,
that if the hon. Prime Minister has not heard
of it before, let me emphasize that it has
existed before. In my 4 years in the province
of Ontario I have never yet been able to
have a CCF meeting on the campus at the
Ontario Agricultural College, because it is
widely accepted that it would be either not
permitted or inadvisable.
I think that this headline here today was
to the effect that it was inadvisable, and that
it would be better to go off the campus.
I think that it would be a very good thing
if the hon. Prime Minister would state, with-
out any qualification, that the citizens or the
students on the campus at the agricultural col-
lege are first-rate citizens who can participate
in political activity at the discussion level
instead of being fearful of doing it as has been
the case in the past.
276
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say, Mr. Speaker,
that I have no objection to the students
listening to my hon. friend from York South,
I think that they are brave and can stand it.
But I think probably the point that has
arisen over the years— I suppose going back to
the beginning of things— is that the Ontario
Agricultural College is a school which is com-
pletely paid for by the people of Ontario, and
it may be that in the school itself there is
some rule or some understanding that politics
on the part of various people or parties is
excluded from the campus.
Now, that may be one of the unwritten
rules of the institution, I do not know. But
for myself, I have no objection. I believe in
a sort of free-wheeling attitude in connection
with these things. I have not the slightest
objection.
But the matter has never been referred to
me, and I can assure my hon. friend that,
if my sympathies entered into the matter, it
would be entirely the other way.
On the other hand, I do not want to offend
against some rule they have at the college.
As my hon. friend knows, the people of the
agricultural college— including the graduates
—have their own traditions and so on, and far
be it from me to interfere with them. I would
not do that.
But if it is referred to me, I can assure
hon. members that my position would be as
stated.
I move the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock
p.m.
*>
...
-
!
■;■:■:.
I
No. 14
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Beoates!
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, February 20, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
.
CONTENTS
i
Thursday, February 20, 1958
Reading and receiving petitions 279
Board of education for North York, bill respecting Mr. Graham, first reading 280
City of Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, Mr. Lyons, first reading 280
Village of Port Perry, bill respecting, Mr. Boyer, first reading 280
Board of education for Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, Mr. Lyons, first reading 280
Canadian National Exhibition Association, bill respecting, Mr. A. G. Frost, first reading 280
Town of Thorold, bill respecting, Mr. Morningstar, first reading 281
City of Waterloo, bill respecting, Mr. Wintermeyer, first reading 281
City of Fort William, bill respecting, Mr. Wardrope, first reading 281
Estate of Melville Ross Gooderham, Kathleen Isabel Drope trust, and the Charlotte
Ross Grant trust, bill respecting, Mr. Macaulay, first reading 281
City of Chatham, bill respecting, Mr. Parry, first reading 281
Lakeshore district board of education, bill respecting Mr. Lewis, first reading 281
Town of Eastview, bill respecting, Mr. Lavergne, first reading 281
South Peel board of education, bill respecting, Mr. Kennedy, first reading 281
St. Michael's College, bill respecting, Mr. Yaremko, first reading 281
Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, bill respecting, Mr. G. G. Johnston, first reading .... 281
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. Morrow, first reading 281
City of London, bill respecting, Mr. Robarts, first reading 281
Village of Long Branch, bill respecting, Mr. Rowntree, first reading 281
Telephone Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 281
Stallions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 282
Jails Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 282
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 282
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, Royal assent 294
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Nickle, Mr. Child 294
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Gordon, agreed to 304
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 304
279
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney,
from the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's first report as fol-
lows, and moves its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 2, An Act respecting the separate
school board of the town of Lindsay.
Bill No. 4, An Act respecting Huron Col-
lege.
Bill No. 6, An Act respecting the township
of Grantham.
Bill No. 8, An Act respecting the town-
ship of London.
Bill No. 14, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Chinguacousy.
Bill No. 15, An Act respecting the Cana-
dian Pacific Railway Company.
The committee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties, and the actual cost of
printing, be remitted on Bill No. 4.
The committee would also recommend that
the fees less the penalties, and the actual cost
of printing, be remitted on Bill No. 15, 1957,
An Act respecting the Community Chest of
Greater Toronto passed at the third session
of the Legislature.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. E. Sutton, from
the standing committee on standing orders,
presents the committee's second and final
report, and moves its adoption.
Your committee has carefully examined
the following petitions and finds the notices
as published in each case sufficient:
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Waterloo, praying that an Act may pass
enlarging the representation of the rate-
payers on the civic auditorium commission.
Thursday, February 20, 1958
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Chatham, praying that an Act may pass
authorizing the corporation to subsidize the
bus system in the city, and for other pur-
poses.
Petition of the corporation of the village
of Port Perry, praying that an Act may pass
authorizing the issue of debentures for the
construction of a water supply system.
Petition of the Royal Victoria Hospital,
Barrie, praying that an Act may pass enabling
municipalities served by the hospital to pass
by-laws for grants-in-aid of the hospital.
Petition of the corporation of the village
of West Lome, praying that an Act may
pass authorizing debentures for the construc-
tion of drainage works.
Petition of the corporation of the town of
Thorold, praying that an Act may pass defin-
ing the existing boundaries of the town, and
for other purposes.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
London, praying that an Act may pass
empowering the corporation to acquire land
outside its corporate limits for the purpose
of parking motor vehicles, and for other pur-
poses.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Windsor, praying that an Act may pass
enlarging the borrowing powers of the
Metropolitan General Hospital board, and
for other purposes.
Petition of the Lakeshore district board
of education, praying that an Act may pass
reconstituting the board.
Petition of the board of education for the
township of North York, praying that an Act
may pass enlarging the powers of the board
with regard to pensions to non-teaching em-
ployees.
Petition of St. Michael's College, praying
that an Act may pass continuing the college
in federation with the University of Toronto,
as the University of St. Michael's College, and
making other provisions in relation to this
purpose.
Petition of the Canadian National Exhibi-
tion Association, praying that an Act may pass
empowering the Minister of Agriculture to
delegate another member of his department,
who is a member of the association, to act in
his place on the board of directors.
280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Petition praying that an Act may pass in-
corporating the chartered institute of secre-
taries of joint stock companies and other
public bodies in Ontario.
Petition of the executors and trustees of
the Melville Ross Gooderham estate, the Kath-
leen Isabel Drope trust, and the Charlotte
Ross Grant trust, praying that an Act may pass
permitting the petitioners to sell 68,000 shares
in the capital stock of the Manufacturers Life
Insurance Company to the said company.
Petition of the board of education of the
city of Sault Sle. Marie, praying that an Act
may pass providing for a two-year term for
members of the board.
Petition for the synod of Toronto and Kings-
ton of the Presbyterian Church in Canada
Limited, praying that an Act may pass enlarg-
ing its powers and deleting the word "limited"
from its corporate name.
Petition of the South Peel board of educa-
tion, praying that an Act may pass reconstitut-
ing the board.
Petition of the corporation of the town of
Fort Frances, praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a pension plan for employees of
the corporation or any board thereof and their
families.
Petition of the corporation of the township
of Sunnidale, praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a debenture issue to pay the cost
of construction of a community hall at the
village of Lowell.
Petition of the corporation of the village
of Long Branch, praying that an Act may pass
confirming a by-law equalizing special assess-
ments for road construction in the village.
Petition for the corporation of the city of
Ottawa, praying that an Act may pass author-
izing it to fluoridize its municipal water
supply, and for other purposes.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Fort William, praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a pension plan for employees of
the city, boards thereof and their families.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Hamilton, praying that an Act may pass en-
abling the council of the corporation to pass
by-laws regulating the external design of
buildings adjoining highways, and for other
purposes.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Niagara Falls, praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a pension plan for employees of
the corporation, boards thereof, and their
families, and for other purposes.
Petition of the corporation of the city of
Sault Ste. Marie, praying that an Act may
pass providing a two-year term for members
of the public utilities commission and the
memorial gardens commission.
Petition of the United Community Fund of
Greater Toronto, praying that an Act may
pass authorizing by-laws as to the manner of
giving notice of meetings of its members.
With regard to the petition received by the
House last Monday from Anson House and
the city of Peterborough. This application
having been withdrawn before the introduc-
tion of the bill, and as no expenses have been
incurred, your committee recommends re-
funding the deposit of $350, forwarded on
account of fees and penalties.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR NORTH
YORK
Mr. T. Graham moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the board of
education for the township of North York."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE
Mr. C. H. Lyons moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Sault Ste. Marie."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
VILLAGE OF PORT PERRY
Mr. R. J. Boyer moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the village of
Port Perry."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR
SAULT STE. MARIE
Mr. Lyons moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting th board of
education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION
ASSOCIATION
Mr. A. G. Frost (Bracondale) moves first
reading of bill intituled, "An Act respecting
the Canadian National Exhibition Associa-
tion."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
281
TOWN OF THOROLD
Mr. E. P. Morningstar moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act respecting the town
of Thorold."
SOUTH PEEL BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mr. T. L. Kennedy moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the South
Peel board of education."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF WATERLOO
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act respecting the city
of Waterloo."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ST. MICHAEL'S COLLEGE
Mr. J. Yaremko moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting St. Michael's
College."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF FORT WILLIAM
Mr. G. C. Wardrope moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Fort William."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ESTATE OF
MELVILLE ROSS GOODERHAM,
KATHLEEN ISABEL DROPE TRUST,
AND CHARLOTTE ROSS GRANT TRUST
Mr. R. Macaulay moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the estate
of Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen
Isabel Drope trust, and the Charlotte Ross
Grant trust."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF CHATHAM
Mr. G. W. Parry moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Chatham."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
LAKESHORE DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION
Mr. W. B. Lewis moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the Lake-
shore district board of education."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF EASTVIEW
Mr. G. F. Lavergne moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the town of
Eastview."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL OF BARRIE
Mr. G. G. Johnston (Simcoe Centre) moves
first reading of bill intituled, "An Act respect-
ing the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF OTTAWA
Mr. D. H. Morrow moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Ottawa."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF LONDON
Mr. J. P. Robarts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
London."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
VILLAGE OF LONG BRANCH
Mr. H. L. Rowntree moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the village
of Long Branch."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE TELEPHONE ACT, 1954
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Telephone Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these amendments
provide for the re-constituting of the tele-
phone authority and providing for remunera-
tion.
282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE STALLIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Stal-
lions Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the decline in
the horse population in the province, this
amendment permits that the order-in-council
be exempt from the application of the Act
for those horses for which the Act no longer
serves a useful or necessary purpose.
THE JAILS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Jails
Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
amendment is to bring the Act into line with
the realism of today. In the present Act, the
principal officer in the jail set-up is the
inspector. This no longer obtains, the deputy
minister is the chief official now, so "inspec-
tor" has been changed throughout the Act to
read "deputy minister."
The next part deals with the fact that we
are proposing to relieve the sheriffs of
counties of responsibilities towards the jail.
This was a recommendation of the select
committee of this House in 1954. It has also
been recommended by The Department of
the Attorney-General, The Department of
Municipal Affairs, and the Provincial Treas-
urer's Department.
The third amendment is with regard to the
cost of the transfer of prisoners. At the present
time we may collect, from the municipality
concerned, the cost of transference of the
prisoner, plus 60 per cent. This has come to
be something of a nuisance to the muni-
cipalities now, and we propose to remove
that burden from them.
THE SANATORIA FOR CONSUMPTIVES
ACT
Hon. M. Phillips moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Sanatoria
for Consumptives Act."
Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment
involves two principles. The first one is that,
at the present time, municipal boards of health
are required to provide living and other ex-
penses of former patients of sanatoria who are
indigent, and who have recovered to such an
extent that they may receive care and treat-
ment outside of the sanatorium.
This new subsection authorizes the prov-
ince, through The Department of Public
Welfare, to reimburse municipalities, in whole
or in part, for such expense.
The second principle is that these amend-
ments increase the amount of burial expenses
that the municipality, in which a deceased
indigent patient lived at the time of admission
to the sanatorium, must pay to the sanatorium.
The increase is from $75 to $125.
I may say that this brings the amount into
conformity with the corresponding situation
under The Public Hospitals Act and The
Mental Hospitals Act.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like at this time to say some-
thing in connection with the point raised by
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)
yesterday, and in so doing might I comment,
in a general way, on the subject of what we
might call an attitude of mind, or a phobia,
or an illness, which is particularly current
among some people in this province at this
particular time. Now, Mr. Speaker, a phobia
is a fear, an aversion, a dislike— indeed, it is
a morbid fear.
A very extreme case of that is shown on a
page of the Toronto Globe and Mail today, in
which the statement is attributed to hon. Paul
Martin that Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker is an
economic illiterate, one of the greatest frauds,
one of the most ignorant people in this coun-
try, and an economic ignoramus. That was on
the front page of the Globe and Mail.
Now, as I say, that was attributed to my
hon. friend Paul Martin. It does not sound like
him, but if he did say that, then his is one of
the extreme cases that I mentioned.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): On a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: State your point of order.
Mr. Oliver: I can say from what knowledge
I have, Mr. Speaker, that those words should
not be attributed to the hon. Paul Martin.
The hon. Prime Minister, who knows hon.
Paul Martin as many of us do on this side of
the House, knows quite well that he would
not give utterance to those words.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that I would be very glad to accept
that, but I am stating that this appeared in
the press today and, of course, as I say, it
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
283
does not sound like my friend, the lion. Mr.
Martin, but—
Mr. MacDonald: But the hon. Prime Minis-
ter is making political capital of it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh yes, but I want to
refer this time to a milder case, and that is the
hon. member for Bruce, who seems to be beset
by the same type of morbid fear to which I
refer. On the front page of the same paper,
under the heading Criticized Again, the
article reads:
The Frost government winter unemploy-
ment relief measure came in for another
airing in the Legislature yesterday, with
the Opposition speakers insisting that the
municipalities were not getting a very
good deal.
Is that right? Now, do not let hon. mem-
bers get themselves in too deeply.
Mr. Whicher: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I continue:
Ross Whicher, Liberal, Bruce, wanted
to know how many Toronto unemployed
would receive work under the govern-
ment's offer to pay 10 per cent, of the
direct labour costs.
Mr. Whicher: Ten per cent.?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am sorry, 70 per cent.
Mr. Whicher: That is quite a difference.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, it is. When the hon.
member for Bruce said it would cost the
municipalities $10 for every $1 they received
from provincial aid, that was disputed on
this side by the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts). Now, sir, I do not think that the
hon. member for Bruce is beyond hope at
all, I think he can be put back on the right
track, and I would like to answer in detail
the question that he raised yesterday.
Now, sir, on January 29, I think it was-
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I might just say a word?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Reaume: Regarding this statement
made about hon. Paul Martin, I was out of
the House at the time but I read it today
in the paper.
Now, I want to say that I was there at
the meeting, and that hon. Mr. Martin made
no such statement.
Now, as the hon. Prime Minister knows,
hon. Mr. Martin is a good man and an
honourable man, and I do not think that this
kind of statement could be attributed to him.
Whoever wrote it was wrong, because I was
there at the meeting, heard the whole
speech, and there was no such thing said at
all.
The article is written by a reporter. I
think that this honest paper, this paper
above all papers, that always prints the
truth, the whole truth and all the rest, I think
it is pretty near time they print a retraction.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, Mr. Speaker, may I
say that as far as I am concerned I, of course,
accept my hon. friend's explanation, but my
remarks were particularly directed to the
hon. member for Bruce—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: He is running for office.
The hon. Prime Minister should not blame
him.
Hon. Mr. Frost: On January 29, I met
with the mayor of Toronto and the board of
control of Toronto, and this was succeeded
by a conference that I had with certain
agencies in Toronto including Mr. Rupert,
the director of welfare in this city.
Among other things, the mayor of Toronto
gave me a list of work, but he also gave to me
at that time a letter under the date of October
28, 1957, addressed to the board by Mr.
Bell, the commissioner of parks and recrea-
tion.
I should like to read the letter to you, sir,
because it became current at that time. It
was given to me on that occasion by the
mayor in the presence of the board. The
letter reads:
Nathan Phillips, esq.,
and Members of the Board of Control:
Gentlemen:
Re proposed employment of
unemployed employables
The board of control, at its meeting held October
23, requested me to submit a report outlining a pro-
gramme of work which could be undertaken to
alleviate the unemployment situation if a provincial
grant is made for this purpose.
This department could carry on such a work pro-
gramme during the winter months with approxi-
mately—
I would like my hon. friend to listen to this
-90 per cent, of the funds available being used for
the employment of unemployed employables.
The additional monies [that is, the 10 per cent.]
would be required for materials, etc. This estimate
is based on the assumption that the unemployed would
be selected and paid by The Department of Public
Welfare as no provision has been made by this
department for additional clerical staff.
I would point out that in 1955, when a similar
programme was undertaken by this department, less
than 10 per cent, was required for materials, etc.
I want hon. members to underline that, Mr.
Speaker.
284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: There is another thing there
the hon. Prime Minister needs to underline.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let the hon. member just
listen to this.
Weather conditions would determine, to a great
extent, the type of duties which such work force
would perform from time to time during the autumn,
winter and spring, but in general, if the frost-
that is not referring to myself—
—was not too severe, a great deal of cleaning up,
grading and digging could be performed in the parks.
If weather conditions did not permit this work, the
personnel could be employed on various forestry
projects. Projects could be undertaken in High Park,
North Toronto ravines, Glen Stewart ravine and
Bellefair ravine, such as log and boulder protection
along stream banks, the raking of leaves, etc.
Weather permitting, erosion could be corrected at
many locations in High Park, but it would probably
be necessary to commence this work immediately or
leave it until the spring. Log step entrances could be
constructed at the natural trail, and pathways could
be cut.
Sunnyside and Woodbine beaches could be cleared
up. In addition, grading could be undertaken at
various undeveloped parks provided free fill became
available.
Forestry work [work such as could be done now]
such as the removing of dead trees, burning brush,
etc., could be undertaken at High Park, North Toronto
ravines, Glen Stewart ravine, Bellefair ravine and
Dentonia Park. The slopes of Craiglee Gardens could
be cleaned up, and new underbrush and additional
excess trees could be removed at Cherry Beach.
In addition, the small growth on the lower trunks
of trees on the city streets, which is known as sucker
growth, could be removed.
By equipping each man with a small pruner, this
work could be undertaken by unemployed employ-
ables without danger to the personnel or the necessity
of using ladders.
Additional work could be performed in the prelim-
inary development of the ravine between Yonge St.
and Duplex Ave. and the necessary grading required
for the extension of the East Toronto athletic field.
Now, sir, the concluding sentence.
It is estimated that a minimum of 600 men could
be employed on these projects for a period of 4
months or longer.
I ask my hon. friend if he was not talking
a lot of nonsense yesterday afternoon.
I want to say that, under the date of Feb-
ruary 4, I received quite a lengthy letter from
his worship the mayor-
Mr. Oliver: Would my hon. friend give the
date of that memorandum?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, the memorandum is
dated October 28, 1957, and was given to me
with the municipality's submission on January
29.
Therefore, to all intents and purposes that
is the date it was given to me, because it
was considered to be current.
This morning I met with Mr. Bell and the
board of control, and there was no denial
that that should be done. On February 4,
I received a letter from his worship the
mayor. I will not read the letter, it is quite
lengthy, but attached to it is a list of works,
and I would just refer some of them to
hon. members of this House.
For instance, here are types of work that
could be done. I think it was on February
14 we announced this policy. Here are, for
instance, fire halls. Central Hall on Adelaide
Street, painting interior and exterior. Now,
I ask hon. members if there is anything wrong
at all with the city supplying the paint and
the province paying 70 per cent, of the labour
cost? Now, is not that a sensible pro-
gramme?
Mr. Whicher: How are they possibly going
to paint the outside of a fire hall?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that he talks nonsense, he ought
to go back to the pine trees up around
Wiarton and get a little bit of common
sense that stems from that nice pine air
up there.
Mr. Whicher: Sometimes when I look
across I wish I was back there, too.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let me say this to the
hon. member, here is another one.
The Main Street fire hall. Now let the
hon. member listen. Repairing the eaves-
troughs. Now, if the eavestrough of a fire
hall requires repairing, will the hon. member
tell me any reason, in the name of common
sense, that the government should give them
the eavestrough and put it up? What we
are doing is providing the wages for doing
that job.
Here is another one, Henricks Avenue
fire station, replacing defective eavestroughs,
repairing concrete in front and replacing
worn-out floor coverings.
Now, if the floor coverings are worn out
and the eavestroughs are defective, I would
think they would have to replace those pretty
soon, and we say we will pay 70 per cent,
of the labour costs for doing that job.
Here is another one, in the city hall:
modernizing 4 washrooms, removing anti-
quated plumbing fixtures, replacing floor joists
where necessary. Now, if the plumbing is
antiquated, surely it should be done in the
next year or so, and the province here will
pay 70 per cent, of the cost of doing that.
Here is another one, redecorating corridor
walls and ceiling, painting woodwork, re-
decorating departmental offices, replacing
floor covering where necessary, also refinish-
ing the benches in the corridors.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
285
Mr. Speaker, is there any reason why the
municipality should not provide the necessary
paint and materials to do those things if we
help out in the labour costs? The city garage,
repairing the roof, replacing defective down-
pipe, eavestrough and flashings and where
necessary paint the interior and exterior.
They are just the type of things that we are
trying to encourage the municipality to do.
I was interested when the board of control,
on February 17— the day before yesterday
or the day before that— adopted these two
things, two casual labour projects that were
authorized at this time.
One, general work in the city parks esti-
mated at $708,960, of which $638,064 is for
labour and $70,896 is for materials. Now
I ask the hon. member in a case like that,
if the city, in necessary works, puts up
$70,000 and if the province of Ontario pays
70 per cent, of some $638,000, if that is
not a good deal?
I would say the town of Wiarton or any
other municipality in the province of Ontario
never had a deal like that given to them,
never in the history of this province.
Now, here is another one: clearing lanes
and boulevards in city properties by The
Department of Public Works, estimated to
cost $180,000, the whole of which amount
is for labour.
Now I ask the hon. member if that is
not a reasonable and proper deal to give the
city of Toronto, and regarding the talk about
costing $10 for every $1 for labour, would he
not now agree that that was a nonsensical
thing to say?
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, just let me
stand up and I will tell the hon. Prime Minis-
ter what I think.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I leave that for
the hon. member to explain. Under date of
February 18, I received from the mayor of
Toronto a list of works in which he says
at the conclusion:
the board of control very much appre-
ciates the prompt action given by you,
Mr. Prime Minister, and your colleagues,
on the representations by the city and for
the assistance which is given to Toronto.
Signed,
The Mayor of the city of Toronto.
I had a letter, delivered to me today, from
chairman Mr. Gardiner of Metropolitan
Toronto.
Mr. Gardiner says that this programme he
submits is on the basis that the province will
pay 70 per cent, of labour costs of persons
not receiving unemployment insurance, and
the Metropolitan corporation will pay labour
costs and all material and other costs.
This programme will give employment to
435 men for a period of 12 weeks, at a total
cost of $450,000.
Just to show how quickly we act, may I
say we gave that to the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) and it
has been passed. The men can start work
tomorrow.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify
one other thing, and I am going to read a
statement, a very short one, to the House,
because this is being sent to all municipali-
ties. It was stated in the press that the state-
ment I made here last Friday required some
clarification. Well, I would say that it
requires clarification only for those who are
so blind that they will not see, and—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) is one of them,
a shining example.
Mr. MacDonald: How about the mayor of
Hamilton and most of the board of control-
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We have a letter from
Mr. Kent here, the city solicitor, advising of
a further list of works for city of Toronto,
under date of February 20, for 800 men, so
that makes 1,250 in so many minutes.
Mr. Whicher: Not enough men.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right, that is what
I am trying to tell the hon. member opposite.
1 would say he suffers from a morbid fear,
he suffers from a phobia these days. It would
be removed if it were not for the imminence
of the great disaster which is going to over-
take him on March 31.
This is the statement I am sending to all
the municipalities.
It is desired to make it very clear that
the programme contemplated under this
programme is an emergency one, to deal
with the area of our population not covered
by unemployment insurance and which is
unemployed.
This plan must not be construed as an
incentive to start work on major construc-
tion. The plan is designed to do work
which can presently be done involving
mainly the payment of wages.
286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The plan also is designed only to meet
a reasonable problem and the subsidy will
be given only on labour costs incurred up
to and including May 31, 1958.
Labour costs towards assistance will be
given to include:
1. Unemployed persons who are not
entitled to unemployment insurance. It is
not necessary that this group should be in
receipt of municipal relief or welfare—
merely that they are unemployed and are
not entitled to unemployment insurance.
2. Unemployed persons who are entitled
to unemployment insurance but who are
in receipt of welfare assistance from the
municipality because of the size of families
or other reasons which are sufficient to
entitle them to assistance.
3. Labour costs referred to are limited
to those of a municipality or its board, it
does not include labour costs of a con-
tractor doing work for a municipality.
Municipalities wishing to participate in
this programme may commence work at
once provided they notify The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs of their inten-
tion to proceed, describing the type of
work.
No further approval is necessary, but
The Department of Municipal Affairs and
The Department of Public Welfare reserve
the right to examine the project and the
rolls of those employed.
So simple is the programme that hon.
members have seen, in the last minute or
two, the acceptance of two programmes here
involving the employment of 1,250 men.
Attached to this statement, I have put the
following, and I am sending this to all the
municipalities in Ontario:
1. A copy of the statement which was
made here last Friday, which has already
been sent to all municipalities, but is in-
cluded so that there may be no misunder-
standing.
2. I am including, also, a letter to the
mayor of Toronto from Mr. G. P. Bell, of the
commission of parks and recreation of that
city, which I just read, which gives a good
sample of the type of work which the plan
envisages.
This statement, of course, covers only the
matters of municipal parks, the other depart-
ments no doubt would have similar works
which would involve very largely the employ-
ment of labour.
It will be noted in this statement that the
estimate— that is, in Mr. Bell's statement— is
that 90 per cent, of the cost would be used
for the employment of unemployed employ-
ables.
Now, I think that should clear the matter.
As I say, in the city of Toronto already we
have 1,250 men who will be working, I
assume, tomorrow morning, and I have high
hopes that others will follow.
Again I refer the hon. members of this
House to the statement I made-
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will let the hon. member
ask a question in just a moment.
May I say it involves very interesting pos-
sibilities, already we have had requests from
other governments to observe the working of
this plan. If it works well, there is no reason
why, in the time of high employment, if there
is unemployment in a certain area of the prov-
ince, or in certain municipalities, that they
might not be designated as eligible for such
a plan.
I would say that this is a very forward
effort in attempting to deal with those who
are unemployed who are outside of the built-
in traditions for the carrying of the unem-
ployed person which is applicable now to a
very wide range of our population.
That, I think, should clear up any mis-
understanding, and I discussed the matter
with the board this morning, the board of
control, and I pointed out to the board of
control and his worship Mayor-
Mr. MacDonald: The most unsatisfactory
board we ever had.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I wish the hon. member
for York South would not talk in his sleep.
I discussed this matter with the mayor and
the board of control, and I pointed out the
requirements. I explained just how the plan
arose— as a matter of fact, the plan was one
that was proposed to me by the grand old
city of Toronto itself.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I think I should
have the opportunity of saying a few words
on what the hon. Prime Minister has talked
about. When he started his argument this
afternoon by throwing a few nasty statements
across this way—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Is he referring to the
hon. Prime Minister?
Mr. Whicher: —he forgot that the whole
essence of the scheme is the fact that the only
people who are eligible for this are not un-
employed employables, but people who are
not eligible to draw unemployment insurance.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
287
May I point out to the hon. Prime Minister
that in today's press it says that in the city
of Hamilton, which is a city of considerable
size, it is reported by the mayor or the con-
trollers that there are only 56 labourers who
qualify under this scheme—
Hon. Mr. Connell: There are 276.
Mr. Whicher: A hundred and how many?
Hon. Mr. Connell: 276.
Mr. Whicher: Well, if it is 276, I am quite
prepared to take the word of the hon. Minister
but in the press it says 56, now I ask this:
Of the 276 who would qualify under this
scheme, how many are capable of doing a
full day's work? I would suggest that all of
them are not capable, and what we need,
and what the hon. Prime Minister tried to put
across to this Legislature the other day when
he announced the scheme, was this, that he
was going to pay not only 70 per cent, of all
labour that would be employed, but it cer-
tainly got out in the papers that it was going
to be 70 per cent, of all materials—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I tried to do no such thing.
Mr. Whicher: I said it was in the papers.
That was the impression that went around
this province.
Now then, I am quite willing to agree that
in the letter— I believe it was Mr. Bell who
wrote the hon. Prime Minister— it stated there
is considerable work that can be done in parks,
but on the other hand I ask what is more
ridiculous than the raking of leaves at this
time of year? How in the name of heaven
can men rake any leaves these days? I suggest
that it is not—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would the hon. member
agree that in the month of April or May it
would not be ridiculous?
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister has
not been in his back yard too often, that is the
trouble. Now, not only did he mention parks
the other day, but he mentioned such things
as sidewalks and roads.
There is nothing so completely ridiculous
as mentioning bridges and so forth and to
suggest that the municipality is only going
to put up a few dollars while the government
puts up a great big mountain of money.
It is simply ridiculous, and the hon. Prime
Minister knows it, and what is more, the
newspapers in this province and every muni-
cipality know it.
Mr. Bell said that this programme would
be successful if the frost were not too severe.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the "Frost" has been
very severe, I will tell hon. members that
much.
The hon. Prime Minister has been most
severe.
He also suggested that deals such as this
had never before been offered, deals of such
wonderful import to the town of Wiarton.
May I tell the hon. Prime Minister that if
he has not any better deals than this, let
him please not offer them to places like
that because they are not going to be accepted
in this province. The best thing that the
hon. Prime Minister can do is to go home
and have the sleep that he suggested my
hon. friend on my left was having, let him
think it over, admit that he made a mistake,
and then come back and offer the people
of this province something to really relieve
the unemployment situation-
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on previous
occasions-
Mr. Oliver: I do not want to argue against
your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to
talk to you about this situation. Surely, when
the hon. Prime Minister rises and makes an
extended statement which included some
political barbs here and there, surely we have
a right to make some comments on it, I
mean we are going to be restrained I think
unnecessarily, if we are not allowed to make
comments on what is a highly controversial
question, and certainly a question which
has been much in the public interest at this
time.
I think it would serve the public interest,
Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are after,
and I think it would be in order, to have
all aspects of the situation put forward. I
would like to say a few words on this, and
if you rule me out of order, of course I
cannot say them.
Mr. Speaker: There is provision in the
rules of the House, of course, for discussion
of this matter when it comes up. The money
has to be voted for, and that is the time
when it can be discussed.
Now, an announcement has been made,
and if hon. members want to move that the
House adjourn, for a matter of public im-
portance to be discussed, in that way of
course we can do it.
But I can see that we are going to get
into a great deal of trouble if we permit a
full discussion of any particular statement
made in the House.
I say that I allow a tremendous amount
of latitude in the House. I have suggested
that if there is a question that needs clari-
288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fication we shall be very glad to permit that
question, but we cannot permit the debate
to go on, because it could go on for hours
on a statement such as this. There is the
opportunity provided in the rules for dis-
cussing this when the House devotes time
a little later on.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
a question? How many people does the
hon. Prime Minister think there are in the
province who are unemployed and there-
fore eligible to be employed for these par-
ticular jobs?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would accede to
my hon. friend that I simply do not know, I
do not think anybody knows, but I would
say that the municipalities are the best gauge
of that. These people have the best oppor-
tunities of sizing the matter up, and, as I
say, it is very easy for them to put these
people to work.
I think the answer to the question would
be in the letter from the city solicitor. He
says this:
Following the conference which you had
this morning with the board of control and
other officials of the city, it was decided
to immediately proceed with the work out-
lined in the enclosed report, and for this
purpose to offer employment to approxi-
mately 800 men who are not in receipt
of relief.
I think that is a great object, it is not in-
tended that this shall be final. The letter
continues:
Other projects will be undertaken as
the weather becomes more suitable. In
the meantime, may I request your approval
for these two projects set out in the en-
closed report, so that this provincial pro-
gramme of assistance would be available
to relieve the unemployment situation in
Toronto.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I just want
to draw to the hon. Prime Minister's attention,
if he is not aware of this, that I talked this
matter over with one of his deputy ministers
two or three days ago, and this deputy min-
ister's estimate was that there are somewhere
between 15,000 and 25,000 people in the
province eligible for this type of work. Now if,
in all the hon. Prime Minister's juggling of
figures, the top figure he has reached for the
city of Toronto is 1,350 people, and there are
between 15,000 and 25,000 who are eligible
for this kind of work, then I say this is not
only too little, but that he is making a mount-
tain out of a molehill. He is toying with the
programme.
Mr. Cowling: Well, it is only a beginning,
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, you have allowed
the hon. leader of the CCF to make a speech
in this regard, now is the ruling that you
have-
Mr. MacDonald: It was supposed to be a
question.
Mr. Oliver: Well, the latter part was a
speech, not a question; it was a speech
and one could not call it anything else.
Mr. MacDonald: It was like the hon. Prime
Minister's statement— that was a big speech,
too.
Mr. Oliver: I would like to take your sug-
gestion, Mr. Speaker, and move that the
House be adjourned so that the legislators
can discuss this matter of public importance.
Mr. H. Nixon (Brant): I second that motion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not want to interfere
with the rules, but I would be very glad, for
one, to avoid any technicalities and I would
be delighted to hear my hon. friend and the
light that he could thrown on this subject.
Mr. Speaker: We have a vote before the
House, moved by the hon. leader of the
Opposition, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the
House adjourn and consider this matter of
public importance. All in favour of the
motion?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, having been given
the privilege of speaking on this important
matter, I hope that I will not transgress the
other rule which I believe applies to debates
of this kind which cannot be more than 10
minutes, which I believe is the rule.
Well, I want to say, regarding the state-
ment made by the hon. Prime Minister to the
House this afternoon, that I have never known
the hon. Prime Minister to be better than
when he is defending the indefensible. It is
then that he rises to great heights, and it is
only when he is aroused about a situation
such as this that he gives vent to the sort of
speech he made this afternoon.
Now when my hon. friend delivered this
proposition to the House the other day, it
was apparent that it had very great short-
comings, it is apparent that it was not the
remedy that had to be applied in order to
meet this situation head-on.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
289
Since that time the municipalities have
stated quite openly that it does not meet the
requirements insofar as they concerned and
I was hoping quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that
when the hon. Prime Minister rose today he
was going to say that he was going to with-
draw this proposition and put another in its
place that would have adequately met the
situation.
In my opinion, this whole proposition was
ill conceived. It was drawn hastily. It was
projected without sufficient, if any— I do not
know if there was any or not, but without
sufficient— consultation with the municipalities
to which this situation was apparent and was
a problem.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. leader of the
Opposition is quite in error with that, be-
cause it was arrived at after a very consider-
able deliberation, and arrived at precisely on
the grounds that the city of Toronto advanced
the proposition.
Mr. Oliver: I was going to come to that
very matter. What consultation there was, as
the hon. Prime Minister suggests, was with
the city of Toronto. There are other munici-
palities in this province besides the city of
Toronto, and what was apparently half-
heartedly accepted by the city of Toronto is
not being accepted by the rest of the province.
That is why my hon. friend had to make
the kind of speech he made today, that is why
he is going to have to send out this type of
information pamphlet that he talks about
this afternoon. He would not have had to
send it if he had met with the municipalities
prior to this announcement and prior to the
proposition being put forward.
What the hon. Prime Minister is doing now
is trying to catch up with himself. This prop-
osition, as he has outlined it, I would say to
the House, was doomed to die young. It is
not a proposition that will meet head-on the
problem that exists in relation to unemploy-
ment, and my hon. friend is now finding that
out, and I hoped that he would be big enough
and have the courage to say to this House
this afternoon: "I pulled a boner, I put for-
ward a proposition that is not adequate and
I am prepared to draw it out, throw it in the
ashcan, and build again, hoping that the new
proposition will meet more adequately the
problem that exists."
It might be the situation that, with respect
to Toronto— my hon. friend knows— that the
city of Toronto asked him to go back to the
system of unconditional grants.
He did that before. What is the reason
that he cannot do it again? What is the
reason he could not meet it in some way?
This is a "half-baked measure" if ever there
was one. The hon. Prime Minister today talks
about sweeping leaves, about gathering up
snow with a little shovel, about cleaning up
ravines and about picking up papers in the
park. Well, maybe so, putting up eaves-
troughs and all these things.
The other day that was not what he talked
about. He talked about bridges, roads and
sidewalks, and now he has apparently aban-
doned that altogether, and is down to a leaf-
sweeping business at the present time. He
is down to a snow-gathering proposition.
Well, of course, my hon. friend has re-
treated very far from the position he tried
to occupy the other day, and I say again that
the proposition that the hon. Prime Minister
has before this House at the present time,
while it will do some good, it falls far short
of meeting the needs that exist in combatting
unemployment and providing the municipali-
ties of this province with the aid to deal
adequately and fairly with the unemployed
people.
Mr. Guindon: What is the hon. leader of
the Opposition's proposition?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I just want
to draw attention to the fact that, as the hon.
leader of the Opposition has already stated,
the hon. Prime Minister has come in here and
tried to create the idea that the board of
control of Toronto is happy with this deal. If
they were happy with the deal, why did they
out-of-hand discard the proposition and come
and request a reinstitution of the unconditional
grants of 1955? People do not do that kind
of thing if they are happy with a deal.
As a matter of fact, the afternoon paper
describes the board of control's meeting this
morning, with the hon. Prime Minister, as
the most unsatisfactory meeting that they ever
had. That is a quotation from controller
Brand, who knows something whereof he
speaks in this kind of thing.
Mr. Child: Oh, I bet it is CCF.
Mr. MacDonald: Certainly, he is a good
man. Now, Mr. Speaker—
An hon. member: Good for what?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to
bring attention to the point that I elicited
in a question to the hon. Prime Minister.
This proposal, like what the government
at Ottawa is doing, is not only too little and
too late, it can do very little to meet the
immediate needs of the unemployed.
The hon. Prime Minister is playing around
on the periphery of things. There are— by
290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
careful assessment in a field that admittedly
is difficult to assess, by one of his own deputy
ministers whom I called up the other day to
discuss the matter— there are between 15,000
and 25,000 people in the province of Ontario
who are eligible for this kind of work.
In the city of Toronto, where a great pro-
portion of them are concentrated, the hon.
Prime Minister comes up with a figure of
1,350. This is too little, and it is too late,
and it is not going to meet the desperate
need.
This is not something to help the unem-
ployed. This is part of the whole election
"gimmick" in which this government is using
the Ontario public purse to the extent of
$5 million to help Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker to
get votes between now and March 31. This is
exactly what it is.
Some hon. members: No, no!
An hon. member: Maybe.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is cor-
rect. The hon. Prime Minister entered the
House last Friday with the proposition that
men be put to work on bridges, sidewalks
and roads. Today he has retreated to sweep-
ing leaves and piling snow and putting new
joists in the washrooms— projects of that
nature.
An hon. member: Election bait.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly, this is precisely
what happened at the federal level. Last
November 22, when the question of public
works was raised in the House of Commons
at Ottawa, the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Green) rose in the House and said it was
"quite impossible." He could not do it, he
said, because the Liberals had not left that
shelf of public works. I think I quoted from
Mr. Green's comments the other day in my
contribution to the Throne speech.
But two months later, something which
they considered quite impossible now has
become quite necessary to gather votes be-
tween now and March 31— but not to help
the unemployed, except by toying with the
job.
So now, federally, we are being offered
over $1 billion of a public works programme—
$278 million of which is going to be spent
immediately, not to meet the needs of the
unemployed now but to meet the needs of
the Tory party to get votes between now and
March 31. At best it can meet the needs of
the unemployed next winter.
Now, the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario
comes in— "Me too, behind you," he says— with
his $5 million to throw into, out of the public
treasury, the slush fund of public works,
to meet the needs of the Tory party.
Mr. Speaker, by his own figures, the hon.
Prime Minister reached in Toronto 1,350 who
would be given work, and I shall look for-
ward with interest to see how far towards the
figure of 15,000 to 25,000 this government is
going to get with this kind of a programme,
because I suggest they are not going to meet
the need. They are not because it was, as
the hon. leader of the Opposition said, a half-
baked plan which is not capable of meeting
those needs. It was dreamed up by the hon.
Prime Minister at the last moment.
Some hon. members: It is a fact. Right,
right!
Mr. J. A. McCue (Lanark): I am a new hon.
member in this House, and perhaps I should
not be engaging myself in this debate, but I
am so furious after what I have heard that I
am going to rise and speak, and I am going
to support my hon. leader, the hon. Prime
Minister of the province of Ontario, in this
because I have sat here in this House for
2V2 weeks, and until yesterday I did not
open my mouth, because I do not think a
new hon. member should, he should learn to
listen.
But I tell hon. members that I have tried
to, but I am going to say this, that in the
2Vz weeks that I have been present in this
House, I have never heard any positive thing
come from the Opposition towards this
problem of unemployment.
The only positive thing we have got comes
from the hon. Prime Minister of this prov-
ince, and I am here to back him.
I think that he has just done a great thing.
He is trying to do something to assist people,
and I think this— and I am from the grass-
roots levels, and I like people— if hon. mem-
bers go out and speak to the man on the
street, they will hear that the hon. Leslie
Frost has been trying to do what he possibly
can, and the people on the streets are going
to be behind him.
Mr. A. Grossman . (St. Andrew): Mr.
Speaker, I have attempted to get a copy of
Hansard, the first volume for 1956, so that
I could quote from it, rather than try to
quote from memory.
I know something about how the city of
Toronto handled the so-called unconditional
grant of 1955. As a matter of fact, the pro-
gramme of parks clearance and clean-up was
a formula of mine. I think, if we get down
to basics here, that the whole discussion is
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
291
(if one can find anything of any substance
in the arguments of the Opposition) quite
obviously spoken from a feeling of frustra-
tion, because obviously they did not want
the government to do anything about unem-
ployment.
I refer particularly to the CCF. They have
no hope at all, at any time, of getting into
power except if the economy is destroyed,
and obviously they do not want anything
done which is going to help the economic
situation.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. government
members will be the ones to destroy it.
Mr. Thomas: If we put a pipe across the
hon. member, we would have lots of gas,
anyway.
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let us get
down to the basics here and try to find out
what the Opposition is getting at. The ques-
tion is: should we hedge, as they call it,
should we hedge any assistance to the muni-
cipalities with any kind of regulation or
qualification, or should we give them uncon-
ditional funds? Now I have heard that term
employed, and the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion suggested that.
I will give the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion a reason. When the government granted
a $500,000 figure to the city of Toronto un-
conditionally, with the suggestion from the
hon. Prime Minister that they could use it
for helping in unemployment or helping in
any other way the economic situation in
Toronto, I want the hon. members of this
House to know that there was a great debate
in city council because there were certain
members of city council— and if my memory
serves me correctly, including the mayor—
who wanted to use that to reduce the tax
rate. They did not, because there was a
fellow by the name of Grossman and a few
others who argued—
An hon. member: He will not give him
any credit.
Mr. Grossman: I am speaking from the
record, and the reason I mentioned my name
is because I happen to be a Progressive-
Conservative, I do not happen to be one of
that small army of CCF socialists who try to
give the impression that they are the only
ones in the world filled with the milk of
human kindness, and that no one else cares
about the unemployed.
An hon. member: They have not much to
offer. How are they getting on without the
hon. member?
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I now have to
hand a copy of that Hansard, and at that time
I did give this information to the House, and
it bears repeating, and the point I am trying
to make is that one does not dare give huge
sums of the taxpayers' money unconditionally,
for this purpose, because one would never
know what any municipality would use it for.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member has a
phobia now.
Mr. Grossman: I quote, Mr. Speaker, the
remarks I made on the speech from the
Throne, and the words make reference to the
unemployment assistance given during 1955:
At this time I want to thank the govern-
ment for the assistance given to the city
of Toronto last spring by the unconditional
grant of $500,000 in 1955. This enabled the
city to accomplish a great deal.
I am not going to read the part where I
am telling them how proud I am of the part
I played in it.
Instead of giving cash relief to these
people, we saw to it that everyone did a
fair day's work and was given a fair day's
pay, and I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, it was
a complete success.
Now the point is that if there had not been
a slim majority in favour of using these funds
for unemployment relief, they would have
been used to reduce the tax rate of the city
of Toronto, and I contend the government
is quite in order and doing the proper thing
when they make sure that other people's taxes
are not used to reduce the tax rate in any
particular municipality.
Now, the figures at that time— and there
were not these hundreds of thousands of
unemployed which grow larger and larger
every day in the minds of the Opposition—
at that time, for this kind of work, the total
applications approved were 2,638, made up
as follows:
Heads of families— 790.
Single men— 1,818.
Single women— 30.
Number of work slips issued to persons
to report to work, accumulative total— 20,179.
Number who received work slips and re-
ported to work, accumulative total— 17.262.
Number who received work slips and failed
to report, accumulative total— 2,917.
Total expenditure as of October 6, 1955—
$480,323.
Rate of pay per day— $10.
292
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Married men with families were given 3
days' work per week, single men were given
2 days' work per week.
The point, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, is that
unless you qualify for these grants in some
manner, shape or form to make certain that
they are used for the purpose for which they
were intended, you never can tell for what
purpose a particular municipality will use
these funds, and I reiterate again that the
city of Toronto, only by a slim majority of
its members, managed to vote this money for
unemployment relief purposes, or it would,
I reiterate again, have been used to reduce
the tax rate in that municipality.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that certain
municipalities in my district have already
submitted estimates of direct labour costs on
projects that have been outlined by the hon.
Prime Minister, and they do appreciate the
offer that has been made.
Mr. J. Root ( Wellington-Duff erin): I want
to direct a question to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter. I listened with considerable interest to
the tirade of the hon. member for Bruce
(Mr. Whicher). I have never heard any
objection to this plan from any of the muni-
cipalities which I represent, so I presume
they are in support of it, and I would like
to ask the hon. Prime Minister— could a town-
ship under this plan hire men to go out
and cut brush from the side of the road for
the purpose of improving our roadside?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I might
answer that question in the affirmative, yes.
That is the type of work which would be
subject to a subsidy on the part of The
Department of Highways, and therefore, as
I said in my statement, there would have
to be an adjustment in the amount which
would be paid, but nevertheless we would
pay up to, in all, 70 per cent, of the labour
cost.
Might I say to some of my followers here,
particularly the hon. member for Lanark and
to others, let them never be disappointed
about the actions of the Opposition, because
there is nothing I could ever do to satisfy
them. That is an impossibility. I have never
known that to happen.
Now, let us take the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald). He refers
to the 25,000 figure that he received from
one of the departments. He infers that it
is not worth while doing because it only
involves 25,000. Mr. Speaker, if we can
get 25,000 men to work under this plan,
I think it is a good one, as a matter of fact
I think it is justified.
Mr. MacDonald: I rise on the question of
privilege. The hon. Prime Minister has— I was
going to say deliberately— but he has certainly
twisted what I said. I said that there are
25,000 people and all this programme is going
to help in Toronto is something like 1,350.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly, now let us find
out what the total number is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If my hon. friend will wait
until about the day after tomorrow, we will
have probably several thousand more on this
plan.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to just say a word in connection with this
works programme as it affects the riding
which I represent, the city of Kingston.
For the purpose of the record, I would like
to tell the House that, a few days ago, I
received a letter from the clerk comptroller,
Mr. T. J. McKibbon, saying that a resolution
had been unanimously passed by the Kingston
city council, asking if the policy, as annun-
ciated by the hon. Prime Minister, would
cover work in connection with a redevelop-
ment project down my way, secondly, some
repairs to the city hall and, thirdly, some
work to be done in the fire station.
I answered that if they wanted to put, on
that sort of work, people who were not re-
ceiving unemployment insurance, they could
be employed, and in relation to the labour cost
our policy was to pay 70 per cent.
Now that is not part of the city of Toronto
representation, but I do say this, speaking as
I do for the people of eastern Ontario, that
we think it is a good programme and we
think that those who are out of work and not
receiving unemployment insurance can get a
great benefit. They will get pay cheques to
get the necessities of life they need for their
wives and their families until the early part
of spring.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): Before the
orders of the day, I would like to direct a
question to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) and it is concerning a newspaper
article published in the Hamilton Spectator,
Wednesday, February 19. The headline reads:
Elderly Lose Life Savings in Ruthless
Chimney Swindle.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
293
The article goes on:
Police are fighting one of Hamilton's most
ruthless rackets with both hands tied be-
hind their backs. Squads of ex-convicts
are roaming the city freely, swindling
elderly people out of their life's savings.
Police claim the law can do nothing about
it.
Police call these alleged swindlers the
"chimney men" and a fat file of case his-
tories on the chimney men's operations in
the criminal investigation bureau grows
every week.
Here are the new stories of the un-
scrupulous deals:
In the last week an 82-year-old widow
paid a chimney man $450 for an alleged
contracting job in her home. The chimney
men said they would put a cement finish on
the cellar walls, put a cement floor in the
cellar.
They splashed, as a matter of fact, cement
solution on the walls, put a small curb
around the floor, and collected the money.
A city building inspector estimated the cost
of the job to be only $10.
Now, there are many other examples given
in the article, and the police explain one of
these methods used by the chimney men in
lining up their victims.
The racketeers clip obituary columns from
the newspaper, keeping track of elderly
women left alone after the death of their
husbands. They wait for a week or two after
the funeral, then pay calls to their victims,
and I might say their calls do not stop until
after their victims are more or less penniless.
Now, the question I would like to direct
to the hon. Attorney-General is this: Do we
not have legislation in which to give protec-
tion to these people, and certainly to be able
to prosecute those involved, and if we do not
have the legislation, is it possible that legis-
lation may be passed making it mandatory for
repairmen to be licenced?
This is not the whole solution to the prob-
lem, it would not correct it altogether, but
certainly it would give the police something
to go on, and something for the building
inspectors to check on. And I think it would
have something to do with reducing the
number of these incidents.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. mem-
ber that there is, of couse, under the criminal
code, a whole part devoted to fraudulent
transactions relating to contracts and trade
which sweeps through all sorts of things-
trading stamps, stock manipulations and
general fraud.
And defrauding of an individual, of course,
can carry with it very serious criminal con-
sequences if it can be proved.
However, I think perhaps the trouble here
is that where these sort of cases do occur,
the unscrupulous people make it a point to
deal with elderly and infirm persons with
faulty memories, who sometimes are easily
persuaded, to allow them to do the alleged
repairs or the type of thing they say needs
repairing.
Usually the incident does not come to the
attention of the police until some time after
the fraud has been perpetrated, and then
when they investigate they find that the
victim quite often cannot give a reasonable
description or identify the person involved,
and often can only vaguely recall the nature
of the transaction.
Consequently, it becomes quite difficult to
find out who is responsible, and then even
though the person may be located, to establish
the necessary case in court to bring about a
conviction.
I know some years ago I had this very sort
of situation occur in the case of my own
mother who was living with another elderly
person in Belleville. The hon. member for
Hastings West (Mr. Sandercock) will recall
the old George Street house there, when she
was living alone except for this other elderly
lady, and the very same sort of thing occurred
there.
One case arose in Toronto a year or so ago
where two elderly women, aged about 80,
were victimized by two such repairmen. The
men spent a number of days on the premises
doing some very poor work. They would get
a cheque from one of the women one day,
and on another day they would get a cheque
from the other woman, and in this way they
actually collected about $3,500 for a job
which, even if it had been properly done,
would have been worth only about $800. The
evidence of the victims was very fragile, but it
was supported by identification at the bank
where the cheques were cashed, sufficiently so
to support a conviction for fraud. In that
particular case, as I recall it, penitentiary
sentences were imposed.
I might say in connection with the state-
ment in the newspaper, the Hamilton Spec-
tator, and in connection with this question
which the hon. member has presented, I
have asked the Crown attorney at Hamilton
to give me a full report as to the situation,
and I expect to have that before the end of
the week.
294
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Legislature can, of course, if it sees
fit to do so, in answer to the second part of
the question, require any person engaged in
any particular trade to acquire a licence or
authorize municipalities to pass a by-law for
that purpose. However, I doubt very much
whether it would be wise, and certainly one
would have to consider it very carefully
before going to that extent.
I say this because perhaps a few trans-
actions, which might be brought under the
criminal code if they could be proved, may
not justify placing all repairmen, all handy-
men, under what almost might be disability,
or certainly under restrictions which might,
for the great vast majority of them, be
onerous and unnecessary.
Publicity given to these transactions in
Hamilton, I think, will go a long way toward
cautioning possible victims to be on their
guard.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion to ask of the hon. Prime Minister, and
in view of the things that he has said about
me already this afternoon, I hope he answers
this question not quite so angrily.
Inasmuch as the hon. provincial auditor has
made reference to the numerous commissions
in the province in his report of 1956-1957,
suggesting that a survey be made to assess
the strength and weakness of the present
system of government, and inasmuch as the
hon. Prime Minister himself has mentioned
it during this session, does the government
intend to set up a select committee of the
Legislature to make this examination?
Mr. Speaker, the reason I have asked the
hon. Prime Minister this question is that we
now have, I believe, 21 commissions and
boards in this government, and just taking 4
of them— the Hydro, the liquor control board
of Ontario, the Ontario water resources com-
mission, and the hospital services commis-
sion—which will very shortly be spending
huge sums of money, these 4 commissions
do almost as much business as all the depart-
ments of this government. This manner of
governing makes it very hard for the Opposi-
tion to satisfactorily look into the affairs of
these commissions and boards. In fact, it is
almost impossible. I would strongly suggest
that such a survey be made to investigate
these problems of government.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I answer the hon. mem-
ber. I am not at all angry that he has asked
it, but I simply say this, that if he would
read in Hansard the statement I made
to the House a week ago Monday, the com-
plete answer to his question is right there.
As regards the setting up of a select com-
mittee, of course, I have not made up my
mind. That is a matter for the recommenda-
tion of the standing committee on commis-
sions. The whole matter has been referred
in detail to that committee, and I will await
their findings with interest.
That committee itself can review the situa-
tion generally, I do not think the matter
should be handled by the committee on com-
missions, but they can review the matter,
question the provincial auditor and any
others they desire to call, and then make a
recommendation and we will give it con-
sideration. That is exactly what I said a week
ago Monday.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask your permission to
attend His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor
(Mr. Mackay) to obtain Royal assent to a
measure which I believe will be instrumental
in introducing into this province another
notable advance in human betterment spon-
sored by this government— hospital insur-
ance?
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
entered the chamber of the legislative assem-
bly and, being seated upon the Throne, Mr.
Speaker addressed His Honour in the fol-
lowing words:
May it please Your Honour, the legislative
assembly of the province has as its present
sittings thereof passed a certain bill to which,,
in the name and on behalf of the legislative
assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's
assent.
The following is the title of the bill to
which Your Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill No. 45, An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Commission Act, 1957.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name,
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor doth
consent to this bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development ) : Mr. Speaker, after the
provincial general election of 1951, and the
first session of the Legislature after that time,
I found myself sitting, as you will probably
remember, in this seat, and I had to my
left at that time the hon. Speaker of this
Legislature. Having been on your right and
the son of the manse, so to speak, I learned
to appreciate and understand your broad and
general vision of tolerance and fairness.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
295
Those characteristics in my opinion are
very ably demonstrated since you became the
Speaker of this House. For the future, I
wish you well.
I should not on this occasion be unmindful
of extending my very sincere congratulations
to the deputy Speaker, the hon. member for
Middlesex South (Mr. Allen). In the short
time after his appointment he has found many
challenges while he has been presiding over
our proceedings, and I think it is fair to
say that he has done a very good job.
At this time I should like, as a result of
certain comments that have been made in
reference to the housing problems of this
province, to make a few comments in rela-
tion to what I think is a satisfactory pro-
gramme.
In the first place, I would like to comment
that in 1957 our Ontario municipalities
showed a greater interest than ever before in
what I might call the federal-provincial part-
nership. Larger urban centres are becoming
increasingly aware of the advantages of this
programme. In the past year, my housing
oranch has received application for rental
bousing projects from London, Windsor, St.
Catharines and Sudbury, while Ottawa has
requested both a rental housing project and
a land assembly programme.
The reason for the growth of interest can
oe directly tied in with the tight-money
policy in effect during the latter part of 1956
and the early part of 1957. Since there was
little money for land development, the short-
age of service land in many of our cities
became very critical.
For example, I might indicate that the city
of Peterborough made representations to my
department of government, asking us to do
everything possible to develop the land
assembly in that city.
The tight-money policy pursued by the
Liberal government prior to June 10 brought
about near disaster for the housing industry.
Because of the shortage of mortgage money
in the first three months of 1957, starts in
residential construction had dropped 46 per
cent., and not until the $300 million was made
available by the federal government through
The Department of Public Works, as repre-
sented by Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, did our housing programme
begin to pick up. This action was literally
the salvation of the housing industry, pulling
it out of the worst slump it had ever
experienced.
At the end of December, 1957, starts were
running only 4 per cent, behind the figure for
1956. According to the 1956 census, housing
has increased by 216,503 units.
It is essential that construction of new
dwellings keep pace with the increase. Private
contractors are not interested in any sort of a
rental programme, for the reason that if they
take the mortgages, the money is tied up and
the building programme comes to an end.
Complete information to all the municipali-
ties of this province interested in housing is
now made available through a bi-monthly
letter which is issued from my department,
together with a brochure. The next issue for
information of the people interested in hous-
ing will be a new pamphlet which will show
the municipal officials, housings, programmes,
plans and specifications for land assemblies
where there may be an interest.
As of December 31, 1957, there was a total
of 5,940 land assembly lots. In addition, land
was being prepared for future developments
which included 480 registered lots and 6,382
acres.
In 1957 alone, agreements were signed
with the following municipalities: Goderich,
Sudbury and Hamilton, and 13 other projects
are under development as a result of muni-
cipal requests. These projects being investi-
gated are Gait, Sarnia, Ottawa, Arnprior,
Brantford, Cornwall, Port Colborne, Hamilton,
Trenton, Preston, Renfrew, Sandwich and
Gananoque.
As of December 31, 1957, there were 44
rental housing projects in operation with a
total of 2,457 units occupied, 1,938 under
construction, and 39 to be built. Agreements
for rental housing projects were signed with
Brockville, Hamilton, Kenora, Napanee,
Preston and Stratford during 1957. Sixteen
new projects requested by municipalities are
to be provided in the immediate future.
In Metropolitan Toronto, among other pro-
jects, there is an area of 600 acres in Etobi-
coke. A committee has been set up to
investigate or look into this programme with
representatives from the Etobicoke planning
board and Metropolitan Toronto planning
board, Central Mortgage and Housing Cor-
poration and the housing branch of The
Department of Planning and Development.
In addition, there are two rental housing
projects in operation in Metropolitan Toronto,
Lawrence Heights and Regent Park South.
In reference to Lawrence Heights, for the
record I would like to say that the buildings
include 579 units, in 19 walk-up apartments,
424 row houses in blocks of 4, 6 and 8 units,
and 40 semi-detached units. When this project
is completed, there will be, in all, 1,043 units
for occupation.
296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In connection with North York, that was
a programme in which we ran into a great
deal of difficulty, because after the plans and
specifications had been approved, we found
the buildings were too high, having regard
to the airport which was in the vicinity and
the specifications had to be changed.
However, the first unit is completed and
was turned over to the tenants on December
15, 1957. Today 60 units have been occupied
by the tenants, and it is hoped that the entire
project will be finished by the end of 1958,
with a total of 1,043 units.
Housing is needed today, and if there is
any question on that score, I should state that
the Metropolitan Toronto housing authority
have 1,500 applications on file by people who
are interested in houses, and they are also
receiving a further number of about 80 a
month.
Regent Park South is the first re-develop-
ment programme undertaken by a partnership.
Most of the houses in that area were in inde-
scribable disrepair, with shingles down,
windows out, plaster cracked and broken, and
stucco flaking off the outside walls. Families
were being maintained in living conditions
that were nothing short of indescribable from
the point of view of raising children.
The difficulties of bringing up a family
under these environments should not be con-
tinued any longer. It seems to me that what
I might call the "blight area" should be
fought, challenged by every municipality
across the length and breadth of this great
province.
Now some of these units vary from one sort
of construction to the other, they are what I
might call a non-monotonous programme. The
projects seen today present an interesting
study in contrast. People, children, are living
under conditions the like of which they never
knew before and children, rather than running
the streets, are proud to call the place they
now live in "home."
Some changes in policy have been effected
since Regent Park South was first planned. It
was originally intended that there be a mini-
mum income requirement of $150 a month,
so the tenants could pay the monthly rental
of $30. That has now been changed, and
anybody who makes application to live in
one of those apartments is now admitted if
the accommodation is available.
The hon. members might be interested in
knowing that since January, 1951, in con-
nection with housing starts, there have been
288,509, and houses completed in that period
of time represent 279,208.
Now, amongst others who are interested
in a re-development programme are Toronto,
Windsor and Kingston. There has been a
very great deal of research done in connec-
tion with the re-development programme, and
I am proud to say that we have been of
great assistance to those municipalities which
are trying to get rid of their blight areas.
The last people who asked our assistance
were representatives from the city of Wind-
sor, and I would just like to read a letter
that I received in connection with this matter
from the city clerk, in which he says:
At a special meeting of council on
January 24, 1958, matters relative to a
proposed programme of urban re-develop-
ment, immediately east of the downtown
section of this city, were considered at
length and I was directed to convey to you
the council's gratitude for the very excel-
lent undertaking by your department in
compiling the necessary preliminary sur-
vey.
Now, there is a programme which is going
to be initiated in the very near future. It is
called "the co-operative programme," where
probably 25 or 30 people together pool their
resources, have plans prepared, and among
themselves finance the project. These co-
operative houses are very well considered in
some of the countries in Europe. We have
received information from Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and
Alberta, in connection with co-operative
housing, and I say it is a matter which
should be encouraged.
When we have a re-development pro-
gramme to complete, the first people who are
entitled to get the new units for occupation
are those who left the blighted area. But one
of the things that we are interested in is
trying to locate the families who left what
I would call the sub- standard location, where
they went to, and why they did not take any
interest in returning to the vicinity where
they had lived for so many years under con-
ditions, may I say, that were so adverse and
to the disadvantage of their wives and fami-
lies.
We hope in the future that, where there is
a re-development programme, none of the
families will be lost in what I might call
"the shuffle."
Now, local housing authorities have made
a mighty contribution to the housing depart-
ment of my branch of government. The pur-
pose of the community has been described as
the provision of a healthy and stimulating
environment for the individuals and families
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
297
who inhabit it. Our housing authorities are
certainly furthering this end in helping to
provide low - income families with decent
housing. It requires imagination and courage
—they have shown themselves to possess both.
Now, every year the housing branch has
an annual meeting, last year there was one
in Fort William. At the end of the meeting
the following resolution was passed by those
who attended this great convention, and this
is what they had to say:
That it is resolved that we express our
appreciation to the province, and speci-
fically to The Department of Planning and
Development housing branch, and to the
federal partner represented by Central
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for
the leadership they have given to the
housing authority in the administration of
federal-provincial renting and housing pro-
jects, and it is further resolved that a copy
of this resolution be forwarded to the
federal and provincial Ministers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have received a
number of complimentary letters from people,
mayors, city clerks. We have had rental pro-
jects, and land assembly projects. I would
like to read a few of them.
The first one comes from the city of
Ottawa from the board of control, and this is
what they have to say:
In view of the success of previous land
assembly projects under agreement between
Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
tion, the province of Ontario, and the city,
the board recommends approval in prin-
ciple to the undertaking of an additional
project on a site to be determined.
Then from Fort William, from his worship
Mayor Bedanny, we get this letter:
We appreciate the opportunity of ex-
pressing our views publicly on the need for
public housing in a growing community.
Some 122 houses are being occupied by
happy tenants in Fort William and an-
other 52 houses are now being built. The
waiting list is sufficient to warrant con-
struction of additional houses, and we trust
that this matter will be given consideration
in the near future. We can assure you of
our complete co-operation in providing
rental housing under the partnership agree-
ment.
And then, from his worship Mayor Jackson
of Hamilton, we received this letter:
Roxborough Park has been an unqualified
success, and we look upon it with a great
sense of pride. Any person inspecting the
whole area anytime from spring to late fall
would be greatly impressed by Roxborough
Park. The attractive homes, the clean un-
obstructed rear yards, the trim, well-kept
lawns, the heavy percentage of children,
all this contributes to the general impres-
sion of a very successful project.
I am a believer in rental housing, and
I have had endless arguments with some
who disagree. I think the catch phrase
"own your own home" is unrealistic, and
in some ways sheer nonsense, for a great
number of people. The young people who
have scraped together $300, $400 or $500
of the only money they have, and bought
a house, mortgaging and borrowing to the
limit, cannot really call it a home of their
own. To me this is a horrible mistake, and
I congratulate you on your programme.
Then, from Mr. Coulter, the city manager
of the city of Sarnia, we have this:
Again, let me say that we appreciate
the co-operation we have always received
from your department, and the success
reflected by the orderly development of
the first section of Coronation subdivision.
I will look forward to hearing from you
shortly in order that I might inform coun-
cil as to whether or not your department
would look favourably on the suggested
housing rental plan.
And from the mayor of Trenton, Mr. Ross
Birch, we get this:
The town of Trenton, as you know, has
entered into an agreement for the creation
of a land assembly and rental housing
project. Subdivision Champlain Heights is
one of the best developments and is prac-
tically built up. We are so pleased that
I formally request you to give consideration
to the development of another such project
in Trenton.
From the mayor of Stratford, Mr. Cox, I
received this letter:
We appreciate the co-operation we have
received from the provincial and federal
authorities in the past regarding the pro-
vision of housing units in Stratford. It
has helped a great deal as far as living
accommodation is concerned in this city,
and it certainly made it a great deal nicer
for many of our citizens. We do not know
what the local housing authority has done,
but we feel it did a good job in handling
the local situation.
298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, there has been some reference made
in this House in connection with Malvern
and the development that has taken place,
or may I put it another way, the lack of
development.
Now I should say this, in the spring of
1953, after consultation with the newly ap-
pointed chairman of Metropolitan Toronto,
the director of the housing branch of my
department, in the presence of Central Mort-
gage and Housing Corporation, recommended
to their respective hon. Ministers that lands
should be acquired in sizeable lots in Metro-
politan Toronto for a future housing develop-
ment. In the township of Scarborough, east
of the village of Malvern, it was recom-
mended that 1,600 acres should be obtained.
Now the question has been asked: "Why
have not the services been installed and why
have things been held up?" I thought per-
haps this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I might
take a few minutes and tell you why the
backlog has occurred.
Two farms were purchased by pre-
sale to establish market values for the prop-
erty in the area, and free negotiation was
obviously impossible. A large number of
property owners concerned could not be dealt
with and so we registered, I may say the
former Minister of this department ( Mr.
Griesinger) registered, two plans for expro-
priation, one on September 16, 1953 and the
other on September 19, 1953.
Negotiations with the property owners com-
menced immediately, we settled with 15 real
estate owners representing a 25 per cent,
ownership of this area, because settlements
with the remaining owners could not be ar-
ranged on a voluntary basis.
Then we applied for a hearing before the
municipal board to fix a compensation that
should be paid the owners with whom we had
not made a final transaction. The board
appointed September 16, 1954, as the date
on which to hear our application, but before
council had a chance to be heard Mr. Andrew
Brewin, Q.C., indicated to the municipal
board that he was going to apply to the court
for an order of prohibition preventing the
municipal board from hearing our application,
because he said our actions had been ultra
vires or in other words were contrary to law.
An application was then made by Mr.
Brewin on behalf of a Mrs. Carrigan on
October 15, 1954, at which time the learned
counsel argued, before the justice presiding at
that time, that our course of conduct could
not be recognized because, as I say, it was
contrary to the law. The application was dis-
missed, the case then went to the court of
appeal, the appeal was heard by Justices Peel,
Hogg, Roach and Ailsworth on December 8,
9, and 10, 1954. Judgment was reserved,
judgment was delivered by that honourable
court on January 28, 1955, and the appeal was
dismissed.
Then Mr. Brewin, not being satisfied,
asked for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada. This was done, and the
case was heard before the Chief Justice, Mr.
Justice Kirwin, and Justices of Appeal Rand,
Kellog, Lock and Cartwright, on March 2,
1956.
Their decision was given dismissing the
appeal once and for all, and the price was
established as to what should be paid for the
land in this area, then we started off again
to go before the municipal board, but that had
to be stopped because Mr. Brewin again made
an application to the courts, to say that our
course of conduct, no matter what the decision
of the courts might have been, was ultra
vires and, as I say speaking from a "lay par-
lance," against.
Then the municipal board finally got
around to hearing the application on July 10,
11 and 12, 1956. The hearing could not be
completed, and was adjourned, and was heard
and reconsidered again on August 13, 14, and
15, 1956.
One would have thought that, by this time,
Mr. Brewin who represented 12 clients— it
seems to me by the time he got through it
would have been cheaper for them to read
the book that I have, it cost me $1.98,
Cheaper by the Dozen, I would have
thought that they would have learned if they
had read the book that they would have been
further ahead than the way they were being
treated, legally speaking.
Then the case went to the court of appeal
for Ontario, it was heard on March 25, 26 and
27, by Justices of Appeal Schraider, Roach
and McKye. On May 14, that court gave
judgment, and again they confirmed that what
my department of the government had done
was correct and in order.
Finally we got to the municipal board on
July 3, 1957. We started to negotiate to
settle the matter in December of last year,
and in January of this year the final prices
were paid.
Now Mr. Brewin, who is a good solicitor,
generally speaking, must have given some
rather unsound advice to his 12 clients, for
the reason that after going through 5 courts
for which he was paid $15,000 in fees, his
clients were no further ahead than they would
have been had he consented to the first
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
299
application in 1954 to the Ontario municipal
board.
Mr. Brewin is a solicitor, in this matter, I
think by day, and a very active member of
the CCF party at night, because, according
to the information I have, the same Mr.
Brewin ran as the CCF candidate in Daven-
port riding in 1956, St. Paul riding in 1949,
and was defeated both times. For a short
time Mr. Andrew Brewin was provincial presi-
dent under Mr. Joliffe, the present national
treasurer of the CCF party, and is running as
a federal candidate in the coming federal
election, in Davenport riding, and may I
express the hope that what happened to him
politically on the first two occasions will
happen to him again on March 31.
We have been criticized as a government
for not making any progress in connection
with the Malvern subdivision. The fact of the
matter is that we have had nothing but CCF
roadblocks, legally speaking, put in our path-
way for over 2.5 years, and I now want to
say this, that we hope we are in the position
that this ill-founded advice that was given
by Mr. Brewin to his 12 clients— unsound in
my opinion from the point of view of fact
and in law— that now we have him out of the
way, progress can be made in this great area
which has a maximum capacity of 6,000 lots
for use of Metropolitan Toronto, and of
course the first step will have to be a pro-
gramme for the construction of the trunk
sewers.
It has been a very distinct pleasure, as far
as I am concerned, to be on what I might
call the parks committee. The area that I am
most naturally interested in is the St. Law-
rence development commission which com-
prises—or did comprise— the counties from
Glengarry to Leeds.
The Act authorizing the incorporation of
the Ontario-St. Lawrence development com-
mission is to be found in the statutes of 1955,
chapter 59, and it says in relation to the
park area down there, it shall mean the coun-
ties of Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas, Grenville
and Leeds. The executive committee shall
consist of 3 executive people, and they are
Mr. George Challies, Dr. John Carroll and the
hon. member for Grenville - Dundas (Mr.
Cass). Then there is an advisory committee
of 9 other people who, from time to time,
give advice when they are called in.
A delegation headed by my good friend,
the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Manley),
recently came up to Toronto. It included a
number of outstanding citizens from Stor-
mont, who met with the hon. Prime Minister
of Ontario, certain of the provincial hon. Min-
isters and our advisors in our parks pro-
gramme. The hon. member will say, if he
speaks in connection with our parks pro-
gramme, that he received an enthusiastic and
a sincere reception. And, as a matter of fact,
when he returned to Cornwall and after the
information got out in his part of the country,
there was some very favourable comment in
the Cornwall Standard Freeholder.
Now there are 3 or 4 hon. members of this
House who are very interested in the St.
Lawrence development commission. The first,
I say, is the hon. member for Grenville-
Dundas, who is one of the executive mem-
bers of the commission. I know, Mr. Speaker,
it is highly improper to call a man by name
but I would like to indicate that I refer to
Mr. Cass. Then the hon. member for Fron-
tenac-Addington (Mr. Rankin) will be inter-
ested because Frontenac is going to be taken
into this area, in that Fort Henry is going to
become part of the programme. The hon.
member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr.
Whitney) will be interested because there are
properties, as the hon. members know, in
Lennox and Addington in which he has a very
great interest.
Now, before we start to renovate and
reconstruct the old buildings of yesterday, we
have to get some sound advice from people
who have studied and made history their life
work.
Without any reservation, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say today that I have known
the chairman of the St. Lawrence develop-
ment commission, Mr. George Challies, for a
great number of years. I have been a col-
league of his in this House, and consider him
to be a friend of mine and I a friend of his,
and I know of nobody who is more sincere
and enthusiastic in developing the St. Law-
rence properly for a parks programme than
Mr. Challies, nor can I think of anybody
who will do a better job when the matter is
finalized for the people of Ontario than our
good friend Mr. Challies.
Now, we have to get some historical advice.
We have to get somebody who knows the
backgrounds of the buildings. We have
brought in Mr. Ronald Way, who is the
director of old Fort Henry at Kingston. He
is a man who has spent a very great deal of
time in historical research, and has supervised
for the Ontario government many major
restorations outside of Fort Henry. For ex-
ample, he had a great deal to do with Fort
Erie and Fort George at Niagara-on-the-Lake.
These are the 3 biggest restoration projects
ever undertaken in Canada. He is supervising
the development of Chrysler Memorial Park.
300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, we cannot buy old buildings
and reconstruct them with present-day
methods. If we are going to have them of
the time of the Chrysler battle in 1813, then
we have to have somebody, in my field, seized
and possessed of the knowledge who, when
this final project is complete, and tourists
come to look it over, will have the job com-
pleted in such a manner that they will know
the way of life of the people who lived in
the St. Lawrence valley over a century ago.
Mr. Way is experienced in restoration work.
He is more experienced, in my opinion, than
anybody else in Canada today, and his name
is synonymous with good sound thinking.
Now we are going to have a museum in the
Morrisburg area. We are going to try to
complete a United Empire Loyalist village.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that
we are living at a fast pace and we do not
have time for history. We have not got time
to appreciate the shrewdness and endurance
of our forefathers.
Immigration on the provincial level of
government comes under my department, and
it seems to me to be sound policy and good
thinking that the new Canadians, who are
coming to our shores, should know and appre-
ciate the way of life of our forefathers, that
they may understand and appreciate the
worthwhile heritage that we are prepared to
let them enjoy. This heritage is known as
democracy, and includes a respect for the ad-
ministration of justice and the contribution
made by our forefathers for us.
In the St. Lawrence project, we have estab-
lished a new shore line. We are going to do
some landscaping. We are going to make
the St. Lawrence now run from the Quebec
border to the bay of Quinte. In co-operation
with the sound advice that I am given, and
with my hon. colleague Mr. Cass, chairman
of the executive committee, with Mr. George
Challies, and Dr. John Carroll, plus the ad-
visors that from time to time we may call in,
we feel on the parks integration board com-
posed of the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Frost ) , the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Mapledoram), and the hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Daley) that we can lay down
and formulate a worthwhile policy that will
attract the tourists to eastern Ontario as never
before. In the St. Lawrence area, from the
historical records that we can find, using what
is left of old buildings, we are going to have
a policy of reconstruction second to none, and
it is with confidence and, with my whole-
hearted support, I commend to this House to
support what estimates I may have to offer in
the future, for the development of the St.
Lawrence river as a great power project.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in the debate, I would
first like to add my congratulations to the
hon. mover and the hon. seconder of the
speech from the Throne, and I think I would
also like to take this opportunity to thank the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) and the hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger)
for advancing one project in particular, the
600-bed extension to the Hamilton hospital to
a point where, today, tenders have already
been called, and we hope to have it under
construction or start construction some time at
the end of the month.
I might say, and I am glad that the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) is in
his seat, that this will mean employment to
approximately 1,000 men in the Hamilton
area and, added to that, I would like to
thank the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development (Mr. Nickle) for expediting the
524 lot survey for the land assembly scheme
which will also be underway very shortly,
giving additional assistance to the unem-
ployed in the Hamilton area. I was rather
interested in the remarks of the hon. member
for York South the other day when he was
quoted: Homes, Not Headlines, Urged by
MacDonald.
I would like to say that in Hamilton, we
already have approximately 1,000 homes that
are being built for low rental housing, there
are 73 nearly completed and another 63 are
being negotiated, and there are still 107
in the discussion stage.
I think that, Mr. Speaker, speaks well for
the efforts of this government, in an effort
to put forth not only homes at low cost, but
also to assist in the unemployment situation.
This, I might say, is in addition to the 524
lots that will be started certainly in the spring
under the land assembly scheme.
Mr. MacDonald: Over what period is the
1,000?
Mr. Child: The 1,000? Well, they cer-
tainly have come into being since I have
been elected, which was in 1951. I think
it is a fair record, and this is only one riding
out of 98, one area, so efforts are being made
that 524 lots for working people will be
acted on this spring.
On that question, I would like to say to
the hon. Minister of Planning and Develop-
ment that I understand the munici-
pality of Hamilton is considering charg-
ing, into the payment of the lot, the
total cost of services. This, I might say, I
believe would be a mistake. I think your
department should urge all municipalities to
include only 50 per cent, of the services in
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
301
the cost of a lot, and amortize the balance
over 15 years. Anything other than that will
make it awfully difficult.
As far as a down payment is concerned,
it will certainly eliminate a good many of
the people that have $1,000 or $2,000 to
put down. I suggest that this will be de-
feating the actual purpose of the land assem-
bly project.
. Last session, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about
what many of my constituents felt were
rather inadequate school facilities for the
hard-of-hearing children in Hamilton. This
year I might say that things have not im-
proved, as a matter of fact, they have become
somewhat worse.
The Hamilton board of education closed
its special classes for the hard-of-hearing so
that we no longer have any special classes in
Hamilton. Technically, by legislation, they
were well within their rights but morally,
I believe, they were in error. Some of the
children went to the school for the deaf in
Belleville.
Many others have been taken into the
regular classes in Hamilton. However, due
to the handicap, they are finding it increas-
ingly difficult to keep up with their work.
An organization, very active in interest
for these children in Hamilton, the Hamilton
Hard-of-Hearing Association, have conducted
a survey in order to become better informed
as to the incidence of deafness and hard-of-
hearing. Questionnaires were sent out asking
for information about the number of deaf
and hard-of-hearing people between the ages
of birth and 21 years of age in the various
counties surrounding Hamilton. The basic
idea of the survey was to find out if there
was sufficient reason to request the estab-
lishment of a second school for the deaf
to be located in southwestern Ontario.
Some 61 inquiries were sent out, and to
date 37 replies have been received by the
association. Of these replies, 23 were able
to give figures, the other 14 did not have
the information available.
The total number of deaf children that
were known to persons answering these ques-
tionnaires, and these were mostly municipal
officials, was 78, and the total number of
hard-of-hearing children known to the offi-
cials answering the questionnaires was 801.
When we consider that only 23 replies
with figures were received from approxim-
ately 61 municipalities, although many will
be coming in later, it seems quite reason-
able to assume that, on this basis, there are
possibly over 2,000 hard-of-hearing children
in these municipalities.
Although, Mr. Speaker, the survey is not
complete, there is I believe sufficient evidence
to warrant The Department of Education
making a more thorough and extensive sur-
vey to ascertain, with greater certainty, the
number of hard-of-hearing children in south-
western Ontario.
However, I believe the survey does show
that there is a great need for a school, and
I would like to suggest that it should be
built, maybe not in Hamilton, but certainly
in the Hamilton area. A further and more
extensive study by The Department of
Education would ascertain the actual size of
a school to be built and I would, Mr.
Speaker, ask that the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Dunlop) look into this matter and
give it his very earnest consideration.
During the last year or so, I have discussed
and made some observation regarding
another subject which I am very much inter-
ested in, highway safety. I still think it is a
major problem in the province, and one that
I find is of concern to many of my con-
stituents. A suggestion has been made, and it
is finding increased support in my riding at
least, in an effort to cut the rising toll of
death in cities, and it is one that I dis-
cussed during the proceedings of the select
committee on highway safety. The sugges-
tion is that we introduce legislation that
would give protection to the pedestrian in
marked crosswalks, and I suggest further
that such legislation should have some teeth
in it.
Approximately 60 per cent., we find, of
persons killed in cities and towns are pedes-
trians. I believe once the pedestrians know
that they have protection in designated cross-
walks, and that the motorists must stop for
them, they will stop crossing in the middle
of the block, thus eliminating many of the
accidents. If the crosswalks are well illumin-
ated, and clearly marked with white paint,
with brightly painted poles on each curb for
the motorist to see— these being much the
same as the Belisha beacons that one sees in
England— for those who have been there— I
believe it would be a major step forward in
cutting the death toll in urban areas. Some
cities have discussed this type of legislation
but it should be, I suggest, on a uniform
basis throughout the whole province, and
therefore should be provincial rather than
municipal legislation.
There should be possibly a two to three
months' education period before this would
go into effect.
302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As it stands now, and particularly on the
one-way streets we have, the pedestrian has
to be physically fit, and almost has to do
a 100-yard dash in record time, or he must
wait for a long break in the traffic which
does not come too frequently, particularly
at rush hours.
The only other alternative is for the
pedestrian to walk 4, 5 or 6 blocks out of his
way and cross at a traffic signal. Since such
legislation has been proved successful in other
jurisdictions, I do believe it merits con-
sideration at this time.
Mr. Speaker, there is one other aspect
of safety I would like to discuss— and I be-
lieve anyone who takes the trouble to look
up the accident statistics compiled by The
Department of Highways will feel, with a
sense of urgency, the teen-age driver situa-
tion. This is a subject that I have discussed
before, and I am very concerned. I am
concerned because of the lack of success
that we have had with our teen-agers in the
province.
Statistics unfortunately show that drivers
in the 16 to 21 year age group have accident
rates almost twice as high as groups of others,
and they kill approximately 50 per cent,
more people in those accidents. The 16 to
21 year age group had 10 times the number
of fatal accidents than the safest group of
drivers, namely those in the 45 to 50 year
old class, and these figures are based not
on registrations but on miles travelled.
From the information I have been able
to obtain, it would appear that the drivers
in the late teens and early twenties are not
improving, but other groups do show some
improvement.
At the present time there are 425,000 in
Ontario between the ages of 16 and 21. The
birth statistics show that over the next 8
years, as the record number of babies of
World War II and immediate past war years
grow up, more than 76,000 teen-agers in
Ontario will be reaching driving age each
year. And by 1966, there will be nearly
628,000 persons in the age group of drivers
causing most of the accidents.
I think that we would all have to agree
that young men and young women in these
groups are excellently equipped physically
to handle an automobile. Their vision is
sharp and clear, they have an excellent
muscular co-ordination, and their reflexes are
at the peak of efficiency. All of these things
should result in the teen-agers being in the
low accident group.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I think
possibly the attitude of the teen-agers has
more to do with their driving ability than
any other attribute they may have. I think
our job is largely that of moulding the young-
sters' characters, so that they will accept
authority and restriction together with the
necessary traffic regulations.
Granted, some of our accidents happen to,
or are caused by, accident-prone youngsters,
but these represent a very small proportion
of the young drivers. I believe most young
drivers today have a potential of becoming
good drivers if they are properly taught.
However, properly taught, I suggest, does
not mean being taught by their parents. The
only thing that can be accomplished, if
youngsters are taught by their parents, is
the continuation of the bad habits that we
have on our highways today. How can we
teach a youngster to stop at a stop street
when quite often he sees his father come
to just a slow-down and then pull away, or
when the father goes out with the family
car he exceeds the 60-mile an hour limit on
some of our highways, and 50 on the others?
All of these things are bad habits that we
would simply be passing on to our youngsters.
I admit myself that as a parent I do not
think that I, although I like to think I am
careful, would be qualified to teach my
youngsters to drive carefully the way we
would like to have them drive in the future.
I think if we are going to improve the acci-
dent record, we will certainly have to do
something more than that.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative
that driver education should be taught in
all secondary schools. The report that we
receive from those areas— and I am thinking
particularly at the moment of Kitchener and
St. Catharines— is that the driving of those
who have taken the courses is better, far
better than anybody ever expected. I would
say that teachers in high schools who have
taken driver-education courses in universi-
ties would be excellent people to give the
instruction both in the classroom and behind
the wheel.
I know there is still opposition to the driver
instruction in schools by many of the boards,
and that many of them consider it a "frill",
but since approximately 95 per cent, of the
students graduating from high school will
be driving, it seems to me not only desirable
but necessary they should be given proper
instruction in the operation of a weapon, a
very lethal weapon, so they can stay alive
long enough to use the costly education
which they have acquired.
FEBRUARY 20, 1958
303
I see little sense in spending thousands of
dollars on these youngsters for education and
then having them killed in automobile acci-
dents simply because they did not receive
the proper instruction in this operation. I
would recommend that the province give
financial support to this programme either
through The Department of Education or
The Department of Transport. Let us make
it on a voluntary basis— that money should
be made available to those who wish to take
it into the high schools— and I understand
the cost is very reasonable. It would cost
approximately $30 for each student.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
a few minutes and make some remarks and
observations about another matter that I also
feel very strongly about. There is hardly a
day goes by when we cannot find an account
of an accident in the newspaper where the
driver or passenger has been thrown through
the windshield or thrown out of the car and
seriously injured. Here is an account of one
that I have kept. It is date-lined August, from
Orillia: Falls From Rolling Car, Toronto
Girl Killed. From Peterbrough in October,
the headline reads: Tumrles From Truck,
Four-year-old Girl Killed— when she
tumbled from truck driven by her father. An-
other one of a similar case, the headline: Dies
in Fall From Father's Car. And still an-
other of the same type of accident in Decem-
ber of last year, the heading: Falls From
Car, Girl Killed, "The Sunday afternoon
drive ended in death today when two children
toppled out of the rear door of a moving car."
And in Sarnia, where a man was pinned
under a car, this passenger was dead on
arrival at the hospital. Police reported he was
thrown out of the car. And still another, from
the Toronto Globe and Mail in January of this
year reads: Three Dive Through Wind-
shield, Two Die, One Taken to Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest these fatalities
could have been eliminated and the cases of
serious injuries could have been reduced. This
was a needless waste of life simply because
those involved in the accidents were not
equipped with seat belts and safety devices.
The more I read about safety, and the more
doctors and safety authorities I speak to, the
more I am convinced that seat belts can play
a major part in the reduction of fatalities and
injuries.
I am not suggesting they are the whole
answer by any means, certainly they cannot
stop accidents, but they will and can reduce
the seriousness of an injury after an accident
has taken place.
I do not think any hon. member of this
House believes that we can eliminate acci-
dents on our highways, and since we must
accept this, then the only reasonable thing
to say is that we should make some effort
to minimize the injuries after those accidents
have occurred.
I know some are skeptical about the value
of seat belts, and frankly I believe some
always will be, but here is some information
in an article that should be of interest to those
people who are concerned with safety, and
have an open mind:
Reveal Car Belts Would Have Saved
24,000 in USA in a Year
Auto seat belts are catching on in Can-
ada. About 13,000 will be sold by the end
of the year, an increase of better than 50
per cent, over the previous year.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is a very pertinent point
of the article:
The argument for and against safety belts
has been settled by competent research at
a court of inquiry set up by President
Eisenhower. When released, the conclusion
was that, of the 36,000 people killed in
United States highway accidents during
1954, at least 24,000 would still be alive if
they had had proper seat belts and they had
been used.
The belts, I would suggest, do more than
save lives, and it has been found by a team
of doctors and surgeons, as well as the Cornell
University aeronautical laboratory scientists,
who established that properly used belts re-
duced the severity of injuries by at least 60
per cent. One insurance company is already
cutting premiums 10 per cent, to policy-
holders who install seat belts.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it has been
found that the passenger who decelerates with
the car, if he is restrained by a seat belt, will
receive less injury than the passenger who is
thrown forward onto the dashboard or out of
the car onto the street.
Further evidence on seat belts has been
gathered by the division of automobile crash
research for Cornell University, directed by
Mr. John Moore, who is making a continued
study of accidents in 11 states and the city
of Minneapolis.
Among 2,000 accidents already reviewed,
the division compared 162 crashes involving
81 cars in which the passengers wore seat
belts, and 81 in which they did not.
More than 75 per cent, of the passengers
in the cars not equipped with seat belts were
304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
found to have suffered various types of
injury, compared with only 30 per cent, in
cars equipped with seat belts.
A marked improvement made by seat
belts, Mr. Moore declared in his report, is
preventing the ejection of car passengers.
Primary studies show that, in the prevent-
ing of ejection, safety belts have cut the risk
of a moderate to fatal injury by at least 75
per cent., and have cut the risk of dangerous
to fatal grades of injuries by at least 85 per
cent.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that UCLA also
did a series of controlled crash experiments
and reports on the basis of these crashes and
other studies. UCLA experts recommend seat
belts, the removal of all dashboard protru-
sions, and collapsing steering wheels. They
all mention that head rests to protect the head
and neck would also assist.
They go on to say that with these pre-
cautions, the experts think, almost everybody
would have a chance of surviving almost
every automobile accident.
Mr. Speaker, if even the 3 lives of the
children I mentioned earlier who had fallen
from the cars driven by their parents had
been saved, I suggest such precautions would
have been well worth-while. Making such
regulations as putting seat belts in cars man-
datory would have been very well justified.
It seems to me we are reaching for the
moon as far as safety is concerned, in trying
to grasp something which is beyond our
reach. Hitching one's wagon to a star might
be good advice, but you know, Mr. Speaker,
old Farmer Hickey would probably never
have reached town if he had not compromised
and hitched his wagon to the horse.
The point I am particularly trying to make
is there are always things in this world within
our reach, and there are always things that
are not within reach for any of us, at least
for the moment. We all get up and make
speeches, we think of slogans and posters,
and educational programmes. But when we
are killing daily, in the province of Ontario,
approximately 4 people and injuring 86, it
is quite obvious that we have not yet found
the answer to highway safety. It is a great
and glorious achievement when man finally
does the impossible and he gets his name
in the headlines, pictures in the papers and
all that. This may be very well, and un-
doubtedly is as it should be. But the only
hazard that arises comes when we grow
too contemptuous of things that are not im-
possible, and achievements that are not phen-
omenal—I mean when we are too interested
in the unobtainable fruits at the top of a
tree to appreciate the fruits within our reach,
yes, when we lose sight of the fact that,
when reaching for the top, it is almost tradi-
tional to start at the bottom. The bottom
in the case of highway safety is where we
will show some success and where we will
have it.
From my observations I suggest that the
two rungs in the ladder of success, as far
as highway safety is concerned, would be
compulsory legislation for the installation of
safety devices in automobiles, and the intro-
duction of driver-education in all high schools.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is enough
factual evidence available to the government
toward making both mandatory in the prov-
ince of Ontario. If there is still some doubt
in the minds of officials, then I would strongly
recommend that a select committee could be
set up to investigate these two particular
aspects of highway safety.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the House. We will go ahead
with the debate tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.55 of the clock
p.m.
No. 15
ONTARIO
^Legislature of (Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, February 21, 1958
Speaker: The Honourable A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 21, 1958
City of Niagara Falls, bill respecting, Mr. Jolley, first reading 307
Town of Fort Frances, bill respecting, Mr. Noden, first reading 307
Town of Almonte, bill respecting, Mr. McCue, first reading 307
Society of professional directors of municipal recreation of Ontario,
bill to incorporate, Mr. Kennedy, first reading 307
City of Windsor, bill respecting, Mr. McCue, first reading 307
Corporation of the township of Sunnidale, bill respecting, Mr. G. G. Johnston, first reading 307
Synod of Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian Church in Canada,
bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, first reading 307
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mr. Child, first reading 307
Village of West Lome, bill respecting, Mr. Robarts, first reading 307
United Community Fund of Greater Toronto,
bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 307
City of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 307
Chartered institute of secretaries of joint stock companies and other public bodies in
Ontario, bill to incorporate, Mr. Robarts, first reading 308
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 308
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, referred to committee on legal bills 308
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne,
Mr. Reaume, Mr. Morningstar, Mr. Noden 308
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Thomas, agreed to 321
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 321
307
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, February 21, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
Mr. A. Jolley moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Niagara Falls."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF FORT FRANCES
Mr. W. G. Noden moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the town
of Fort Frances."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF SUNNIDALE
Mr. G. G. Johnston (Simcoe Centre) moves
first reading of bill intituled, "An Act respect-
ing the corporation of the township of Sunni-
dale."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
SYNOD OF TORONTO AND KINGSTON
OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN
CANADA
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act respecting the synod
of Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian
Church in Canada."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mr. Child moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Hamilton."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF ALMONTE
Mr. J. A. McCue moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the town
of Almonte."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
VILLAGE OF WEST LORNE
Mr. J. P. Robarts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the village
of West Lome."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
DIRECTORS OF MUNICIPAL
RECREATION OF ONTARIO
Mr. T. L. Kennedy moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to incorporate the
society of professional directors of municipal
recreation of Ontario."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
UNITED COMMUNITY FUND OF
GREATER TORONTO
Mr. A. H. Cowling moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act respecting the United
Community Fund of Greater Toronto."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF WINDSOR
Mr. McCue moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Windsor."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF TORONTO
Mr. Cowling moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act respecting the city of
Toronto."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF SEC-
RETARIES OF JOINT STOCK COM-
PANIES AND OTHER PUBLIC BODIES
IN ONTARIO
Mr Robarts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to incorporate the
chartered institute of secretaries of joint
stock companies and other public bodies in
Ontario."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Report of the Provincial Secretary of
Ontario with respect to the administration of
part 9 of The Corporations Act, 1953, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1957.
2. Report of the Provincial Secretary of
Ontario with respect to the administration of
The Corporations Act, 1953, and The Mort-
main and Charitable Uses Act, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 1957.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves that government-
order No. 21 be discharged and that Bill
No. 65, An Act to amend the Land Titles
Act, be referred to the committee on legal
bills.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: We would like to welcome
to the assembly this afternoon students from
the Robert Land School and the Claire Lee
School from Stratford. We welcome these
students who are here to view the proceed-
ings of the House.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, be-
fore the orders of the day I have a question
that I would like to address to the Hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop). In
today's issue of the Toronto Daily Star there
is an article from Niagara Falls stating that
The Department of Education officials at
Queen's Park had indicated to the officials
at Niagara Falls that there would be no
grants forthcoming for the 4-day period that
the schools had been closed during this week's
storm. Was this true?
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the affirmative,
it is true. There is no provision in the Act,
or in the Regulations, for reimbursing school
boards for loss of grants when schools are
closed on account of weather conditions.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to add that I realize that sometimes these
things happen when seemingly nothing can
be done about it. But the hon. Minister of
Education very graciously made an excep-
tion when the Asiatic flu was going across
the province, I believe, and inasmuch as this
affects some 13,000 students I would point
out that the grants are based entirely on at-
tendance and the number of days the school
is open during the year. I would suggest that
this would be a very hard burden on the
school board at Niagara Falls, and I would
hope that he could make an exception in
this case.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Speaker, no conces-
sion has been made in the case of the Asiatic
flu. The matter has been under consideration,
under careful consideration, but so far I see
no means by which boards can be reimbursed
for loss of grants during the Asiatic flu.
Mr. Jolley: Mr. Speaker, well, sir-
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member asking
for clarification of the question?
Mr. Jolley: Mr. Speaker, I had already
discussed this matter since, it is my riding
in Niagara Falls, with the deputy minister,
and the subject was under advisement be-
tween he and the hon. Minister, and I think
if my hon. friend from Bruce will leave my
riding to me, I think I am quite capable of
looking after it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald: He is getting touchy
on that matter.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Being leader, the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)
has to look after all of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: That is right, that is right.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say at the outset that
I think that you are probably one of the
finest men who ever occupied that high office
and I hope that you will be there for a
while yet, not a long while, but for a while,
because you are a man among men. More
important than all of that, you are a man
also of the cloth and one whom I think
adds everything to the office that it could
ask for, and in every instance you have
always been fair, and so I hope that your
health is good and that everything else re-
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
309
mains in your favour and that things go
along well for you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Reaume: Now If I happen to mention a
word or so about federal affairs, I hope that
you will not call me out of order because there
is plenty of precedent for it in the House.
We have not heard anything else, since the
opening of the House, but a lot of stuff com-
ing from the opposite side of the House
as to what they think the people here ought
to do, and how they ought to vote, and to
make certain that "Uncle John" gets into
office again.
Of course I do not agree with that, but
I want to say a word about a man whom
I think is equally as important as this gov-
ernment's friend Uncle John, and one whom
I think probably has had as much experience
in the affairs of the world and that includes
Canada too, and of course his name is the
hon. Mr. Pearson.
An hon. member: Who is he?
Mr. Reaume: The hon. member has heard
of him, and I suppose I could hasten and
add, to all of that, that many, many thousands
of people here in Canada, and I think indeed
all over the world — even the fine people
presently behind the Iron Curtain, and indeed
the people of the free world— there are many,
many millions of them who are hoping and
praying that this same man, of whom I speak
will go on after the end of March and head
the government of Canada in the interests of
peace.
Now I know that some hon. members are
interested in shovelling snow and things of
that sort, raking up a few pieces of paper
here and there, but I do not think—
Mr. Auld: The hon. member is using a
shovel.
Mr. Reaume: The hon. member for Leeds
is using a pitchfork. I am using a shovel.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. member for
Essex North certainly is!
Mr. Reaume: I do not think we can over-
look this great problem of peace.
Now it was not by any accident of course,
nor did it play any part in the field of
politics when this great man of whom I
speak was awarded a very wonderful prize.
My hon. friends on the opposite side of the
House, of course, did not have anything to
do with the awarding of that prize. If they
had, he of course would have got some other
kind of prize, but this prize was given as
an outstanding man of the world, not having
anything at all to do with any parties. There-
fore I want only to add to all the facts that
the prayers, I know that your prayers as
well, Mr. Speaker, coupled with ours, will
be poured forth praying that this man will
one day soon be at the head of the affairs
of your country and mine, in the interests
of everybody.
Mr. Cowling: Let the hon. member speak
for himself.
Mr. Reaume: Well, we can try it, that is
right.
Did hon. members know that, up until
a while ago, Canada in this matter of peace,
in the matter of keeping things running
smoothly on the world front, stood out ahead
of all other places of the world? The reason
for it was because hon. Mr. Pearson was
the man who advocated the policies that we
should follow.
Apparently since last June there has been
some secondary spot occupied by the people
of Canada, and now other places are doing
the talking, and Canada is following along
in the background as a country that is not
so important as it was, in the affairs of the
world, prior to June 10.
Mr. Cowling: They are doing a nice job
at home.
Mr. Reaume: Now I do not want to spend
any time arguing any more about who shall
be the Prime Minister of Canada, because
we do not agree apparently on that one
important point. For this reason, I feel that
we will probably adjourn at an early date
and give our hon. friends on the opposite
side of the House, and a few from over
here, the opportunity of going home and
putting some of that stuff on the garden in
order that they might make certain that the
person they want in office gets there. Well,
we Liberals will be back home too, doing
what we can to make certain that they do
not get their man in.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Let them go ahead
with the shovel.
Mr. Cowling: The hon. Provincial Sec-
retary is not kidding.
Mr. Reaume: Now one of the important
things, of course, that bothers all of us, is the
plight of the people who are now out of work.
My. hon. friend from Bruce stated in the
House awhile ago that he thought that the
plan of the hon. Prime Minister was a phony,
I agree with what he said. As a matter of
i
310
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it was worse than
a phony, I think it was a fake, and was used
only as a means of advertising in order that
he might help his Rt. hon. friend up in
Ottawa.
Now there has not been anybody so
anxious, you talk about Toronto and Hamil-
ton, even they have not been so anxious that
they have stepped forward and said that they
want this plan—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Oh yes, they have.
Mr. Reaume: That is what the hon. Minis-
ter thinks. Rather, if I can read the accounts
in the paper properly, which I think I can, it
was a plan which was offered by the hon.
Prime Minister of the province, and he said
this in effect: "You can take it or else."
Now, a week ago, when he first came out
with the plan, it appeared when he rose
and, in his nice quiet and smooth way, said
that he was planning to keep everything
within the 4 corners of this or that. It
sounded at first hand as though it were a
feasible thing, but what happened with it?
Well, at that time, insofar as I am concerned,
it sounded well. I was a little slow, but I
want to add this, that the places that are
involved— and it involves certainly the city
of Windsor— and I had the opportunity of
speaking to some of the officials from Wind-
sor and they have not even talked about this
plan as yet.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I talked to the mayor.
Mr. Reaume: That is what the hon. Minis-
ter says. I do not care who he has spoken
to, this plan that he has offered is still in
the office in Windsor. There is no interest in
the plan at all, and they have made no pro-
visions for using any part of the plan.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: May I ask a question?
Mr. Reaume: Just a moment, and here is
the answer to it.
In this plan the city of Windsor, and I
suppose other places as well, are pictured as
putting people on this important job— that
the hon. Minister says is important, patching
up a hole in an eavestrough, picking up pea-
nut shells in the park.
Well now, the city of Windsor is using
men presently drawing relief, and of that
amount of cost they are paying 20 cents on
the dollar, whereas this plan would call upon
them to go out and do the very same type
of work and pay 30 cents on the dollar. Now
wherein lies the absolute sense of the plan?
This plan, of course, was adopted, it was
approved by some places and, Mr. Speaker,
I want to submit that it was a plan that was
worked out in a hurry, as all other plans are
around here, and probably worked out by
one man, the hon. Prime Minister of the
province, who thought that it was going to
look like a big deal in headlines of the papers
across the country: Premier Gives $5 Mil-
lion Away to Help the Poor Unemployed.
I want to say he is not giving anything
away at all, because the experience in Wind-
sor has been that every time the hon. Prime
Minister starts to give something away, we
have to examine those parcels for fear there
is a bomb in them. We want to make certain
that-
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is not what the
people think.
Mr. Reaume: Oh, that is not what the
people think? Now the people of Hamilton—
the hon. Minister comes from that town, and
I have a paper here—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: What did the mayor of
Hamilton say?
Mr. Reaume: And the control board of
Hamilton.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: May I ask the hon.
member for Essex North a question?
Mr. Reaume: Go ahead, the hon. Minister
is my friend.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: The hon. member
says the plan is entirely phony?
Mr. Reaume: I say it is worse than phony,
I say it is a fake.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I have asked the
question whether the hon. member is opposed
to it, regardless of the fact that it may give
work to a few or may give work to many.
Mr. Reaume: I am saying this, that if the
people on the opposite side of the House want
to do what is fair and proper— and the hon.
Minister comes from Windsor too— I say they
ought to, and now, give them a grant. There
is plenty of useful work, there is plenty of
real work that they can do in Windsor like
they can do elsewhere— more important than
going around in the park, picking up papers
and peanut shells. For instance, it is all right
for the squirrels.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Let the hon. member
answer my question.
Mr. Reaume: The hon. Minister knows that
they are going to build an auditorium in Wind-
sor, for instance. He knows that they are cry-
ing for houses. He knows there is a section of
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
311
Windsor which is old, and they want to pull
it down and build it up again. There is plenty
of work of importance in Windsor, as I
imagine there is in other places.
Now, if this government wants to help, let
them give the municipalities a grant without
tying a lot of strings on it, and I am certain
that the mayor of Windsor and the board of
control and the aldermen of Windsor are
quite capable of using that money where it is
best fitted.
Now, yesterday afternoon in the House, the
hon. Prime Minister spoke of what was going
to happen here in Toronto. I think it was
said that there would be men at work in the
parks today. Well, I want to make this state-
ment, that we just called and there is not any-
body employed in the parks as yet under this
plan.
Now if the hon. Prime Minister wants to
enter into a public works scheme, why does
he not do it?
Back in 1933 and 1934, the Premier of the
province at that time (Mr. Henry), saw there
were people unemployed too. He was an
honourable man, a big-hearted fellow, who
instituted a work scheme for the purpose of
helping people who were unemployed. So he
hired an army of men and he put them out on
the roads digging holes here, digging holes
there, and then had another army of men
following behind filling them up. And then
when 1934 came along, he dug himself a big
hole and then Hepburn covered him up.
Mr. Auld: The Liberals dig a lot of holes.
Mr. Reaume: But there was one thing about
that plan which I think was fair; if the prov-
ince wants to enter into what I say is a plan
that is fake and phony, why do they not pay
the whole bill? Why are they asking anyone
else to take part in this plan that I say is a
fake?
Mr. MacDonald: He catches on after a
week.
Mr. Reaume: In 1933 and 1934, Premier
Henry and his people paid the entire bill, they
did not ask anyone else to pay it. But this gov-
ernment comes along now with this kind of
a plan, and tries to saddle it onto places that
are already overburdened, and there is not
going to be many of the places which are
going to take advantage of the plan. Time
will, I think, prove that.
Mr. Grossman: Will the hon. member per-
mit a question?
Mr. Reaume: I was speaking to the hon.
member in the hall, he could have asked
me out there.
Mr. Grossman: All the hon. member has to
do is say yes or no.
When the hon. member suggested that
should be no conditions attached to the grants,
they should be unconditional, and they
should be without regard to any payment
made by a municipality. I ask him whether
he would be good enough to speak to the
hon. leader of his party (Mr. Oliver) and ask
him whether, when he was hon. Minister of
Public Welfare of this province, he did not
agree that it was a good thing, when giving
grants, when making grants to municipalities,
to make sure they have an interest in the
expenditure, whether it was not a sound prin-
ciple then as it is now, not to have one spend-
ing group and one taxing group?
Mr. Thomas: How many questions is the
hon. member asking?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Some hon. members: Sit down!
Mr. Reaume: Is the hon. member through?
Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member
think this is a logical question?
Mr. Reaume: The only thing I have said
is that, if they want to set up an advertising
agency to the extent of spending $5 million,
then for goodness sake let them spend your
own funds. That is all I said.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I do not remember
the hon. member saying anything about an
advertising agency.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I did say it.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: May I just say an-
other word. Today it will be announced in
the Windsor paper that the contract for 203
low-rental units will be let, something that
was put through with the greatest speed
that any housing development has been put
through in the last 5 years.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I am awfully happy
to hear that.
Mr. MacDonald: That is irrelevant. That
is in addition to the $5 millions?
Mr. Reaume: I just want to say that every
housing scheme in Windsor has happened
with the greatest amount of haste, and we
have always handled things up there in that
way, but I want to repeat again, that Wind-
sor, I think, is one of the most important
and, indeed, the hardest hit places in the
province. And instead of handing out an
over-all plan that applies to all of the prov-
312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
-
ince, to people who do not want it, why
not work out some kind of a sensible scheme
for places that are hit and hit hard? Now
we thought back in May— there was a speech
made there, a good speech I thought— Rt.
hon. Mr. Diefenbaker came to town and he
was talking about the excise tax on cars,
and I remember quite well in a crowded
hall, overpacked, he said: "Now, when I
am the Prime Minister of the country, we
will wipe this 10 per cent, excise tax off,"
and so what he did was— after it was all
over— to take off just a small portion of it.
An hon. member: 2.5 per cent.
Mr. Reaume: So I think he is doing the
same thing pretty much as this government
is doing, it is just helping out in a small,
small way. There has been no indication
from places such as Oshawa, Windsor, Lon-
don, Chatham, places of that sort, that they
even want any part of the plan.
Therefore, I think it would be well and
wise, if the hon. Prime Minister wants to
institute a plan, let him get a sensible one
that is going to help people. Why does he
not call in the heads of the people of the
communities which are involved, and sit down
with them and have a talk. But he did not
do that. What he did was to have a talk
with the officials of one place— Toronto. And
based upon what happened there, he now
applies a scheme that has to apply to all
of us, and we just do not think it is right,
and we think that there is a way, a more
equitable way, that the hon. Prime Minister
can do it.
Mr. Cowling: What is it?
Mr. Reaume: Well, it is this: I have
heard so much about the credit of the prov-
ince. Now if the credit of the province is
so good, why does the government not un-
fold that credit and use it to the benefit
of the places which are involved? I have
stated here before that I feel that the city
from which I come is now going through
awful times. If the credit is so good, why
does the hon. Prime Minister not offer them
a loan, in order that they might go ahead
and institute work, a loan at reasonable in-
terest rates, so that they could institute work
and put some of the unemployed up there
on a job, doing something that is worthwhile?
Now there are a large number of people in
the province, 280,000 who are unemployed,
people who are walking around all over
the streets, talking about every kind of an
"ism" and there is no condition that will
bring these "isms" on any faster than the
matter of having people out of work.
I know the hon. members can smile at
me. They think that probably in a month's
time this thing will have passed, but from
everything that we read instead of it going
away, instead of the unemployment situation
improving, it steadily is growing worse, and
so there has to be some serious thought on
the matter. None of these pick-up-paper
deals will do, they will not help anyone.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Oh yes, they will.
Mr. Reaume: They will not.
I think the hon. Minister will find, in a
short while, that after these places have had
the opportunity of going into the plan, that
they will turn the plan down flat. Why is
it now in the Hamilton papers, and in every
paper we find, they are finding fault with
the plan and are thinking it over. In fact,
some of them have said this: "We don't want
any part of the plan because we do not
think that the plan is feasible."
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: May I ask a ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Reaume: No. No.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Oh, it is purely—
Mr. MacDonald: He does not want any
answer.
Mr. Reaume: Let the hon. Minister make
his own speech. He can read me, I know,
all kinds of articles, but I just say if the
hon. Prime Minister wants to help the people,
why does he not sit down some place and
have a talk? What has happened to all govern-
ment hon. members over there is that this
deal has been handled by one man and it
is going to be awful— if ever anything were
ever to happen that that one man ever goes—
because the wheels will fall off the hon.
members' wagon and the stuff that they have
been hauling around in that wagon will fall
all over the earth.
Mr. Cowling: We are going to dump it on
the hon. member.
An hon. member: That is the truth.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to
say a word about the ads that we see that
pertain to alcoholic beverages.
Mr. MacDonald: It is like fluoridated
water. That is the hon. member's trouble.
Mr. Reaume: Probably, I am one who
should not even be speaking about this, but
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
313
if I ever have heard, or if I have ever seen,
a government which acted like a bunch of
hypocrites, this government is it. Now the
other morning— it is not nice but it is true—
the other day, riding on a car here in
Toronto of all places, I was looking at the
ads in the car, and I saw a nice printed sign.
It said, "Think of the Birds." Think of the
birds! Why not open up a feeding station?
And under that was the picture of a nice-
appearing man with a red cap on his head,
with a long peak, and then it says under-
neath that, Carlings Red Cap ale.
Mr. Grossman: That is for the birds.
Mr. Reaume: That is for the birds!
And then from every station, Buffalo or
Detroit, every time we put it on, all we see
there are ads from places across the line-
people walking around with trays full of
bottles.
Now, the point is, I know that we cannot
stop pumping in these ads from other places,
but if we do allow these sort of ads in the
province, is it going to have any bad effect
on people who drink or people who do not
drink?
After all it is a fact, these ads are here.
They come in books that are printed else-
where. We see them every place that we go.
What harm is there? We cannot stop it any-
way, so why not allow it? Is there anything
wrong with it? I think that what this govern-
ment ought to do is to adopt some kind of
a policy, one that is not a policy of a
hypocrite but a policy that fits in with the
thinking of the people.
I want to say a word about our schools.
I understand that in the estimates, or even
prior to the estimates, there is going to be
a statement made regarding our schools and
educational grants. I understand that those
grants are going to be up and I think that
is a very excellent thing. But I want to say
that in this business of schools, that it is
pretty near time that the separate schools of
the province got some sort of a break. Now
far be it from me, to bring up anything in
the House that will in any way cause an
argument over this type of thing. But I say
to whoever the responsible heads are, we
have adopted this system in the province
and, having adopted it, then I think that we
must help it along.
I could go on for an hour and explain the
hardships that some of these schools are hav-
ing. But a commitment ought to be made;
something should be done and done quickly,
because, after all, these people who send
their children to those schools are just as
much entitled to the same fair play as the
others are getting.
Now I have here an article in the paper
and it has to do with the number of people
of Detroit and the Detroit area who came
on a trip here into the province to hunt rab-
bits. Of course, we have been urging our
friends from over there to come on over—
"anxious to have you"— but back in 1956,
some kind of a Act was passed that said that
a party of over 12 could not hunt, and this
group was a party of 18. So here is what
happened.
As the officers of the department were hid-
ing behind a tree or something, watching
these people enter a farm for the purpose
of going hunting— because they all had guns
of course, and they were not here for the
purpose of killing people—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: How does the hon. mem-
ber know?
Mr. Reaume: —well, I know they were not.
They were all fine people. Here is the point,
that the officers stood behind a tree or some-
thing, and waited until these people broke
the law and then stepped up to them and
seized all the guns.
These people were brought up in court,
in Exeter, and when they appeared in court,
the magistrate quite properly gave the
officers involved a scolding and threw the
case out of court.
Now, I think that the responsible heads of
The Department of Lands and Forest should
call these officers in. If we are trying to
encourage people to come over here from the
other side for the purpose of hunting, or for
other purposes, then we should not be hiding
behind trees waiting until they break a law
for the purpose of putting them in jail.
Now the other thing that I want to speak
about— is that all right with the hon. mem-
ber?
Mr. Grossman: We are afraid of getting
shot.
Mr. Reaume: Going back for a moment—
and I want to speak for only a moment,
again, about this great person whom I have
already mentioned, the next Prime Minister
of Canada, the hon.—
An hon. member: Mr. John Diefenbaker.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Pearson is his name. He
was to speak at the Ontario Agricultural
College—
An hon. member: Oh no, he was not.
314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Reaume: —he was invited to speak at
the Ontario Agricultural College. Now we
find out that the person— well, it is here in
the paper, of course— that the person who
said that he could not speak at the O.A.C.
was the deputy minister of agriculture.
Mr. Monaghan: Who said that?
Mr. Reaume: Well, it is here in the paper,
of course.
Mr. MacDonald: He cannot read.
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I
am sorry I was not in the House the night
before last when this matter came up. The
first I heard about the fact that hon. Mr. Pear-
son would be in Guelph, I got a call from 3
newspapers. I knew nothing about it, and I
told them it was entirely within the juris-
diction of the president of the college.
The officials of the Ontario Agricultural
College discussed with myself, and the deputy
minister, the matter of having public meet-
ings there. As far as I am concerned, I think
it is a splendid idea, if the students' council
or some other responsible body wish to invite
in all the candidates and to allow the candi-
dates to discuss the issues of the day. But I
do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the deputy
minister and myself knew nothing about any
invitation that had been extended to hon. Mr.
Pearson to be at the college.
Mr. Reaume: May I thank the hon. Minister.
Mr. Kerr: Is he not going to read the
article?
Mr. Reaume: No. I accept his statement on
that. I do not think I will go any further
with that.
Mr. Speaker, we apparently have answers
for everything on the opposite side of the
House today.
Mr. Grossman: The principal himself said
that he did not discuss this with the deputy
Minister.
Mr. Reaume: That is right but the hon.
Minister has answered, I think, for the time
being.
Mr. MacDonald: They could change their
minds.
Mr. Reaume: I wanted to mention one other
thing.
In the paper only a week ago or more, the
man who calls himself the "Super Mayor of
Metro," by appointment, of course-
Mr. Grossman: He never called himself that.
Mr. Reaume: Who called him that?
Mr. Grossman: He never called himself that
at any time.
Mr. Reaume: —the Super Mayor of Toronto
then, we will use that term, then-
Mr. Grossman: The only people who called
him that—
Mr. Reaume: —in any event, he is the
Super Mayor of Toronto. I called him that
then if the hon. member has not.
Mr. Grossman: All right.
Mr. Reaume: As an article the other day
in the press regarding burglaries of banks,
and he said that these officers should be well
armed and start shooting people all over the
place, and then when the matter arises in
the House, my hon. friend across gives it the
the answer. Well, I think, he does not answer
the thing at all, he merely says this. "Well if
the banks would put on more guards, this
would solve it."
It would not solve the fact that this Super
Mayor, that this man who is Super Mayor
by appointment only, speaking for all the
people around here, it would not—
Mr. MacDonald: The only one in the world.
Mr. Reaume: I think the only one in the
world, yes.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Reaume: We agree probably, that if
they were to put more guards in the banks,
it would help in stopping a lot of burglaries,
but are we going to stretch it further? Are we
going to say that every man who operates a
business should have an officer at the door
or a guard for whom he also has to pay? If
so, that also would stop a lot of holdups.
After all, banks or business people or who-
ever they are, are paying, every year, a
substantial amount of money in the way of
taxes for the purpose of being certain that
there will be ample officers around in order
that they might help them, and guard them
without anybody issuing any orders that they
should shoot people, whether they are certain
that they are holding up a bank or not.
Mr. Grossman: Did Mr. Gardiner ever say
that? Now, he hardly said to shoot people
whether they are guilty or not.
Mr. Reaume: "Shoot to kill," those are the
words.
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
315
Mr. Grossman: Well, I know, but he did not
say shoot to kill anybody. Now that is quite
a different thing. I may not agree with what
he said but that is not what he said.
Mr. Reaume: Well now, there are plenty
of people who are out of work, so if we do
not have plenty of officers to handle the whole
job, this problem could be easily solved. I
think that the Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
is quite able— and I think he ought to have at
least a good department, one that is efficient—
but if he wants officers, we have plenty of
people in Windsor who are unemployed who
would be anxious for the job. I do not think
it is right, I do not think it is proper that any
man, because he happens to be a high-browed
member of the Progressive-Conservative party,
and that is exactly what Mr. Gardiner is,
should be allowed to go around this province
and make those type of statements without
somebody telling him that it is wrong. Now,
if this government is going to allow it, if
he is going to speak for the department, if
he is going to speak for the government,
well, nothing was said about it.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. The point of order is that
this hon. member has made a statement that
somebody outside this House, and not an
elected representative, is speaking for my
department, and I immediately challenge him
on that.
I speak for my department, and I spoke
in answer to a question a day or two ago
on this very point which I thought my hon.
friend— I believe he was in the House— could
understand at the time.
There is a law which was made long
before I was here, governing this sort of
thing, and we ask people to abide by the
law. There need be nothing more than that,
but if my hon. friend is going to suggest
to the House that, because institutions which
are close to monopoly in their position by
reason of the small number of them, because
they might protect the public and protect
lives and also protect themselves by having
uniformed guards at their own expense in
certain of their own premises, that guards
should be extended all over the place, then
of course he is talking complete nonsense.
Also if he is suggesting that because the
mayor of Metro makes certain statements in
a free country, where thank God he can make
them if he wants to on his own responsi-
bility-
Mr. Wren: Well, who appointed him?
Mr. Yaremko: Metro council appointed him.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: —and certain members
of the party of my hon. friend made equally
irresponsible or more irresponsible statements
at public meetings recently, that we should
go around checking them all up, then that
would lead to a police state with which we
will have nothing to do.
Interjections.
Mr. Reaume: All I am going to say is this,
How long are they going to sit back and give
us those kind of answers here in the House?
Now here is a responsible man who made
a statement— and I think a pretty broad one
—and the hon. Minister says that he was
appointed by other people, but in effect he
was appointed by this government.
Interjections.
Mr. Wren: The only official this side of
The Iron Curtain.
Mr. Reaume: How long are we going to
sit back—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: He was not appointed
by me.
Mr. Cowling: What diffrence does it make,
anyway?
Mr. Reaume: If an hon. member of the
Opposition were to make such a statement
in the House, or out of the House, I am
certain that the government hon. members
would probably crawl all over him.
Now the only thing I am asking the hon.
Minister to do is to write him a note and
say "stop talking foolish." He is supposed
to be a person in an important sort of job,
and the sooner that the people of the area
here have the opportunity of doing as we
all do in other parts of the province— picking
our own people who shall act as a mayor
or super-mayor or something of that sort—
the better off that we will all be. I am part
of the province-
Mr. Grossman: No question about that.
Mr. Reaume: Well, going back now, if
you will, for a moment to the city from
which I come, it is as hon. members know
the automotive capital of the empire, there
is no question about that statement. Windsor
is and always has been the automobile capital
of the empire. Although it is true that
up there we have had some arguments in
the past between industry and those who
work for the industry, it was evident that
these troubles would occur, because we are
316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on the front or the back porch, whichever
way on wants to put it, of the great city of
Detroit. There is forever the shadow of
Detroit overshadowing Windsor, so that
when problems occur between employee
and employer over in Detroit, they happen
very quickly in our town too.
Now I am hopeful that most of our troubles
are past because, in the event of a strike I
sometimes wonder whoever wins a strike, I
sometimes wonder if anybody ever wins a
strike and we have had our fair share of
them.
But I am hoping and praying, along with
all hon. members, that some day here, in the
province, employer and employee might find
some ground, common ground upon which
both of them can stand, because if they do
not agree, if they cannot work out some kind
of a plan that is going to be good for all of
us, then these strikes are going to go on and
on. It is the hon. members' province and
mine, their country and mine, that will even-
tually be hurt.
Very soon there will be something brought
down, I hope, in the way of amending The
Labour Relations Act of the province. What
those amendments will be I do not know, but
I think that each and every person on the
committee is bent on one thing, doing what
he can in order that we might bring down
some sort of an Act that will bring the
employer and the employee closer together.
This, I think, is one of the most important
jobs that we have. I feel certain, with the
able hon. person at the head of the commit-
tee that we have— my hon. friend who is not
in his seat, he is probably making a speech
for Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker— and all the
other hon. people on the committee, I feel
certain that we will bring down something
that will bring harmony to the people of the
province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, may I
point out that I heard it said, yesterday after-
noon, by a very dear friend of mine on the
opposite side of the House that he was angry,
angry because we said something about the
hon. Prime Minister of the province. I do
not think he was really angry at all, because
he is not the type a man who is ever angry,
but the function of opposition is to criticize,
and we must not fall down in our work, of
course, because I have never seen such a
group of 80-some odd people who have ever
joined such a choir as the hon. members
have joined. They must have choir practice
every afternoon.
"Mr. Frost can do no wrong, never has
and he could not if he wanted to—"
Mr. A. G. Frost: How about harmonizing?
Mr. Reaume: Oh, they are harmonizing
well, but I just want to say again that the
hon. Prime Minister of the province indeed
is a very fine man, I think that all hon. mem-
bers of his party should spend all of their
time making certain that he stays well,
because again I want to repeat that if any-
thing ever happened that he is out of the
House and is not at the head of the party,
the rest of the hon. members opposite will
exit from this House as though they thought
an A-bomb had dropped on the roof.
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr.
Speaker, and hon. members, in spite of the
fact that we are going through a soft period
economically, progress and expansion along
many lines continues all over the Welland
riding. Industry is in the forefront. In March
of this year, Page-Hersey Tubes Limited will
open their eighth mill and electric resistance
units at a cost of over $5 million. Only a
year ago, this important Canadian industry,
in association with the Steel Company of
Canada, began production at Welland Tubes
Limited of the first big inch pipe to be manu-
factured in Canada. This has had the effect
of sizable Canadian participation in the con-
struction of the transmission lines that are
being stretched great distances across our
land.
In June, Atlas Steels Limited will com-
plete a modern new office building at a cost
of $600,000, to be featured by exterior
panelling of stainless steel, a product for
which Atlas of Welland are justly famous.
In Port Colborne there is power advance
in progress, the International Nickel Com-
pany have completed a change at a cost of
$250,000.
The campaign for a new Welland area
hospital will continue this year, and a start
will be made on the construction of the new
institution to cost in excess of $4 million.
May I say that the decisions by both the
federal and provincial governments to in-
crease hospital construction grants have been
great boons to this necessary projects.
Negotiations are under way between the
city of Welland and the townships of Crow-
land and Thorold to bring about an aerial
sewage disposal plant under the terms set
out by the water resources commission.
New schools, public and separate, continue
to go up all over the riding, and this year
will see completed a second Pelham district
high school located at Fonthill, costing $600,-
000.
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
317
There have been notable achievements in
sports in the riding in the past years. Last
March the Port Colborne Juveniles, sponsored
by the Lions Club in town, won the Ontario
minor league hockey championship.
This month, Welland schoolboy curlers
earned the right to represent southern Ontario
in the Dominion finals at Charlottetown.
Marlene Stewart Streight of Lookout Point
at Fonthill continues to dominate Canadian
women's golf, and this year the city of Wel-
land will have senior lacrosse, with the
transfer of the St. Catharines Athletics from
the garden city to Welland as their home
tase.
The riding of Welland and Welland County
offer many great attractions to visitors, and
the hon. members themselves would find it
very much worth their while to tour the
territory.
The city of Welland holds out a particularly
warm welcome this year since it is marking
its centennial. The week of July 20 to 27 has
been set aside for the main celebrations, and
I know that anyone who plans to join us in
Welland over that period will be royally
entertained.
Mr. Speaker, we in the west riding do ap-
preciate the wonderful co-operation which we
received from both the provincial and federal
governments in making a road on the west
side of the Welland ship canal, from Port
Colborne to Welland, a reality. This road has
gone a long way in alleviating some of the
congestion in the city of Welland. We are
now asking our hon. Minister of Highways
{Mr. Allen) to extend this road northerly to
connect the Queen Elizabeth highway at St.
Catharines, to construct an overpass on high-
way No. 3A at Thorold.
We would also strongly request our govern-
ment, especially the hon. Minister of High-
ways, to negotiate with the federal authorities
to make it possible to provide underpasses or
overpasses for the Welland ship canal in the
Port Colborne- Welland area, as I feel this is
the proper time when the deepening of the
St. Lawrence is under way.
In my capacity as an hon. member, serving
Welland in this House, I have no hesitation
in expressing my warm interest in our elderly
citizens. I have made my time readily avail-
able, particularly to several older people, on
every occasion, and I am very pleased to see
that the recommendations that I made a year
ago have now become effective.
Hon. members may recall that I strongly
recommended an increase beyond the unreal-
istic allowance of $40 a month being paid at
that time.
This year the amount of $55 is of course
a reality. Where there are extraordinary
problems, a supplementary grant is made
available through the municipality. This addi-
tional allowance may be granted up to a
maximum of $20 a month where the need
is evident, with the province paying 80
per cent, of the cost.
I would suggest also that an injustice has
been corrected in the treatment of the older
persons who have lived in Canada for just
10 years. Now such a person can qualify
for both old age assistance and a universal
old age pension. The previous basis of 20
years was discriminatory, the 10-year period
is far more logical and fair.
I should add that many fine citizens born
elsewhere than in Canada have reason to
be grateful for this changed attitude in regard
to residents in Canada.
I would like to give much credit to the
hon. Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile)
in bringing this matter so forcibly to the
attention of the government of Canada.
Pensions in themselves do not meet all
the requirements of the older person. Many
of them need extra care, and people in
hospital are maintained, and comforts pro-
vided, in homes for the aged.
I am indeed pleased to learn that the
government plans to encourage the develop-
ment of homemakers' services so that muni-
cipalities may make available the services of
such a person to assist older people, and
families with children in their own homes.
Visits on the part of homemakers to homes
of elderly persons and families will of course
help to lessen premature institutional care
for the older persons and the unnecessary
placing of children in foster homes or institu-
tions.
Hon. members may recall that my own
occupation is one which is closely related to
the ordinary working man in industry in
Ontario. We deal in steel. Our company
provides employment for many, many persons.
We are one of the major suppliers of pipe
for gas and oil companies in Canada.
We do, however, face great competition
from our neighbours to the south, and from
the European countries, because of mass pro-
duction methods and sometimes lower wages.
I am raising the matter today because ours is
a highly competitive field, serving Canada and
its working man. I would add that about 75
per cent, of the steel used by my firm is of
Canadian manufacture, and hon. members
realize that this industry itself in Canada
318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has real competition from plants in other
countries.
There are many firms operating in my rid-
ing who are engaged in the metal industry.
Our working force is highly specialized in this
field, and we must preserve our markets. I
have made representations on behalf of our
people to be sure we have fair competition.
We are not asking for bonuses or premiums of
any kind, but we do want to preserve Cana-
dian industry for Canadians.
My riding is adjacent to the American
border; I mention this because many of our
people are aware of, and have personal experi-
ence with, the social security scheme in the
United States. We can readily see the differ-
ence in each country. I am still hopeful that
a better rounded scheme of social insurance
can be developed in Canada, which will take
into consideration the standards of living of
our people, to provide proper means whereby
they can contribute through their productive
years towards their time of retirement and
receive a realistic allowance.
I would repeat to every hon. member of
this House, especially those whose ridings
border on the United States, that the social
security programme in that country is far
superior to our own plan, and is operated at
very little additional cost.
May I say, while on the subject of the
security of our people, that I was pleased to
see our mothers' allowances granted on a
basis which is more closely related to the
needs of the families. It is possible that fur-
ther adjustments may be required, but from
what I have heard so far, there is a vast
improvement in the programme as a whole,
and in the allowance available to the majority
of the mothers and children who receive this
assistance.
For our people of Ontario, the forward
step in the cost of hospital care must be
spread across the population as a whole. This
is most desirable, and proves the principle
of insurance. Certainly this is a programme
which outdoes anything in the United
States.
I am given to understand that those who
are unable to pay the necessary premiums,
such as recipients of our welfare programmes,
will be served without cost if hospital care
is required. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I
consider it a great privilege to serve all the
people of my riding and especially those who
are in troubled circumstances.
Welland is a superior county, and I think
I am justified in being proud of the people
who live in my riding. I appreciate the co-
operation I have received from all depart-
ments of government, particularly from the
workmen's compensation board and The
Department of Public Welfare. I am quite
free to admit that much of my time is spent
in the interests of the people of my riding
who are without resources of a breadwinner
in full-time employment. Much has been
said about unemployment, and I readily
agree that it is a tragedy to find willing
workers without a job. But I have enough
confidence in this province, in its people, and
Canada as a whole, to say that our progress
towards even higher standards of living is
assured, and that the various measures now
under way will certainly overcome our
present difficulties. Certainly all the levels
of government must proceed and continue
with housing and public projects in periods
of such slack employment.
Mr. Speaker, may I say how much I have
appreciated this opportunity of expressing
my views to you and the hon. members of
this House. I can only add that I consider
it a great privilege to sit in this Legislature,
to be a part of a government which is striv-
ing so well to serve the best interests of all
people.
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to
take part in the affairs of this Legislature,
and I want to express in words how ably
you assume the responsibility as Speaker of
this House.
After listening to the remarks this after-
noon and the past number of days, may I
say I think it would be a good thing to
have a change of air and let me take hon.
members to the other end of the province
where things are a little milder. I would
say at times they are milder, after all I
think they run quite smoothly, and I think,
Mr. Speaker, you can relax now for about
15 minutes, and I will not bother you too
much or rub you too hard, but I will let you
hear what I have to say.
I enjoyed the talk of the hon. mover of
the address from the speech from the Throne,
the venerable hon. member for Peel ( Mr.
Kennedy), and when he made that state-
ment about the fibre of a family making
a nation, I thought how true that is, how
proud he can be of the 6 grandsons who
are part of that statement.
The hon. seconder, the hon. member for
Glengarry ( Mr. Guindon ) outlined what good
government was doing and proposing for
Ontario, increasing grants for education, wel-
fare, further assistance to municipalities. What
he said about hydro-electric power extensions
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
319
to rural areas applies to the Rainy River
district to a great extent. It gives those
people that electrical energy which is so im-
portant. When one neighbour sees the other
neighbour no longer needing a coal-oil lamp,
he becomes envious, so naturally this is a
good move.
Regarding the hospitalization plan which
is coming into effect this year, I listened and
agreed with a statement by the hon. Prime
Minister of this province which he made to
the 21 delegates representing northwestern
Ontario associated chambers of commerce.
We must not miss a bet. These 21 delegates,
representing nearly every community in north-
western Ontario, arrived here by chartered
plane, giving of their time and money in order
to place before the hon. Prime Minister and
his cabinet certain resolutions relating to
the problems of our area. Their purpose
was to help the government, in their con-
structive thinking, to move forward with
optimism in a programme that will promote
development.
All this lends encouragement to both in-
dividuals and industry in the job to be done.
Speaking on some aspects of the speech
from the Throne, I can only add some of my
own views which have been formulated
as the days move on. Today there is much
dissension and discussion as to employment,
financial restrictions, trade and commerce,
and the reasons for the ups and downs in
our economy. Most of us remember that this
situation has been going on throughout our
lives, yet we feel it is a law of demand
and supply that controls in the final analysis.
The other day the hon. member for River-
dale (Mr. Macaulay) used the expression
"tight money". And then he went on to
describe the meaning— when one neighbour
wants to borrow a cup of sugar from another
but on going" to the cupboard they found
there was none.
We know the former Liberal government
at Ottawa created this thing— for what pur-
pose? None of us know. When they were
building up a reserve within their budget
of $500 million, of the taxpayers' hard-earned
dollars, it caused the tightening up of money,
that is, higher interest rates and difficulty in
procuring money for development and expan-
sion purposes. This has affected our general
economy.
To my way of thinking this should not
have happened. Some hon. members will
have read the commercial letter of Decem-
ber 8, 1957, of one of the Canadian Banks
of Canada, and I quote:
During the past year, deposits grew to a
new high of $2,406,843,000, an increase of
$127,746,000. Personal savings deposits
and other deposits increased by $53,476,000
and $50,864,000 respectively. Each attained
new high levels of personal savings now
totalling $1,166,237,000 and other deposits,
$1,055,983,000.
These figures become more meaningful
when it is realized that the bank serves more
than 2 million personal and business cus-
tomers. Let me point out that this is only
one bank reporting. This increase in the sav-
ings of the people must come from the
labourers, the white-collar workers, the
small business man, farmers, corporations, and
all classes of people.
Then why should there be tight money?
Only because of the lack of confidence to
invest, created by the policy of the previous
Liberal administration. That old saying still
applies: "You must speculate to accumulate."
What better investment can we make than
in the natural resources of Ontario? They
are there for us to develop wisely and for
the future.
Let me speak of the northwestern part of
Ontario, with which I am very familiar, and
fully aware of the potential wealth of our
resources. The mineral wealth of the Steep
Rock area has been proved. I use the figures
for 1956. Tonnage of iron ore mined is
3,317,073. The total dollar value is $36,559,-
719. This represents about 66 per cent,
of the iron ore mined in Ontario, of which
there was mined some 5,007,920 tons,
and this represents only one mineral.
In this same area, there is another develop-
ment where some $60 million are being
invested before one ton of iron ore will be
mined. I have been informed just lately this
company is moving ahead in the year 1958
without any hold-back in their plans, and
furthermore, that another company moved in
last summer and is now developing a gravel
deposit containing iron ore, left in this spot
by the melting of a glacier.
It will take some 30 years to remove the
ore from the gravel. This is a new venture
which has taken place and is now being used.
A new process is being used in the Mesabi
range, where 90 per cent, of iron ore was
shipped each year to the different mills in
the United States, and they are using the
same process there now to take up that slack.
320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Then, I read in the Toronto Globe and
Mail, February 20, the following statement:
Steep Rock Proceeds With Expansion
Plans!
President M. S. Fotheringham says the
company shares the view held by many in
business circles, that economic conditions
will improve as the year progresses. In
the long range, he predicts, progressively
greater iron ore consumption regardless of
short time uncertainty.
Should there be any lack of confidence in
future investments of this kind? No, as long
as it is beneficial to the economy of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
Now take the timber resources, and I would
again refer to a given area. During 1957,
between Red Rock and the Manitoba boun-
dary, the pulp and paper industry produced
some 942,000 tons. Of this, 54 per cent, of
the newsprint is made here, and if we take
in Kapuskasing and Iroquois near the falls,
82 per cent, of the newsprint for all of
Ontario.
May I commend the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) upon the
timber management policy of his depart-
ment. At this point I would recommend that
more emphasis be placed on the practical
rather than on theory, as economics of suc-
cessful operations have to be considered. By
the above policy of timber management,
study will help the pulp and paper industry
now established to continue to provide em-
ployment and stability to our economy in
the years to come.
Now, there is one other subject that is so
important to full development and expansion
of our resources, and that is, highways. It
is the most important part of our economy
today. We must have the modes of trans-
portation; it is said that we are a nation on
wheels. Again, may I commend the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan) upon the
tremendous programme of building roads and
highways throughout the width and breadth
of Ontario.
It is only by continuing with this sort of
programme that further development and ex-
pansion of the other resources can continue,
in order that there will be full freedom of
the people to use their individual initiative
which will get us away from tight-money
thinking.
I do not think any hon. member of this
House should oppose the building of high-
ways. There is a difference of opinion as
to the useful purpose of roads. In one of
the states to the south, they built roads into
every lake, which they feel now was a mis-
take because it created too heavy fishing
on smaller lakes causing depletion. If that
is so, then we must be careful that it does
not happen here.
The building of excess roads into mining
communities, or a road that will serve more
than one purpose, is good policy. There again
it allows for greater expansion of our natural
resources. This should be given careful study
in all cases, and by that I mean, every indi-
vidual road should be built upon the basis
of how it is going to serve the people of
not just that area, but of all the province.
I recognize the great need of highway No.
401, the Burlington Skyway, the completion
of Trans-Canada and highway No. 102 from
Atikokan to Fort Frances, which includes a
causeway across Rainy Lake.
This latter will be the second highway
joining eastern Canada with western Canada.
This will become very important on account
of the terminus of the great St. Lawrence
seaway at the Lakehead cities. I would like
hon. members to bear with me once more as
I emphasize what this will mean to all of On-
tario, giving access to our second largest pro-
vincial park, some 1,700 square miles of wil-
derness, which we hope will be of great value
to the people of this province in the years to
come. It will also give access to the largest
iron ore development in Ontario and Canada,
opening a potential area just being scratched
in mineral, forest and vacation land.
Then, let us enter the finest agricultural
area in the most westerly part of Ontario,
where for the year 1957, the estimated agri-
cultural income was $1,886,000— that is, for
an 11-month period.
When in company with the hon. Prime
Minister, hon. members heard him remark:
"This looks a little bit like old Ontario."
What a compliment! Other hon. members
formed the same opinion.
I might point out to the hon. members of
this House that there is a distance of some
1,200 miles from the seat of our government,
and I feel that, being so far away, the agri-
cultural area there is serving a very useful
purpose in the economy of the people and
the province.
Today, plans are being finalized for a
bridge to be built at Rainy River, which is
the most westerly part of this province, just
south of Lake of the Woods. Our American
friends are building the bridge and the Ontario
government is building the approach. This,
FEBRUARY 21, 1958
321
then, will complete the connection between
east and west.
There is one other important aspect which
will fit into the pattern of highway No. 120
and the economy of all northwestern Ontario
in a big way. About two years ago, the hon.
Minister of Travel and Publicity (Mr. Cath-
cart) and the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development (Mr. Nickle), officiated at the
unveiling and dedication of a stone cairn
at the junction of highways Nos. 70 and 17,
Trans-Canada, east of Kenora about 13 miles.
This is to be the northern terminus of the
great river road which is a 4-lane highway
on both sides of the river (that is the Mis-
sissippi river on the American side) it is now
65 per cent, completed.
Beginning at New Orleans, following the
Mississippi River it joins the Canadian boun-
dary at Fort Frances and proceeds on to the
terminus in northern Ontario. This great river
road passes through 10 states.
The estimate given of the immediate popu-
lation is 25 million and, within a 50-mile
radius, another 25 million.
A glance at the United States map will
reveal that this great highway will be of
permanent military importance, taking care
of the centre of the continent, North America.
In a short time there will be a need for
another international bridge of the same
importance as the one at Sault Ste. Marie.
Let me point out the following interesting
fact. Last year, some 1,282,338 individuals
and 113,258 automobiles crossed the border
at Fort Frances, which has become the fifth
largest port of entry in Ontario as to motor
vehicle crossing. I do not have the exact
figures for the pedestrian crossing.
That area is the centre, or I would say is
like the hub of a wheel, stretching to the
southwest, southeast and to the south, north,
the east and the west and it all dovetails up
into northwestern Ontario.
Now, with the completion of the great
river road, hon. members can readily under-
stand what this is going to do to the economy
of not only northwestern Ontario, but all of
Ontario. The traffic will funnel in at Rainy
River from the west, Fort Frances and
Pidgeon River from the south as well as at
Sault Ste. Marie and the other points of
entry in old Ontario.
As I have mentioned previously, there is
no reason for the people of Ontario to lose
faith, but we should go forward with con-
fidence knowing we have a great store of
natural resources. Our bank savings are in-
creasing, and we have the fibre of the family
to develop and expand the economy. Let
us take the telescope from the blind eye,
and sharpen our sights, and as the hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario and the leader of the
government has aptly put it, it will bring
us into the circle of things in Ontario— I
mean northwestern Ontario or all of northern
Ontario.
In closing, let me quote from the Northern
Sportsman :
Yes, everything, northwestern Ontario has
everything for the fisherman, the hunter,
the tourist on leisurely travel, family holi-
day, it abounds in sandy beaches amid
modern comfort. It is an immense domain
of green forest, sparkling rivers, countless
lakes, and granite hills. Spectacular scenery
unfolds along its modern highways, under
aeroplane wings, or on the white wake of
your outboard. Here is the elbow room
you crave. Here is a whole sky full of pure,
crisp air for your city starved lungs. This
year promise yourself a memorable vaca-
tion in this mid-continental adventure land
for all.
And, in closing I would like to use the
word that The Department of Travel and
Publicity used last year in all their literature,
and I think they could very well carry it
forward because it applies to all of us in this
House here today and throughout this prov-
ince: "Know Ontario better."
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): I move the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment
of the House, may I say we will proceed on
Monday with Throne debate, and probably
call some of the bills on the order paper, but
on the same understanding as previously,
namely, if there are any bills which the hon.
members of the Opposition desire not called,
I am sure the government will comply with
their request.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 3.50 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 16
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, February 24, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 24, 1958
First report, standing committee on legal bills, Mr. Myers 325
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 328
Statute Labour Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading 328
Highway Improvement Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading .' 328
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 332
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 332
Corporations Information Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 332
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Phillips, Mr. W. J. Stewart,
Mr. Worton, Mr. W. E. Johnston, Mr. Yaremko 332
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Goodfellow, agreed to 349
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 349
325
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. M. Myers,
from the standing committee on legal bills,
presents the committee's first report and
moves its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 52, An Act to amend The Condi-
tional Sales Act.
Bill No. 55, An Act to amend The Deserted
Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act.
Bill No. 56, An Act to amend The Inter-
pretation Act.
Bill No. 57, An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act.
Bill No. 58, An Act to amend The Magis-
trates Act, 1952.
Bill No. 60, An Act to amend The Sur-
rogate Courts Act.
The committee also begs to report the
following bill with amendment:
Bill No. 66, An Act to provide for the
certification of titles of lands.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, there
are some questions which I would like to
address to appropriate hon. Ministers, the
first one to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost).
During the past several weeks, the Ontario
Northland Railway has been laying off
employees, and in view of the statement of
the hon. member for Temiskaming (Mr.
Herbert), reporting to the House in his
capacity of vice-chairman of the Ontario
Northland Railway, that he personally op-
posed laying off firemen on diesels; and in
view of the announcement of the Canadian
National Railways on January 24 that there
Monday, February 24, 1958
would be no further layoffs from that rail-
way system during this period of high unem-
ployment, would the hon. Prime Minister
give us similar assurance that the govern-
ment will halt the swelling of unemployment
ranks through layoffs by the Ontario North-
land Railway? I would just add this further
point on the question to the hon. Prime
Minister— that I have learned, since I origin-
ally gave notice of this question, that
employees of the Ontario Northland Railway
are treated as civil servants and do not have
unemployment insurance, so that when they
are laid off they are really off without any
of the normal cushion that unemployment
insurance provides.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question, of
course, would rather lead to the inference that
there was a mass layoff. I inquired into this
and found that there were 8 men laid off
by the railway, 7 of them were in Ontario and
one in Quebec. Now this was not a mass lay-
off, I tell my hon. friend, it is only a matter of
increasing the efficiency of the roads.
In North Bay, on January 27, there were 2
junior truckers laid off; in New Liskeard the
cashier's position was not necessary; in Tim-
mins, on February 10, there were two layoffs
due to the fact that a clerk's position and a
shedman's position were not necessary. These
were the other layoffs: Noranda, February
12, one shedman; Moosonee, one assistant;
Kirkland Lake, one shedman. Now that
makes 7 men in the adjustment of their busi-
ness.
What happens to these men? I notice that
the hon. member says that there was a man
of 40 years' seniority. Well, a man of 40
years' seniority takes another position. As is
well known, the "bumping" system applies
on all railways— it is the junior man who is
let out. They advised me that there were 7
men in Ontario, and one man in Quebec,
and those men would be given preference on
re-employment down to the junior level.
Now, I am advised that the Ontario North-
land Railway do not anticipate that there will
be any further changes in staff, unless it is
for the usual ordinary adjustment of business.
But there will not be anything more than the
normal adjustments, and my advice is that
326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
their employment list is pretty well at rock
bottom right now.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, whether it be
one or 1,000 laid off, each person faces the
consequences of unemployment. Do I con-
clude from the hon. Prime Minister's reply
that he will not give assurance to "hold" lay-
offs during this period of high unemployment?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, surely my
hon. friend would not expect me to suggest
that any business would be run not as a busi-
ness. Of course, it is run as a business.
Mr. MacDonald: The next question is to the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Spooner) who is
not in his seat at the moment, but conceiv-
ably the hon. Prime Minister, as an ex-
Minister of Mines, might reply to it.
Arising out of injuries which have occurred
to men working alone in the mines, I under-
stand that the hon. Minister received a tele-
gram from Timmins seeking clarification of
regulations in this connection. Would the hon.
Prime Minister inform the House whether
existing regulations permit mine management
to assign a man to work alone, or whether
pending investigation on this point the govern-
ment forbids such a practice?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I did not
receive any notice of the question, otherwise
I would have had the matter looked up, and as
the hon. Minister of Mines is not in his seat,
I will have the answer for him tomorrow.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Respecting the order of the budget debate,
could the hon. Prime Minister indicate to the
House when he expects to have the budget
debate resumed after presentation of the
budget?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say in response
to the hon. leader of the Opposition that I
would anticipate either Monday or Tues-
day. I would meet the convenience of the
hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Win-
termeyer) in that matter, but I would say
Monday or Tuesday, which I think would
give ample time to consider the matter. I
would not expect him to proceed on Thurs-
day or Friday, but I would say that I expect
we shall go ahead with the Throne debate
over that period. I do not anticipate a vote
on the Throne motion before Wednesday.
I think that would answer my hon. friend's
question.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister of
Mines is now in his seat. I wonder if the—
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago
I received a copy of the question asked
by the hon. member for York South, and
I would like to say this, that I did receive
a telegram this morning from a party in
Timmins, and that our department has been
aware of an accident which occurred in a
mine in the Timmins area. But the tele-
gram which I received this morning does not
set the date of the accident in question,
so we have had to send a telegram to the
party who sent us the wire, asking him to
identify the particular case that he is in-
quiring about, in order that we may make
certain that we are speaking of the same
thing.
In answer to the question of the hon. mem-
ber, I would say that there have been cases
—rare cases, fortunately— where men have
been injured when working alone under-
ground in the mines, and no doubt a second
miner on the scene would have helped,
had there been a second person present. But
there have been many more cases in which,
had two persons been present, then both
men would have been injured. It is not
general practice for men to work alone
underground, a supervisor does work alone
in many instances, and of course much
similarity exists between men working under-
ground or above surface in other occupations
throughout the world, in that they are exposed
to danger.
I might say that this matter of workmen
underground, and in some cases working
alone, has come up for considerable discus-
sion, and about a year ago was the subject-
matter of representations by unions operat-
ing in the mining district. At that time, the
matter was studied very closely by the
then Minister of Mines (Mr. Kelly) and offi-
cials of his department.
I would like to quote Mr. Speaker, from
two letters which were sent under the former
Minister's signature dealing with that subject.
Now a letter to one union says:
In underground mining operations a
number of people more or less work or
travel alone, such as supervision, samplers,
pump tenders, hoistmen, etc.
There are cases where two men are
injured, where only one would have been
injured if working alone. Some argue that
men spread out show a better safety
record. In other industries, and in many
walks of daily life, the same point may be
brought up with equal emphasis. Inquiry
and examination of legislation and safety
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
327
rules of industry in other provinces, and
states to the south of us, show no rules
where two men must work together under-
ground in a mine.
The second letter, which carries about the
same dateline, to another union, states this:
In underground mining operations, a
number of people more or less work or
travel alone, such as supervision, samplers,
pump tenders, hoistmen, etc. There are
instances, comparatively rare, where it may
be inferred that there should have been a
second party present. Some argue that men
spread out show a better safety record.
In other industries, and in every-day life,
the same point may be brought up. We
have not been able to find any comparative
rule in safety measures or legislation in
other states or countries. It is the respon-
sibility of supervision to check working
places.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, referring back
to the accident of which I am aware, that
when I receive the additional information
from the party who sent me the information
this morning, I will be able to establish
whether he is referring to the same accident
as I am.
It was after that unfortunate accident— I
am happy to say, that although the workman
has been seriously injured, it was not a
fatality— I asked the officials in my depart-
ment, who are primarily concerned with
safety regulations in mines, to re-investigate
this matter and bring it to my attention with
a full report because, although I have never
worked underground in a mine myself, I
realize that the working conditions are
hazardous and that every precaution should
be taken by government, if at all possible, to
make certain that working conditions will be
such that these unfortunate accidents will not
happen.
If the hon. member would care for more
details of this particular incident, I believe
that in due course of time we will be able
to furnish that information.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Duff erin): Before
the orders of the day, I want to draw the
attention of the House to an article that
appeared in Saturday's issue of the Kitchener-
Waterloo Daily Record:
Conestogo Dam Will Be Filled This
Spring — Roads in Area to be Flooded
Despite Dispute.
The Conestogo dam is now in operation
officially. The Grand River conservation
commission, at its annual meeting in Brant-
ford city hall yesterday, ordered the dam
put to use as soon as sufficient water comes
down the river. Roads which Wellington
county and Maryborough township coun-
cils have not agreed to close, by by-law,
will be closed by nature when they are
buried under water. The commission de-
cided to get tough with Wellington county
and Maryborough township. As Paris,
Ontario, Mayor Geo. E. Scott put it: "Let
them sue us."
Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say is
that, if this article is correct, you have here
a case of a commission riding roughshod
over councils which have been elected by
the people, and I want to say that this action
is typical of many actions through the years
by the Grand River conservation commission.
I could tell hon. members of other cases
where they have ignored the rights of muni-
cipalities and individuals, and at times have
even embarrassed Ministers.
I will read a letter that was handed to me,
over the week end, that will indicate how
some people are affected by the actions of
the commission. This concerns the James
Wilson and Sons mill at Fergus:
Dear Mr. Root:
We are taking this opportunity of writing to you
regarding a matter which is very serious as far as our
company is concerned. Our company operates a
cereal mill in Fergus, and derives most of its power
from the Grand River. During the last 3 weeks, our
water power has been the poorest since we took over
the mill in 1933.
At the present time, we are employing 25 men,
the highest number in over 10 years, and we are now
faced with a partial shutdown and the loss of export
orders in the United States that our company has
worked so hard to obtain.
Our lack of power at the present time has been
caused by the unjustified action of the Grand River
conservation commission. During part of the week
of December 21, 1957, the commission let out 5,000
to 7,000 cubic feet of water per second from the
Shan dam, flooding our basement, submerging our
leather belts, and shutting our plant down. An unusual
heavy flow continued until the lake was practically
empty, and today our flow is not more than 25 cubic
feet per second.
We understand there is still a supply of water
in the Luther marsh. If this were to leak, it would
help our situation considerably and we would appreci-
ate any help that you can give us at this time.
Yours very truly,
(signed) John D. W alkie
That is typical of what can happen when
a commission operates without regard for the
rights of municipalities and people. Now, a
few days ago, the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) suggested that the committee on com-
missions take a look at what is happening
in commissions, and I would suggest that
someone have a look at the Grand River con-
servation commission and perhaps remind
II
328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them that there are other people in Ontario,
besides themselves, who have rights. I have
been one of the first to admit that they have
carried out a great flood control programme
which has been of great benefit to many
people, but they have never seemed to grasp
the importance of public relations.
Some people feel that the make-up of the
commission is wrong. The only people with a
voice on this commission are the municipali-
ties that receive benefit from these flood
control projects. There is no voice on the
commission for the municipalities that are
inconvenienced.
I happen to represent the area where they
have built 3 dams, and I want to say on behalf
of the people I represent that we resent the
attitude of the commission toward our elected
councils and their officials, and it is my inten-
tion to take this matter up and discuss it with
the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day I would ask leave to intro-
duce to hon. members of this House a group
composed of members of the staff of The De-
partment of Mines who are present today in
the Speaker's gallery. It is the practice of the
department to have the members of the
mining land staff come to Toronto once each
year for a meeting, at which they can discuss
their common problems and seek means of
improving the important service they render
to the mining public.
The mining recorders and the mining claims
inspectors have an onerous and very important
duty to perform. They perform it with com-
plete efficiency, and to the almost unanimous
satisfaction of the people with whom they
have to deal. Perhaps from observing the
deliberations of this House, these visitors
today will gain some insight into the way in
which the broad general policy of the opera-
tion is laid down, and into their own place
in the general scheme of things.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
Seventh annual report of the alcoholic
research foundation for the year ended
December 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE STATUTE LABOUR ACT
Hon. J. N. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 78, "An Act to amend The Statute
Labour Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is gener-
ally recognized that statute labour, or the
performance of statute labour, is difficult to
administer. The collection of commutation of
statute labour is likewise difficult.
This amendment is intended to insure the
collection of a greater amount of the money
that would be paid in commutation of statute
labour and provide for such collection, and a
penalty of $5 if it is not paid within the stated
time.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT,
1957
Hon. Mr. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 79, "An Act to amend the Highway
Improvement Act, 1957."
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you will remem-
ber, The Highway Improvement Act was
practically rewritten last year, so the number
of amendments to the Act this year are not
very great.
This first section has to do with connecting
links of King's highways within cities.
Now the practice which has been followed
has been that construction agreements could
be entered into between the city and The
Department of Highways for the construc-
tion of a connecting link. The practice which
resulted from that was that, when a street
was to be reconstructed within the city,
which it was felt might become a connecting
link, the matter was brought to the attention
of the district engineer, and if he was agree-
able and the hon. Minister approved such a
connecting link, an agreement was entered
into whereby The Department of Highways
paid 50 per cent, of the cost and the city
paid 50 per cent, of the cost.
This meant that each time one of these
streets was to be constructed, there was a
matter of consideration as to whether or not
it was a connecting link.
This experience indicated to us that it
would be a better plan to indicate the entire
connecting link system of the King's highways
within the cities at one time.
This legislation permits such a plan. The
connecting links of all the highways that affect
that city would be set out in that plan, and
there would not then be need for discussions
as to whether or not a road was a connecting
link when the city intended to reconstruct
the same.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
What is the reason for changing the power
of designation from the hon. Minister to his
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor?
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
329
Hon. Mr. Allan: The reason is that the other
was an agreement that was entered into for
the time of the construction of the street. By
leaving the approval to his Honour the Lieu-
tenant-Governor, it places the street in exactly
the same position as all other connecting links
or King's highways throughout the province.
They are designated by order-in-council, and
these connecting links would be designated
in the same way and would remain connect-
ing links whether or not they were being
constructed.
In the section that applies to towns and
villages, the amendment raises the contribu-
tion by The Department of Highways from 50
per cent, to 75 per cent.
The reason for the increase is that there has
been no increase on the amount paid on the
construction and maintenance of connecting
links in towns and villages. This applies to
municipalities with a population of more than
2,500. There has been no change down
through the years, even after the time that
subsidies were paid to towns and villages.
Some of the hon. members will remember
that, for quite some time, subsidies were paid
only to rural municipalities, then towns and
villages and cities were included and were
eligible for subsidy, at which time the sub-
sidy paid to towns and villages upon street
expenditure was 50 per cent. The towns and
villages have felt that this was a bit of an
injustice, in view of the fact that there was
a considerable amount of through traffic on
these King's highway connecting links, and
having that in mind and, recognizing the
reasonableness of such argument, we have
increased those payments to 75 per cent.,
which is midway between the entire assump-
tion and the payment of 100 per cent., as in
the smaller villages, and the 50 per cent,
subsidy that is payable generally to towns
and villages. This amendment recognizes
that the 25 per cent, additional is to com-
pensate the town and village for the through
traffic, which uses that street, in addition to
the local traffic.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): The hon.
Minister said there is a bit of an injustice
felt by the towns in that they were getting
only 50 per cent. I wonder what he thinks
about the city getting only 33^3 per cent.?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I may say to the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa that we do recognize the
same principle in cities. I might go back and
refresh the memories of all hon. members,
perhaps, regarding subsidy payments to
cities, towns and villages. I would remind the
hon. member that the great difference arises
as a result of the city not being required to
contribute to the county road system of their
county— that is, in lieu of such contribution,
the city contributes towards the suburban
road commission only up to a limit of one-
half mill.
I may say, by way of comparison, that
with the town of Dunnville— where I know
something of the taxes— there is a 10-mill
rate for county roads, so it would not be
just that cities would receive the same sub-
sidy as would towns and villages because of
the greater amount paid by towns and vil-
lages toward the county road system. Such
municipalities pay the regular county road
rate, although they do get some rebate
which is referred to later in these amend-
ments, in comparison to the half-mill that
the cities contribute towards the suburban
road commissions. In cities, the fact that a
street is a throughway or through highway
and carries traffic through the city is recog-
nized, and while the subsidy is 33 ]/$ per cent,
on the regular streets of the city, it is 50 per
cent, on the construction of connecting links.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): I am sure the
hon. Minister gave us the answer to this
question, but I missed it. What happens in
towns or villages where the population is
less than 2,500?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I may say,
in reply to the question of the hon. member
for Bruce, that the road is either assumed,
in which instance 100 per cent, of the cost
is paid by the province, or there is a con-
necting link agreement made with that vil-
lage or town. There are very few towns
between 2,000 and 2,500, and the connecting
link agreement is a 100 per cent, connecting
link agreement.
The reason for the 100 per cent, connect-
ing link agreement is that, in some villages,
the council very often prefers to have the
control locally of their main street, or the
street which is such connecting link. The
municipality under this plan is responsible
for licences, gas pumps, and all that sort
of thing on the street. However, when the
street is assumed by the province, the con-
trol of certain services along the street comes
under The Department of Highways.
The next amendment is purely one of
clarification, that is, subsection 1 of section
30, in which it is stated plainly that a per-
mit for such construction as culverts or en-
trances along a King's highway is required.
Section 45 is amended to state clearly that
it provides for supplementary by-laws. Re-
garding municipal construction, I think all
hon. members recognize that supplementary
construction by-laws are the means presently
330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
used to assist municipalities with the con-
struction work which is of a permanent and
lasting nature. Because a council is elected
at the beginning of each year, and because
it is necessary for our municipal branch to
have their by-law very early in the year,
it does not give a county or any municipality
a great deal of time to plan their work.
We have been generally approving these
supplementary by-laws for construction. There
are 3 amendments, one dealing with the
counties; one with the cities, towns and vil-
lages; and one with townships. This prac-
tice is generally in effect, and the amend-
ments are provided to establish or legalize
what we are already doing.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Minister
set me straight on a point: "A county may
at any time with the consent of the Minis-
ter" — does that mean they have to get the
consent of the hon. Minister before they
may apply for approval of a by-law or a
supplementary by-law?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
that question, I might say that that applies
to all by-laws. Naturally, we are voted a
certain amount of money to provide for sub-
sidies to the municipalities. Approval is neces-
sary to control such expenditure and keep
same within our budget.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I share the
anxiety of the hon. member for Bruce. It
seems to me quite unfair to suggest to a
county, and it goes on down to the town-
ship in the various clauses in this bill, that
before they can submit the by-law to the
hon. Minister they must have his approval.
Now, after the by-law is submitted, the
hon. Minister then certainly has the right
to say whether or not the amount asked for,
as a supplementary item, would be approved.
Why should he say to a county that it must
have his consent before it can make
the application? That is exactly what this
legislation suggests. I think is it rather odd
if we say to the county: "Before you can
put forward a supplementary amount in
the form of a by-law, you have to get the
approval of the hon. Minister, and then
you have to get his approval for the amount
contained in the by-law." Surely the
county should be able to send its proposed
by-law to the hon. Minister, and then get
his decision as to whether they will get it
or not.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I may say to the
hon. leader of the Opposition that I will be
glad to check this before it comes to com-
mittee. The practice is entirely as he sug-
gests, the by-laws are submitted and then
they are approved, and I will be very happy
to look into that. It may be improper word-
ing.
Mr. Oliver: I wish the hon. Minister would,
because it seems to me quite unusual to
say to a county or a township: "You have
to ask the hon. Minister before you submit
a by-law." In this instance, Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Minister who is piloting this legis-
lation through the House is asking the coun-
ties to get leave from him as to whether or
not they can ask for a supplementary amount.
I would think that the proper course would
be for the counties or the townships to send
in their request for a supplementary amount,
and on that request the hon. Minister make
his decision.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, in practice, Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what happens, and
I will be very glad to check and discuss it
when it comes to committee.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, in regard to
that question, I think this has been a prac-
tice for some time of municipalities coming
in the fall to the hon. Minister to get ap-
proval for supplementary estimates, and the
hon. Minister did mention that it was only
for construction.
Now surely, if one of the municipalities
or one of the counties had a little bad luck
in their work during the year and, say in
the fall, found they did not have sufficient
money to carry on the work they had agreed
on, the hon. Minister would agree to approv-
ing that amount of work to be done
without it being construction work. Does it
apply to construction work only?
Hon. Mr. Allan: We have endeavoured to
limit as much as possible, by direction and
by by-law, the expenditures for maintenance
work. It was found some years ago that
maintenance expenditures almost got out of
control. There is a great deal of pressure
sometimes for improvements of a temporary
nature, and after a great deal of consideration
it was certainly the very definite conclusion
of the department that it is advisable to
encourage permanent construction efforts, and
that the maintenance be kept to a reasonable
amount.
This government has increased the amount
of funds available from year to year, and now
has the plan working very nicely with the
municipalities. The municipalities recognize
that when their maintenance by-law is ap-
proved in the spring, the decision is definite.
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
331
As the hon. member said, in any particular
instance where there has been a disaster or
something similar, naturally we look into the
situation.
I think he will realize that first of all we
have the precise amount of our vote, or the
amount of money for maintenance. Such
money is divided between the municipalities.
In the final adjustment, some municipalities
do not spend their entire amount, and it is our
practice at the year's end to be reasonable in
dealing with the municipalities, but at the
same time to encourage them to improve their
streets and roads in such a way that the work
will be permanent, and in that way cut down
the amount of maintenance that is required
each year.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, in some of the
instances, I agree wholeheartedly with what
the hon. Minister said, that it is advisable to
keep maintenance work to a reasonable
figure. But now, during the past week or so,
there has been considerable snow removal,
and this has been just as necessary as con-
struction. The snow had to be removed in
order to get through.
Now, in these towns and villages the hon.
Minister would still pay just 50 per cent, of
this snow removal, as far as maintenance
goes. Is there any place in the province
where the full 100 per cent, is paid on any-
thing like snow removal?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, there is not,
except on those King's highways where the
responsibility of removing snow is that of
The Department of Highways. But on muni-
cipal streets, the same rate of subsidy applies
to all municipalities of the same class.
Mr. Whicher: For example, going through
Toronto on the King's highways-
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the ordinary
procedure for committee, and I would sug-
gest we limit the debate until that stage.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to explain this in any way that I pos-
sibly can. There are no King's highways
within the city of Toronto. Now there may
be connecting links, a result of legislation
proposed in the first amendment which I
mentioned. But, at present, within the city,
it is a city street, and one reason we have
never made the connecting link agreements
to include maintenance on city streets is the
great difficulty which would arise in sorting
out and deciding the extent of expenditure
upon such streets.
Subsection 3 of section 56 has to do with
rebates paid by county councils back to
towns and villages.
The towns of the province have always
felt that, in comparison to cities, they paid
what some of them felt an unjust contribu-
tion to the county road system. With the
hope of making this more equal, it was re-
quired some few years ago that a minimum
of 25 per cent, of such contribution— an
amount equal to that amount— must be paid
back to the town or village. It was sub-
sidized by our department, before it was
paid back, so it was very helpful to the
counties in their county road programme.
This amount of rebate has been creeping
up until it has now reached, in some in-
stances, 50 per cent. We feel that such
rebate is as great as it should become. It
is possible that in some instances the decision
as to whether or not a town that is of suffi-
cient population to become a city might stay
in a county would depend upon the rate of
rebate.
In view of the fact that, when this rebate
is received by the town and spent upon their
streets, it is subsidized again, we feel The
Department of Highways has been very gen-
erous in the treatment of towns and villages
in this connection. It is felt that 50 per
cent, should be the greatest amount of sub-
sidized rebates that should be paid back,
and this amendment is intended to limit pay-
ment to 50 per cent.
The amendment to section 63 will pre-
vent a member of a suburban road commis-
sion from doing business with the commis-
sion of which he is a member. It has the
same effect as the section of The Municipal
Act which prevents members of councils from
doing business with the council, and al-
though a member of the commission could
be dismissed by the county council or the
city— whichever had appointed such a mem-
ber—for an offence, it was felt that it was
better to have it clearly understood that it
was not intended that a member of a com-
mission should be doing business with the
commission.
Section 71 A has to do with subdivisions.
It is clearly set out in The Highway Im-
provement Act that no subsidy will be paid
to a town or village for the development of
a subdivision.
Evidently it was not recognized at that
time that a great many subdivisions were
being developed in townships. This amend-
ment adds the word "township" to that of
town and village, placing the township in
i
332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exactly the same position as the town and
village. This means that the subdivider must
meet the cost of developing the roads in the
subdivision.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves second reading
of Bill No. 70, "An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, regarding this Bill
No. 70, it was requested by some hon. mem-
bers that this bill go to the legal bills com-
mittee because one part of it affects the
change of name— that is to say, some of the
provinces permit former residents moving to
other countries, and wishing their names
legally changed, to make a change on the
original registration. Ontario previously has
not done so, and in this amendment I am
asking for permission to have this done in
future. But I have been asked to allow this
to go to the legal bills committee so that
the lawyers may have a little tussle over it.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Dunbar moves second reading of
Bill No. 71, "An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act, 1953."
He said: This is just a matter, as I
explained in the first reading, of changing
one word in the Act. Where it said, prior to
that, that the notice had to be delivered to
the Provincial Secretary's Department, the
word "mailed" is to be inserted.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Dunbar moves second reading of
Bill No. 72, "An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Information Act, 1953."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the same
thing, just changing the one word "delivered"
to "mailed."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. M. Phillips (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to con-
gratulate you and also every hon. member
of this House for the calibre of the addresses
which have been given in the Throne speech.
I think that calibre is much higher than I
have heard at any time in this House, over
the last 12 or 14 years during which I have
had the privilege of sitting.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak
on mental health in Ontario. The Depart-
ment of Health is a very large organization,
and our responsibilities and duties take us
into many fields of public health.
Perhaps our main concern however, is with
the mentally ill. From time to time we re-
ceive both destructive and constructive criti-
cism. Some of it appears in the newspapers
and periodicals with wide circulation, reach-
ing a vast audience. A great deal of this
criticism, in my opinion, is rather unfair, but
it is also disturbing to the families with
relatives in one of our Ontario hospitals.
For that reason, I should like to tell hon.
members briefly about some of our prob-
lems, and about the real attempt that is
being made to relieve them.
Before doing so, however, I should like
to ask the hon. members of this House to
have clearly in their minds that there are
two very different types of patients being
looked after in our provincial institutions.
One group is the mentally ill, and the other
group is the mentally retarded, or mentally
defective. May I say that there is absolutely
no relationship between these two, and their
care and treatment are entirely different.
For both, we provide hospitals and local
community services.
In 1846, the first mental hospital was built
in Canada, at that time it was called the
Queen Street Asylum which we all know as
"999 Queen West." It was intended that this
institution should meet the requirements of
Upper Canada and the western territories. A
great deal of vision was shown in planning
and building this institution, but the vision
did not extend very far into the future. In
making plans and decisions for the care of
the mentally ill, it is not only necessary that
we assess our immediate requirements, but we
must look far beyond into the future.
Certainly the last century has shown mar-
vellous development in the care of the
mentally ill. We have progressed from the
eighteenth century, when patients were de-
tained by means of chains and fetters, through
the nineteenth century, when more and more
humane treatment was adopted, to the com-
plicated system of the present day. During
the nineteenth century Ontario was expanding
and the demand for mental hospitals grew.
There were many notable psychiatrists in that
period, and the classification of mental ill-
nesses was undertaken.
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
333
There is no evidence that the incidence
of mental illness is any lower, nor may I say
any higher, on our 100,000 population basis,
than formerly. We still have to assume that
we have between 3.5 and 4 persons per 1,000
population in the mentally ill class, who will
one day enter our Ontario hospitals, and also
about 1.5 persons per 1,000 who will have to
enter one of our Ontario hospital schools.
The rapid growth of this province in itself
provides a patient accommodation problem
that is almost impossible to keep up with.
We have to have the beds and we have to
have staff to give the needed care and treat-
ment. I do not think anyone, not closely
connected with the field, has any conception
of how difficult it is to do just those two
things.
We have had magnificent co-operation
from The Department of Public Works, and
I do want to at this time offer my congratula-
tions to the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Griesinger) who has aided us in every
way possible, in order that we could go ahead
steadily with our building programme. We
must keep in mind that for several years
there was no construction at all, and, also,
that our older hospitals were continually in
need of renovation and repair.
Between 1950 and 1957, we added 4,840
beds to our accommodation; we had to take
695 out of service, mainly through the loss
of the Langstaff and Concord institutions.
We have, under construction, accommodation
for 1,512 more patients; immediate plans call
for almost 2,600 additional beds; and plans
not too far in the future call for another
1,640 beds. Along with this, older buildings
have been renovated, fireproofed and en-
larged.
The new hospital at Port Arthur was opened
in 1954, and the one in North Bay was
opened last year, 1957. A medical-surgical
reception and diagnostic clinic building, with
100 beds for patients, went into operation at
999 Queen Street West, Toronto, in 1956.
I would like at this time to invite every
hon. member of this House to visit 999 Queen
West and see our new reception building
there which holds 50 beds for female patients
and 50 for male patients, as well as admini-
stration quarters, gymnasium, occupational
therapy, and so on. I think it is a revelation
and there are altogether too few people in
this province, and in fact in Toronto, who
have gone to the trouble of visiting our hos-
pital on Queen Street. We have torn down
the old stone wall which was put up in 1846,
along Queen Street; we have landscaped the
grounds; and I will wager that we have as
many facilities within this building as can be
found in any modern hospital that has been
built in Ontario in the last 10 years. We are
very proud of it.
The purpose of this building is to provide
for short-stay patients, and if they are found
by our staff to be mentally ill, then we call
in consultants. If these consultants feel that
the patients are mentally ill, they are com-
mitted either to the other building behind or
sent to one of our Ontario mental hospitals.
This is the first and finest building of its
kind in the British Empire, and I think I can
say the whole world, but I do invite hon.
members out there. We are very proud of
this, as well as of the old Queen Street hos-
pital which was built in 1846 and has been
completely rehabilitated and modernized as
far as is humanly possible.
We have also made additions at Brock-
ville, Woodstock, Penetanguishene and Kings-
ton hospitals. Actually I doubt if there is
one hospital that is entirely free of some
kind of activity such as renovating, fireproof-
ing, or actual construction.
Getting the much needed staff is another
matter. There has been a great change in
the approach to mental illness in the last 50
years, and the objective today is to cure
patients, not just to provide custodial care,
and also to treat them with kindness. From
treatments by kindness only, we have steadily
advanced to the late 30's when metrazol and
insulin shock therapy were introduced. This
was followed by the addition of electro-
shock therapy about 1940, and present day
treatment includes the new tranquillizers
which were introduced in Ontario about 1951.
The highest possible success in our efforts
can be realized only when we have the re-
quired well trained professional staff.
I would like to say to the hon. members of
this House that I do not think that any criti-
cism can be given about any of the Ontario
hospitals, except the same criticism which
is common throughout this great nation of
ours, and of every province and every state
in the great country that lies to the south.
The criticism is that of overcrowding, be-
cause we are all short of professional per-
sonnel.
The highest possible success in our efforts
can be realized only when we have the
required well trained professional staff.
Whether or not we think certain forms of
special training are frills and fads, we must
accept the fact that the much maligned
psychiatrist is the medical man who is best
qualified to guide the care and treatment
of these patients.
334
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
After leaving secondary school or, I might
say, after a student receives his senior matri-
culation, he must then spend 6 years in
medical college to obtain his degree, and
then receive at least 5 years' training before
he can become a certified psychiatrist. That
is 11 years out of a man's life. There are
not too many psychiatrists and they are in
great demand.
In the government service, we have to
compete with the lure of private practice
and with attractive offers from other prov-
inces. We now spend more than $30 mil-
lion in our mental hospital services, and we
who pay the taxes are concerned about this.
Like governments usually are, we are notori-
ously short of funds, but we try to work
where our dollars are most needed. But I
do want to say to this House that this
government and the hon. Prime Minister ( Mr.
Frost) have never turned down anything
that is for the welfare of the patients in our
Ontario hospitals.
The time has come when we must seri-
ously consider whether there is enough in-
ducement offered to our professional per-
sonnel to keep them in government service.
For existing hospitals we now need more
than 60 physicians, not to mention support-
ing staffs or the needs of the community
mental health services. The need for pro-
fessional staff is our constant worry.
Nevertheless, we are utilizing every means
at our disposal to lessen this worry. Post-
graduate training for doctors is given in the
Ontario hospitals. Training courses for nurses
are conducted in 3 of them. We have affi-
liate nurses from the general hospitals in
our service constantly, actually from 1,200
to 1,400 student nurses a year, and we have
set up a training programme of our own
for occupational therapy assistants and for
attendants and nurse-aides.
Patients and staff are X-rayed and ex-
amined regularly so that we can cut down
on loss of time by every possible means.
The medical care of the mentally ill is
advancing rapidly. All forms of modern
treatment are in operation in our hospitals,
and with more and more competent staff
members, this treatment could become more
readily available to all patients.
With these new forms of therapy we hope
to establish new policies such as open wards.
I may say already we have between 600 and
700 patients in open wards. These new
policies include shorter periods of hospital
care, segregation of patients, and rehabilita-
tion programmes.
I have visited hospitals in the United
States and elsewhere, where they are trying
these experiments in a limited way. I hope
we will profit from their experience, and be
able to introduce these procedures in a big
way.
The main problem is to change the think-
ing of those who have been associated with
this type of work for a long time. They are
reluctant to alter methods that they have
been using over the past number of years.
Once they are convinced that other ways
may bring even better results, they are 100
per cent, behind the programme.
As an example, may I quote one of the
superintendents of a large hospital in the
United States, a state hospital for the men-
tally ill. When we were talking about open
wards, he said this: "We are not having very
much trouble with the patients but we are
having a lot of trouble with the staff, par-
ticularly the professional staff. They cannot
accept this new type of policy. They have
a fear complex about the patients eloping."
Now, we can use that word "elope" in
various ways, but we think that is a good
word.
Their experience in that hospital has been
this, they have fewer patients elope in the
open ward system than they have in the
locked door system. Except for the older age
groups and those afflicted with certain
definite types of illness, no one today can be
considered to be permanently mentally ill.
We have learned so much about the import-
ance of surroundings, clothing, and diet that
we are improving our service as rapidly as
possible. The appearance of the hospitals is
better, the patients have attractive clothes,
and they are fed scientifically.
I might say, in the latter connection, that
from time to time we hear criticism of the
meals. I have looked into this repeatedly
myself, and have called upon a committee
of diet specialists to investigate the situation
for me, and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I can find
no basis for unfavourable reports.
The preparation of more than 75,000 meals
each day to patients in Ontario hospitals is
a big task, and to insure that this is being
done in the most satisfactory manner, I
initiated a survey of the food service.
Inquiries were made and it was learned
that a firm known as the International
Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Counsel-
lors Limited specialize in consultant services.
This organization is entirely advisory, without
bias or prejudice. They represent no suppliers
or operators. They agreed to survey our
entire food service, commencing with the
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
335
preparation of the raw material through to
the serving of the individual portions. Since
December 1, 1957, we have had this organ-
ization engaged in a survey of 4 of our large
eastern hospitals, and I am pleased to report
the results to date have been most encourag-
ing.
It is my intention to continue the pro-
gramme in an endeavour to see that patients
in the mental hospitals operated by the
department are served meals with eye appeal,
variety, and high nutritional value. And I
may say that I will be glad if any hon. mem-
ber of this House would like to see the diets
which we are using.
I remember that one criticism concerned
the amount of fruit juice that we were serv-
ing.
May I say to the hon. members that, in
each of our hospitals, we are giving the
patient 4 ounces of citrus fruit juice more
than is advised by the National Nutritional
Foundation at Ottawa. As a matter of fact
I know this, they are getting a lot more
than I am at my own home.
The same general pattern is repeated in
the community or local service. We now
have 15 mental health clinics throughout the
province, but more than twice the existing
staff and facilities are needed to provide an
adequate programme throughout the province.
The clinics now established are of 4 types.
They include out-patient departments in
teaching hospitals, for post graduate train-
ing for medical staff, which are serving both
adults and children. There are two of these,
both in Toronto.
There are 7 travelling clinics which operate
from Ontario hospitals and make regular
visits to the surrounding communities. These
clinics are available to both adults and chil-
dren, and they undertake both diagnosis and
treatment.
We have one child guidance clinic in the
Toronto area, and 5 consultant psychiatrists
acting as directors of mental health clinics,
for adults and children, connected with hospi-
tals in large areas. I am proud to say that
we had more than 11,000 people attend
these clinics last year.
t The well-organized out-patient department
or community clinic provides a close link
with the community as a whole. Treatment
there makes the change from out-patient to
in-patient easier if that step is necessary and,
on the other hand, frequently makes admis-
sion to a mental hospital quite unnecessary.
In the same way, these clinics very often
provide just the right understanding and
knowledge to keep a former patient from
requiring re-admission to an Ontario hospital.
This is a most valuable recent step in our
mental hospital programme.
In addition, we have provided generous
financial assistance towards the building of
psychiatric units in our general hospitals.
Now, I know there was some criticism about
this and in fact I wondered at the time just
how much value the psychiatric unit in gen-
eral hospitals would be. But we can cast
our doubts to the winds because this is the
result:
Ten hospitals now have 311 beds in serv-
ice and admit annually about half as many
people as are admitted to mental hospitals.
The patient has a brief period of intensive
treatment in such a unit— the average stay
being just under 3 weeks. Experience with
these units has been long enough now to
show that only one patient out of 13 has
to be transferred to a mental hospital.
Mental illness is detected earlier and in
many cases can be treated right there. The
patients may have to return for further treat-
ment, but ultimately, in most cases, the ill-
ness can be handled without admission to
an Ontario hospital, which means the
patients can stay in their own community
and be near their loved ones which has a
great psychological therapeutic value.
Our detention clinics in general hospitals
have ended the old practice of holding men-
tal patients in jails pending admission to
one of our hospitals. Twenty-five beds are now
available for such persons, mainly in northern
Ontario, and when the present planned beds
are completed, there will be 42 of these in
the province.
A new venture this year was the taking
over of the property at Thistletown, formerly
occupied by the hospital for sick children.
This will be used as a residential treatment
centre for emotionally disturbed children, and
we opened the first wing in January of this
year. From the experience we had with the
first small group of children, we hope to
develop a treatment programme that will take
care of 75 children. The average ages will
run between 6 to 16 years of age, and they
will all be screened through a special out-
patient department.
The centre is for observation and research,
and it is not intended that any patient will
remain for longer than one year, or at the
most two years. By that time he should be
able to return home or be transferred to some
other type of hospital.
336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These children should not be confused with
mentally defective patients. They are properly
described as psychotic, and are a very serious
problem. And I think I can say this, that we
are not sure as yet until we do the research,
but probably a great deal of mental illness,
which occurs from puberty on in life, may
have started between 6 and 16 years of age.
Our other branch of service— that for the
handicapped, or mentally defective person-
suffers from the usual shortages, accommoda-
tion and staff. The hospital training school at
Orillia still has a known waiting list of 2,000
and there is now one for Smiths Falls. Adult
male mental defectives are cared for at
Aurora, and the females at Cobourg. A site
has been acquired and preliminary testing
done on a property at Cedar Springs, Kent
county, for a third hospital training school.
We will start there with plans for 1,200 beds
and allow for expansion to 2,000 beds. Some
of our space could be ready by 1960.
When the total space is available, some
of our worst headaches should be cured, pro-
vided, of course, that we can staff the school.
I say this because it is not only a case of
treatment but it is also a case of giving the
children as much of their academic studies
as they can absorb, and giving them special
training for a type of job which it is felt the
child may be able to do.
The Department of Education has taken
a great interest in handicapped children, and
here I do want to congratulate the hon. Minis-
ter of Education ( Mr. Dunlop ) and his depart-
ment for the great work they have done in
setting up our local day schools where these
children can receive training up to the limit
of their ability to absorb it. About 1,000 chil-
dren are enrolled in such schools. We hope
that, as this experiment expands, we may find
less demand for admission to our hospital
training schools.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, and in con-
gratulating The Department of Education
and the hon. Minister, I would like to say
that I think it is up to each and every one
of us to tell the parents of these children
that, although they were not given the number
of talents that some of us have, they do
require far more love and tenderness than
the normal child does. The parents should
be told they cannot expect the children to
attain the same academic standing as normal
children do.
Now, I am not blaming the parents, because
maternal love is stronger than anything I
know of, and a normal mother and father
feel that their child, whether mentally re-
tarded or not, if given the chance to go to
one of these schools, should reach the same
academic standing as a normal child. This is
not possible, and I think we ought to be very,
very careful in telling the parents this, because
we are going to hurt them in doing so.
Mr. Speaker, in closing may I say this,
that these mentally retarded and mentally
defective children may be born to any one
of us here, they may come to any strata of
society, whether rich or poor, intellectual or
not. Therefore, any hon. members who have
normal children should certainly thank God at
night that their children are average.
Mr. W. J. Stewart (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I heartily endorse the many well merited
tributes paid to you on the high, efficient
and dignified manner in which you dis-
charge your duties. I congratulate you on
your breadth of vision in rulings on the con-
ducting of the business of the House; you
have inspired confidence, added lustre to
your historic office, you enjoy the confidence
and the admiration of all hon. members of
this House.
My hearty congratulations are extended
also to the hon. member for Middlesex South
(Mr. Allen) upon his elevation to the posi-
tion of chairman of the committee of the
whole House, another registration of affec-
tion by the hon. member's colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I join with all hon. members
of this Legislature in paying tribute to the
memory of the members who have gone to
their eternal reward. I would say to their
loved ones, "to live in the hearts of those
we leave behind is not to die."
I extend congratulations to the hon. mem-
ber for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) the former hon.
Prime Minister of this House, on his address
in moving that a humble address be pre-
sented to his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor
(Mr. Mackay) for his gracious speech. The
hon. member was inspired by a wealth of
parliamentary experience.
The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon) well deserves congratulations on his
address in seconding the motion of the hon.
member for Peel. His address was highly
informative and ably delivered.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the Throne
has revealed the careful consideration and
the leadership by the hon. Prime Minister ( Mr.
Frost) and his hon. Ministers, to introduce
legislation to provide for the needs of this
rapidly growing province. The speech also
revealed that the federal government recog-
nizes the province's need for additional rev-
enues, to enable the province to further assist
the municipalities, who then in turn can give
their taxpayers relief from ever increasing
municipal taxation.
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
337
The main motion moved by the hon. mem-
ber for Peel, seconded by the hon. member
for Glengarry, should be carried by this
House, and no doubt it will be carried.
Today, in a world faced with many grave
and pressing problems, Ontario is indeed in
a highly favoured position. We are in the
midst of great expansion, and while Ontario
for many years has been an agricultural prov-
ince, it has also now become one of the
greatest industrial provinces, if not the
greatest, in Canada.
As Canadians, we enjoy a very high stan-
dard of living. This should, and I believe will,
continue, provided we are willing to work,
willing to safeguard our heritage, and to
wisely use the franchise and protect our
freedom.
As member for Parkdale, the House will
recall I had, as other hon. members had, the
privilege of serving as chairman on the select
committee on reform institutions. I have
never relinquished my interest in those per-
sons who have offended against the law.
Colonel W. H. Price, a former Treasurer
and Attorney-General of this province in Con-
servative governments, who represented
Parkdale riding (and who is a very dear
friend of mine) in 1922 introduced a bill to
provide for probation, really a second chance,
demonstrating faith in humans and demon-
strating the belief that while the lamp holds
out to burn, the vilest sinner may return.
I am a firm believer in supporting law and
order, also in supporting the police in the
proper enforcement of our laws, and in giv-
ing proper respect to those who administer
justice. With persons convicted of offences
against the criminal code— serious offences—
I am firmly for imprisonment and penal ser-
vitude. Leniency by our courts toward
hardened criminals is not proper support of
our splendid and efficient police, and is not
encouraging to courageous police who endan-
ger their lives in endeavouring to apprehend
lawbreakers.
I am also firmly opposed to the molly-
coddling attitudes towards persons convicted
of dastardly, ruthless crimes. I am opposed
to pampering, and adherence to modern psy-
chology that supports self-expression by un-
disciplined children and youth, the group
who have been spared the rod and have not
had any spiritual guidance or training by
their parents.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the length
of sentence nor its severity is a deterrent,
nor is it a cure for crime. But the knowledge
of sure and certain apprehension, speedy and
adequate punishment, is definitely a deter-
rent.
For first offenders on statutory charges
probation is of unlimited value. This gov-
ernment is outstanding in its leadership in
this regard. The government for years has
built up probation, and has done much good
by and through juvenile courts for juvenile
offenders.
However, I suggest to the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) that he just take a
real good look at the operation of our juvenile
courts. I suggest he inquire if the purpose
is at times being defeated. The original
purpose of the juvenile courts, I have been
given to understand, was to save juveniles
from the plight of conviction, also from hav-
ing a black mark placed on their character
they must carry for their life. Is it not a
fact, Mr. Speaker, that appearances in juvenile
courts are not to be recorded nor regarded
as convictions? I will deal with this a little
later.
Probation does not replace suspended sen-
tence. For example, in one month in our
Toronto courts, 288 adults went on proba-
tion, 377 other persons were given suspended
sentence. The select committee of which I
had the privilege of being chairman recom-
mended extension of the policy of probation,
and to the credit of this government there
has been a substantial increase in the num-
ber of probation officers since that time.
If hon. members are interested, they might
read recommendations made by that com-
mittee, Nos. 1 to 108, inclusive.
In 1952, for all of Canada, less than 4,000
persons were on probation, but in this prov-
ince 3,000 of that 4,000 were enjoying that
privilege.
Hon. members may be surprised to learn
that last year, 1957, instead of going into
institutions, 12,858 persons were placed on
probation. Of this number nearly 7,000 were
placed during the latter part of the year.
Of these 12,858 persons, 8,506 are adults,
4,352 are children or minors. In 1957, the
total number of persons reporting to proba-
tion officers for supervision necessitated
69,272 calls, plus visits by the probation
officers to their homes to the number of
60,046.
Now what do these probation officers do?
In addition to supervising probationers, they
have counselled husband and wife in homes
of shadowed thresholds, dark with fears and
need. Some 38,629 cases which were dealt
with did not need to go to court. That is
something to prevent juvenile delinquency.
338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
That work necessitated 98,595 interviews,
endeavouring to preserve home life and in
a vast number of cases improve it.
Probation officers carry out another very
important duty. One of the recommendations
by the select committee on reform institu-
tions is that of pre-sentence reports and social
histories for magistrates in courts. In 1957,
6,443 such reports were prepared for the
courts. Also in cases where a conviction
has been made and persons were sentenced
to reform institutions, 921 reports were made.
Then, in co-operation with the federal
authorities, 54 ticket-of-leave men are super-
vised.
Ontario has a very creditable record re-
garding probation. Back in the year 1952,
about $40,000 was spent. In 1957, it was
$760,000, and I believe it is estimated that
the probation branch of the hon. Attorney-
General's office will spend this year some
$900,000.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to the hon. mem-
bers that this is a very great and startling
investment in humans, a great advance in
human betterment.
Who does this work? It is done by 118
provincial probation officers and 37 muni-
cipal probation officers, a total of 155 per-
sons.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to you,
to the hon. Attorney- General, and to the hon.
Prime Minister, that from my knowledge
of this operation, more probation officers are
definitely needed and needed now, because
the case load carried by each worker is much
too heavy for him to do his job adequately.
The government will bring down their budget,
undoubtedly with the policy of reporting
dollar surpluses. Mr. Speaker, I ask in all
earnestness, who can calculate or estimate
in dollars the results of probation? No one
can fully estimate this, because the province
of Ontario by so doing is making an un-
limited contribution to the building of good
citizenship.
May I just recite a few facts of interest,
as a result of this government's probation
policy, about the monies. In 1957, the total
restitution collected from probationers, and
this has been audited, $61,188-odd. In 1957,
the total amount collected for the support
of deserted wives and children— this has been
audited-is $2,765,700. By probation, of the
total amounts of taxable earnings of adult
probationers, that was 8,506 persons, the tax-
able income from these persons last year
was $15 million. Well, probation costs about
40 cents a day per capita.
At the time I had the privilege of serving,
to my knowledge, the average cost of sup-
porting a person committed to an institution
was about $5 per day per capita, plus the
capital cost of building more institutions, plus
the costs of giving relief through the welfare
departments to the families while those per-
sons were serving their time.
The juvenile court's purpose is to save
juveniles from recorded convictions, because
in after-life, as we well know, it is a blot. If
a man wants to get a job, he cannot get a
bond, and the juvenile court's action is for
the purpose of guarding against the rising
generation being committed to institutions
where they would complete their training in
a life of crime with a loss of self-respect.
The juvenile court helps children to hold
their good name with no black marks against
them.
I have been reliably informed, Mr.
Speaker, that the police do have knowledge
of appearances in juvenile court. May I ask
how, and why? Let me quote from the
federal Act on probation:
Where a child is judged to have com-
mitted a delinquency, he shall be dealt
with not as an offender but as one in a
condition of delinquency, and therefore
requiring help and guidance and proper
supervision.
Further, no report of a delinquency
committed or said to have been committed
by a child, of a trial or other disposition,
of a charge against a child, or of a charge
against an adult brought in a juvenile
court under section 33 or section 35, in
which the name of the child or its parents
or guardian, or of any school that it is
alleged to have been attending, or which
it is alleged to have been an inmate, is
disclosed, or in which the identity of the
child is otherwise indicated, shall with-
out special leave of the court be published
in any newspaper or other publication.
Mr. Speaker, I submit through you to the
hon. Attorney-General, I think that Act
should be amended to go farther. If they
cannot publish the names in the newspaper,
the same restriction should be placed on
magazines, radio and television. It was never
intended that an appearance in a juvenile
court should be used at a subsequent con-
viction, and the select committee dealt with
that at length. But I have been reliably
informed and I shall give an example or
two, that juvenile court appearances are
regarded in some of the courts as convic-
tions.
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
339
Here is an instance where a youth passed
all his examinations to enter into the air
force. He was refused, rejected. Why? Some-
one found out, or someone furnished the
information that, when 14, he had made an
appearance in a juvenile court.
I am most reliably informed by one very
close to the courts that, not very long ago,
two youths appeared in a Toronto court on a
charge of car theft. One gets suspended sen-
tence, goes free. The other lad, because he
had a juvenile court appearance, was sen-
tenced to a year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the
hon. Attorney - General will thoroughly
examine the conditions pertaining to records
and their use in the courts of juvenile appear-
ance at subsequent hearings for trial, if any.
I sincerely hope, too, that our juvenile
and family courts will continue to be the
responsibility of the hon. Attorney-General's
department, and not be relegated to become
adjuncts of any civic department.
Further, there is another segment of our
youth I would like to refer to briefly: I am
referring now to the young hoodlums craving
to be worshipped as heroes.
I refer to those bullies who carry spring
knives, chains and weapons, ruffians who
attack innocent people, yes, and have been
known to beat up their own parents. For
these I advocate corporal punishment.
Here is an example of a case, not so very
long ago, in our courts where a son had beaten
up his father. The father in court had to
admit he could do nothing with the boy. The
court asked him if he would consent to having
the boy whipped, and he tearfully consented.
Three weeks later the lad admitted to his own
friends that it was the finest thing that ever
happened to him, that he had come to his
senses, and that he was leading a new life.
Another case drawn to my attention, just
today, concerns a lady 76 years of age. She
had just gone into the bank and cashed her
pension cheque when a couple of ruffians
came out, robbed, beat and kicked the woman.
Now, it has been reliably stated to me by
people who are in a good position to know
that many well behaved pupils as well as
teachers in our secondary schools have been
attacked, others threatened, and they are in
constant fear.
I respectfully present this report to the
attention of the hon. Attorney-General and
the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop),
and I urge an investigation of this report at
once. We have to let many of them know,
particularly in this unruly group, that liberty
comes from discipline and restraint, and that
freedom is not licenced.
Since entering the House this afternoon I
have had placed on my desk, by a friend of
mine, a book. This is the first time I have
seen it, Trouble in the Schools, written
by Dr. Wm. Hume and Harold F. Taylor,
public school principal, and published in
Bracebridge, Ontario.
Here is a quotation from his Eminence
Cardinal McGuigan:
To indulge children in all their desires,
to shrink from giving correction and disci-
pline and punishment, is to do them a
grave injustice. It is not love to refrain
from disciplining one's children, it is a
very dangerous kind of selfishness.
Here we have another one by Thomas
Richard Henry:
Babies allowed to express themselves
without discipline or punishment seem to
be growing up. This is at least the only
explanation we could think of that explains
the behaviour of Toronto schoolboys riding
on street cars. As an example, there were
half-a-dozen boys of 12 years of age on a
Bloor street car on Friday. They wrestled
with each other, playfully pounded each
other to the discomfort of other passengers,
used abusive language, shouted and made
blatant sounds. They threw paper around
and out the window. One boy threw a bag
which contained the remains of a lunch
across the car and out the window on the
other side.
Here are other comments by Frank Turn-
pane:
About every year in Toronto, boys be-
tween the ages of 8 and 12 smash and
destroy between $15,000 and $20,000 worth
of property in the Toronto parks alone. Just
the other night, for example, the parks
department filled the new Willowdale Park
swimming pool with water. The parks
people planned to test the pool, which will
be open early in June— this is the first time
in the city's history— young vandals stood
in the park and heaved into the pool half-
sections of brick they had picked up in a
nearby dump. They hurled large chunks
of mud over a 6-foot fence into the pool;
they caused so much damage the pool had
to be emptied and cleaned by a squad of
workmen.
The same thing happened at Riverdale
park; they pried off steel shutters, nobody
knows how, but they got into the building,
340
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
smashed all the windows, wrecked the
toilets, pulled the water taps from the walls,
knocked over everything they could lay
their hands on.
Such behaviour is not confined to Toronto.
Here we have a boy, 13, who sets a barn on
fire in Lancaster, Ontario, as cited by the
Toronto Globe and Mail.
Then another comment about punishment
comes from the Globe and Mail, which I
think sums up pretty well:
The nation that has the schools has the
future.
Then here is an excerpt from an article
by William MacEachern in the Toronto Star
Weekly:
A pat on the back administered low
enough and firmly enough is often the best
medicine for reactionary youngsters. Say a
number of brave but well qualified child
psychologists, "Spare the rod and spoil the
child is still a valid theory."
Mr. Speaker, the select committee on re-
form institutions' recommendation No. 153
was for the establishment of adolescent courts.
Recommendation 142 was to establish an
industrial school for offenders of the type I
have referred to. Our training schools are
certainly not the places for these hoodlums,
now heading for a life of crime and our
penitentiaries.
Tomorrow the budget address will reveal
the financial position of Ontario. Among the
many items of expenditures will be the money
to be spent for probation. Mr. Speaker, this
should not come under the heading of "ex-
pense" but rather as an "investment." It is
a great sound investment in humans which
produces great dividends.
I would like to remind the hon. members
that I think society has come a long way
in the last few centuries. There was a time
when so many people could be hanged for
so many different offences, where, for steal-
ing, the hand was cut off and for other
crimes an "F" was branded on the forehead.
In conclusion, I would just like to leave
this thought with the government: if proba-
tion happened to be abolished, then we would
have to resort to commitments back to institu-
tions. I am sure the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond) would agree that
if such were to become the order of the day,
our present institutions would be insufficient
to house, hold and to properly care for those
offenders.
My last thought is this— by probation, first
offenders are obliged to maintain themselves
and their families instead of their support
being billed to the taxpayers through The
Department of Public Welfare. First offen-
ders are reformed under home environment,
rather than institutions. First offenders are
saved from the stigma of incarceration, and
the families, wives and children from dis-
grace.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely congratulate the
hon. Prime Minister and his government on
their leadership in salvaging humans through
probation. I wish to congratulate the hon.
Attorney-General and all those associated
with him who are engaged in the salvaging
of our human resources.
This government, in probation, has to its
credit another glorious enterprise in leader-
ship for reform and human betterment.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the
speech from the Throne this afternoon, I
wish to convey to you my congratulations,
and also commend you in the fair way you
handle the business of this House.
In fact, I would go so far as to say I
think maybe you are just a bit too lenient
with us new hon. members in the way that
you handle your decisions. I do feel your
fairness is only excelled by that of the hon.
leader of our party (Mr. Oliver), because
he certainly gives us younger hon. members
every opportunity to express our thoughts.
On the first occasion I had this year to
listen to the hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy) I felt that he gives to the govern-
ment what our hon. member for Brant (Mr.
Nixon) gives to the opposition— sound advice
—because at all times we look to Mr. Nixon
to sort of steady us new members, sort of
to hold us in balance, so that we do not try
to put any resolutions through that will de-
feat the government.
I might add that there are several pro-
jects that I wish to talk on this afternoon,
and I have prepared them by notes because
I was quite interested in the remarks that
the hon. Prime Minister made a few years
ago in which he said if one could not speak
up and tell where he lived in 20 minutes,
then perhaps he might just well stay home.
So I am going to be as brief as possible and
get to the point.
I have chosen unemployment, hospitaliza-
tion, the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Rob-
erts), and the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Dunbar), as my topics, and I might say that
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
341
the criticisms are not too serious, but they
are thoughts that I have in mind that would
certainly, I believe, be of advantage to the
government, especially if they are coming
from an Opposition member.
Last week I took it upon myself to go
to our local unemployment office and study
this unemployment question which has risen
over the past year, and I find that in our
municipality, which takes in part of Welling-
ton South and Wellington North, they had
paid out some $173,000 in unemployment
insurance.
I went back prior to 1940, and I felt that
if we had not had the federal government
enact legislation such as they did in the
1940's we would have found ourselves under
the present set-up which has been established
by the federal government at Ottawa lately,
that of 50 per cent, by the federal govern-
ment, and 30 per cent, by the provincial
government, and 20 per cent, by the muni-
cipalities. Now, this would have worked out
to $86,000 federally, $52,000 provincially,
and $35,000 for our municipalities in Wel-
lington South and part of Wellington North.
I feel that that was a great thing when
they did that. However, I can hardly agree
with the policy that was suggested by the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) a week ago
Friday, because I feel that while his inten-
tions may have been good, his measures were
not properly planned. In fact I think the policy
he adopted rather took a lot of people back
to the 1930*8, when governments were giving
people assistance, and these people were
more or less digging holes and filling them
in again. I feel that if the hon. Prime
Minister had adopted the policy, as he did
in 1955, for the time being with uncon-
ditional grants, it would have solved the
problem until such time as he could have
brought forth a proper public works pro-
gramme.
I want to say that, although I do not agree
with the plan, I think it is every hon. mem-
ber's duty to do whatever he thinks is in the
best interest of the people he represents. In
politics, when dealing with human beings,
we have to see that every person has a place
in which to stay, and make provisions so that
their stomachs are filled so that they can
carry on the normal way of life.
The next thing I wish to discuss this
afternoon is hospitalization.
Some time ago, along with the hon. mem-
ber for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root), I had
a discussion with our "co-op" medical group
in Wellington county, and one of the items
that came out for much discussion was the
great increase that this new plan is going to
mean to those who have belonged to this
"co-op" society, and they are not too well
pleased with it. Now, I could perhaps say
that it is not the headache of the Opposition,
but on the other hand I think that if we can
suggest something that will help both the
government and the people, then we should
do so.
I would like to suggest that the hospital
commission look into the possibility of set-
ting up zones. In other words, we in the
Guelph area have a smaller room rate, or at
least a lesser room rate, than that in Toronto.
I think hon. members will find that in the
rural areas, the number of claims on the
"co-op" are somewhat less than what they
are in the cities.
I would suggest if the government could
set up zones similar to those of insurance
companies, and to those established in con-
nection with the Bell Telephone Company,
the cost would be distributed where it should
be, and in our case it may lessen. In some
of the larger centres it may increase. But I
do feel that everybody should take what
they are entitled to and nothing more.
Now, the other thing that I wish to speak
on briefly, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Attorney-
General's department. For the past number
of years, there has been considerable criticism
throughout the province about ambulance
service.
Now there are some municipalities that
are in the fortunate position that they can
subsidize the ambulances, whereas other
municipalities have to adopt a plan where
they give volunteer service. Even the best
of operated services sometimes causes delay
to those in need, and I would like to suggest
to the hon. Attorney-General that considera-
tion be given to the provincial police operat-
ing an ambulance service on some of the
busy highways.
For example, this could be done on high-
ways Nos. 2, 400, and 401, where perhaps
the accident rate is somewhat high. I believe
the provincial police, Mr. Speaker, are trained
in St. John ambulance work, and I feel that
if the department would supply them with,
let us say, station wagons, a couple of
stretchers and the proper equipment, these
men could not only do patrol duty, but they
would also be on hand to give emergency
service in the case of those who are injured.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
assume the hon. member is not suggesting that
we would use the present personnel, or a
portion of the present personnel, of the police
342
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on that type of service. If he is, then I would
like to say at once that I feel that we need
all the energy and all the available force to
take care of the job on the highways as it is,
and that they should not be diverted to any
other duties of that sort.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest
that we need some more officers for patrol
duty, and that these could, as I said, take
part in patrol duty and also provide an ambu-
lance service on those busy highways.
Now the next thing that I wish to speak on
is a little certificate which I have here, and
I notice that the hon. Provincial Secretary is
not in his seat, but I will convey it to him
personally after I have spoken here.
In several instances regarding the hon.
Provincial Secretary's offices, we have post-
cards that ask certain information in regard
to births and marriages, and they are filled
out and put in the mail.
Human nature being what it is, sometimes
there is some very private information put on
these, and I would like to suggest that he
consider putting some of these forms in
envelopes so as to keep the information as
private as possible. Now there is no rush on
that matter, because hon. Mr. Pearson has
suggested in his new programme he is going
to help married couples, and I know that
there will be a decline before April 1 in
marriages, so the hon. Provincial Secretary can
take his time in thinking that over, and
perhaps inaugurate it after April 1.
Mr. Maloney: After all the divorces are
applied for.
Mr. Worton: Now the other thing that I
would like to work on is The Department of
Highways, and I might say that we have
always received fair treatment up in Welling-
ton South, and I feel as an Opposition mem-
ber that they have well taken care of me as
far as highways are concerned. We have
just completed one between Guelph and
Fergus, but the unfortunate part about it is
that the hon. member for Waterloo North
(Mr. Wintermeyer) and I inquired, last year, of
hon. Mr. Allan if we could be permitted to
secure certain information regarding what
was going on in our district. Unfortunately
we were never advised as to what was taking
place.
Although I realize there are certain
things that an hon. Opposition member per-
haps should not have in the way of knowledge,
on the other hand there are certain things we
should know. When people come to us, and
we do not have the facts, and we have to
write or phone to Toronto, there is quite a
bit of delay. I feel that we should be able
to consult with the engineers who are working
in that area, and be consulted, so that we can
bring forth the problems of the people whom
we represent in a fair manner, and be most
helpful not only to the people we serve,
but also to The Department of Highways.
I am going to close with one final point,
because I intend getting in on the budget
debate. This has to do with The Department
of Reform Institutions.
I spoke to the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond) some time ago
about this. The Guelph reformatory has
always been noted for its beautification pro-
jects, but I feel that during the past few years
it has slipped somewhat. The rocks that line
the streams have slipped down in. I know
that the officials have considerable help there
and I would like the hon. Minister to look
into that, and see if the rock formation can-
not be restored to its original beauty, and
be an asset not only to the municipality and
the riding which I represent, but to The
Department of Reform Institutions also.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said I would be very
brief this afternoon, and I would conclude my
remarks by saying "thank you" for your
undivided attention. I will have more re-
marks to make on the budget debate because
finances, and how the government spends
the money, are more interesting to me, and
perhaps I can do more correcting than talking.
Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the
Throne debate, first of all I would like to
do as all other members have, that is, offer
my sincere congratulations to you for the
very able fashion in which you are conduct-
ing your duties. I think it is very fine and
fitting that you have been able to act in this
capacity, and provide the services so neces-
sary in your capacity as Speaker of the
House.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
this opportunity to congratulate the hon.
mover of the Throne speech, the hon. mem-
ber for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) of whom we are
all so proud, and also his hon. seconder, the
hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Guindon).
Each in turn did a magnificent job, as far as
I am concerned, and I am sure by the
response from this House, and little or no
criticism may I say from the Opposition-
that is, criticism that amounts to anything-
we can assume generally that they both did
a very fine job.
I would like to make some comments,
particularly on the reply to the speech from
the Throne made by the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Oliver) some days ago.
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
343
As a farmer, and also as the representative
of a predominantly agricultural riding, I was
naturally very interested in his remarks
regarding agriculture. In expounding his fore-
casts for the future of agriculture in Ontario,
the hon. member certainly sounded like a
prophet of doom, with his belief that Ontario
is in danger of becoming a province of
peasants and tenant-farmers, a conclusion
which I am sure most reasonable individuals
will brand as ridiculous.
Having regard to the recent Liberal govern-
ment's policy at the federal level, I feel that
the hon. member and the hon. Liberals in
this House are rather rash in entering the
lists on the subject of agriculture. In the
latter years of the Liberal government's
period of office, we in the agricultural indus-
try all experienced the recession that resulted
from an inept agricultural policy— a policy
that produced enormous unmarketable wheat
surpluses, butter surpluses, cheese surpluses
and so on, with very substantial drops in the
prices of these commodities as the only pos-
sible result.
For the creation of this dangerous situa-
tion, the Liberal party must accept the full
responsibility.
It is my view that the return of the Con-
servative government to Ottawa was most
timely. Their actions in regard to the agri-
cultural situation have been a refreshing
change, and in the field of wheat marketing
in particular, we have already experienced a
distinct improvement. For one thing, I refer
to the wheat sale to India. Personally, I am
convinced that the victory of the Diefenbaker
government averted the development of a
catastrophic situation, as far as agriculture is
concerned.
At this stage, I would like to mention a
matter raised by the hon. leader of the
Opposition in another context, which I feel
has the greatest possible bearing on agricul-
tural marketing. I am referring to the recent
trade mission which the Conservative govern-
ment sent to the United Kingdom with the
avowed intention of increasing our trade with
that country. If, as the hon. leader of the
Opposition and other hon. members of the
Opposition have suggested, the federal Lib-
erals are determined to make an issue of this
at the coming election, then all I can say is
that they must be very bankrupt of construc-
tive ideas.
I am no economist, but as I understand
the situation, we have at the present time
an adverse trade balance with the United
States. Similarly, the sterling area has an
adverse balance with us. Surely it is a logical
step to make some attempt to cancel this out.
I have been chagrined to watch the way
our markets for agricultural products in the
United Kingdom have been dissipated as a
result of years of Liberal misrule, and I will
now refer specifically to some outstanding
examples.
First of all, I would like to remind the hon.
members that during World War II, Canada
built up a very extensive market in bacon
and pork in the United Kingdom. For many
farmers, this was a most satisfactory and
profitable outlet for this product. I can assure
the hon. leader of the Opposition that the
prices we received were far from the "star-
vation" level that he has indicated.
What has happened to this market? It has
vanished, simply because a Liberal govern-
ment sought to ingratiate itself with the
powerful neighbour to the South.
Similarly with our traditional cheese mar-
ket in Britain— the market for this commodity,
once the backbone of Ontario's dairy indus-
try—has also been thrown away.
I would like also to mention one other
item that I find particularly annoying, and
that is the complete loss of our pre-war apple
market in the United Kingdom. The proof
that a ready market for our products is still
available in the United Kingdom is exempli-
fied by the fact that, in 1955, the year of
our bumper apple crop, when prices here hit
an extremely low level, one shipment of
Canadian apples was allowed into Britain,
and the price received for that shipment in
the Liverpool market still stands as the
record high.
May I also remind the House that during
the 1952 outbreak of foot and mouth disease
in Saskatchewan, the United States placed
an absolute embargo on imports of Cana-
dian meat products. The United Kingdom
on the other hand opened her doors to Cana-
dian meat at this crucial period and, in
return, supplied to the United States pre-
viously purchased Australian beef in fulfil-
ment of Canada's commitments. Surely such
actions indicate a desire to trade, which we
should endeavour to reciprocate.
To contrast the picture, what market has
the United States to offer for our products?
We all know that at present we maintain
a reasonable trade in both beef and dairy
cattle, but apart from that, we are in competi-
tion right down the line, and I regret to
say that in that competition under Liberal
rule— or misrule— Canada has come a very
poor second.
It is, therefore, with amazement that I have
listened here to the severe castigation to
344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which Mr. Duncan, chairman of our Hydro
Electric Commission, has been subjected by
the hon. Opposition members for his part in
the trade mission on this vital subject. Such
criticism merely emphasizes the lack of any
constructive policy by the Opposition.
I personally wish to commend Mr. Duncan
most highly for his part in this mission, and
also for his acceptance of the two-thirds of
a mile formula for hydro supply. Both are
factors of the greatest importance to the
agricultural industry in this province.
I would like now to emphasize some steps
that this government is taking to maintain
some of our existing markets. I am referring
particularly to the brucellosis eradication pro-
gramme. The eradication of this disease is
a matter that has concerned the United States
government greatly of recent years and I
believe that, in that country, they are well
on the way to achieving this goal. It is no
secret that certain pressure groups in the
United States would like to see the cessation
of the importation of Canadian livestock, and
already we have considerable restrictions
placed on the importation of livestock, based
on health status.
It is indeed fortunate that in Ontario we
have been making strides, in co-operation
with the federal government, in the direc-
tion of brucellosis eradication on an area
basis. We have provided free vaccination
and, in this fiscal year, have expended over
$500,000 in this service. I would urge the
government to continue the expansion of this
programme with all possible haste, in order
that our market may not be endangered.
The Scots are a people renowned for their
business acumen, and there are many of
their attributes that we would do well to
imitate. I therefore mention in passing that
their livestock possess the highest health status
in Europe, and it is only from that country
that Canada will permit embarkation of
cattle for consignment here. I would like to
see Canada, and Ontario in particular, enjoy
a health status for our livestock, not just
the equal of the United States, but surpass-
ing any other country in the world.
I would like now to commend the work
of The Department of Lands and Forests.
They are at present developing plans for the
establishment of a park in the Fitzroy har-
bour district of Carleton county. This area
is one of the most beautiful in the Ottawa
valley, and I am sure that if the present
plan comes to realization, it will provide a
most pleasant recreation area, both for the
present generation and for posterity.
Finally, I have a request to make, and this
I direct to the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Allan). In brief, I would like to sug-
gest that he give consideration to commence-
ment of the western approaches to the
Queensway in Ottawa in the current fiscal
year. I have been over this area with the
engineers and other interested parties, and
I believe that one of the considerations that
is delaying work on this project is the prob-
ability of a link-up between the main Cana-
dian Pacific and northern Canadian National
lines.
If this plan comes to fruition, it might
mean a saving of one bridge in the ap-
proaches. Nevertheless, I feel that the sum
gained by this economy would be more than
offset by the rise in total cost, which can
be anticipated if this project is delayed.
I therefore urge that this work would re-
lieve the serious problem of congested traf-
fic on both highways, Nos. 15 and 17,
approaching the city of Ottawa, and that
this be given priority.
In concluding, I would like to state the
pride that I feel in being associated with
the hon. Prime Minister's (Mr. Frost's) gov-
ernment, and when I make that statement
I feel I am speaking the views of the entire
Progressive-Conservative party. Under this
guiding hand, Ontario has gone from strength
to strength, and I am sure that when this
period comes to be viewed in the perspec-
tive of history, "the Frost era" will be recog-
nized as the golden years.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Speaker:
since you give of your time, your thought
and your courtesy to all hon. members of this
House equally, and since you govern our
deliberations with an even temper and an
even hand, it is no small wonder that many
hon. members have paid their tributes to you.
I, too, have shared in those facets of your
warm and genial personality, and I extend my
tribute to you also.
I do this not only for your personal self
but because of the high office you occupy.
You in human person personify one of the
finest of our democratic institutions. You are
the ears to which the voice of the people is
directed. You are the person, the facility
through which each and every hon. member
of this House carries out their obligations to
those who sent them here. They speak and
you listen, they speak freely and unrestricted.
And, Mr. Speaker, to one such as I, that has
a special significance and meaning. I come
from a stock, I spring from the blood of a
people, who are now in their millions, and
whose neighbours in their millions are under
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
345
the enslavement of Communist tyranny and do
not enjoy this privilege which I share with all
the hon. members of this House. You can see
why rising in this House has a special signi-
ficance for me.
I, too, should like to place on record of
this House my personal tribute to the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy). Through
39 years he has devoted his life in this Legis-
lature to the service of the people, not only of
his riding, but of Ontario. To have main-
tained the confidence of his electors and all
who have come into contact with him during
those many years must be indeed a great
source of satisfaction to him. May his inspir-
ing presence be with us for many years.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise
and give voice to one's thoughts and I take
this opportunity to do so.
Uppermost in my mind this afternoon
perhaps is the question of unemployment. I
know what unemployment means. I know
what having no money coming into the
family means. The 1930's are years I remem-
ber well. In those years, events took place
which I shall never forget. I think of a family
with 10 children whose father was laid off
from work and who had no means. That was
my family. I think of cardboard stuffed into
shoes because the soles were bare. I think
of a youngster who studied by candlelight
because the hydro was cut off. I think of the
futility of relief payments. I do not need to
be told by anyone, not even by the hon.
members of the Opposition, what unemploy-
ment means. I learned the hard way.
Those are things I do not want to happen
to a single family in my riding, or anywhere,
again. I am confident that under this admini-
stration it will never happen again, because
in those years I learned something else, that
the answer to the problem was a lunch pail
under the arm of a man, a man going to a job.
And from that time on, I said to myself: "I
will support the man who will put lunch pails
into the hands of men."
Today I stand in support of the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost), he is that man. He is
that one man within this province who,
looking at 6 million people, sees individual
human beings with all their individual needs
—the sick, the disabled, the unemployed with
little or no funds. That means a great deal
to me. I trust that I will never look at the
people of my riding as made up of figures, but
that I, too, will always see them as human
beings.
Our hon. Prime Minister saw the problem,
the need to get a job for the man who is not
receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
He took action, a potential $5 million worth.
And he took it in the right direction. "Let
us create jobs," he said to the municipalities.
"Create jobs and we will pay 70 per cent, of
the labour costs. Use $7 million worth of
labour and we will pay you back $5 mil-
lion of it. Create jobs, and you will get
the benefit, and you will pay only 30 per
cent, of the labour costs."
Jobs, not relief, that is the answer. Pay
cheques, not relief vouchers, that is the
answer.
Mr. Speaker, why is Ontario strong? Be-
cause of the willingness and the desire of
its people to work, and that is the desire and
willingness to be satisfied.
I was shocked the other day when I heard
an hon. Opposition member who should know
better say that relief was preferable to the
jobs to be created by the government scheme.
Surely it is common-sense logic that it is
better to spend a little more and give some
economic return to the community, surely
that is one lesson we learned from the past.
If I went to almost any householder in
my riding and I said to him: "If your eaves-
trough needs repairing, hire someone to re-
pair it, and I will pay you 70 per cent, of
the labour cost," I am sure that each and
every householder would take me up on
that proposition. And if I were to say to
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher):
"If your house needs painting, hire a painter
and I will pay you 70 per cent, of the labour
cost," I am sure he would take me up on
that proposition.
Mr. Whicher: Is that on the outside or
inside?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Cer-
tainly, the hon. member would give the job,
but he does not want the municipalities to
take that great offer. That is the trouble
with him.
Mr. Yaremko: But if that proposition were
made to the hon. member for Bruce, I am
sure he would take it up. Perhaps his house
does not need painting, perhaps his house
is in perfect condition, I do not know. But
he would be a very fortunate man indeed
if it was.
And yet, when this type of proposition
is given to the municipalities by this gov-
ernment, what do the hon. members of the
Opposition do? They scoff as they scoffed
this afternoon. It will not work, they say,
it cannot be done, they say-
Mr. Whicher: Everyone else is scoffing at
it too.
IS
346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Yaremko: —and they say it even be-
fore the scheme has scarcely begun. Abso-
lute defeatism. That is what they show.
And in the face of facts I maintain that it
can be done and that it can work, and in
the face of the fact that it is such a fair
proposition, any householder would be very
happy to have a similar deal, and a muni-
cipality is nothing much more than a large
household.
But that is not the main point, and the
hon. Opposition members have completely
overlooked it. The main point is jobs for
those who need them most, because every-
one who gets a job through the government
scheme provides assurance that someone else
will get back to work sooner. His job is
insurance that someone else will not be laid
off. Jobs create jobs. The problem is a
progressive one: help those who have little
coming in, and get them to a job; then get
the others back to work; then keep every-
body at a job.
The hon. member for Waterloo North ( Mr.
Wintermeyer) once wrote of the people of
Ontario that we are spirited, courageous and
progressive. With that, we on this side will
agree. But he had better get his hon. col-
leagues in the Opposition in a corner and
remind them of that. The hon. Prime Min-
ister has said this is an experiment. I say
to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a shining example
of the willingness of this government to
bring fresh ideas to the problems of the day.
But this much is true, that if the defeatist
attitude of the Opposition were to prevail
amongst the men whose co-operation is
needed to make this scheme work, then the
scheme will not be a success. But I have
much more confidence in the councils of the
municipalities, the council of Toronto, than
the hon. members of the Opposition have.
They will, I am sure, recognize fully the pur-
pose of this scheme, the practicability of the
scheme and get busy as they have already
done, and put the men to work.
As to those in my riding who qualify, I
hope they start immediately, because I want
to see some of that $5 million find its way
into the purses and the shopping bags of the
people in my riding.
Mr. Whicher: Well, they started last Wed-
nesday, did they not?
Mr. Yaremko: I say to the hon. Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger), let him
set the example, set the pace, make an
immediate review of every bit of repair and
renovation work necessary in every govern-
ment building in Ontario, and let us also "do
it now." And when the hon. Treasurer of
this province, the hon. Prime Minister, brings
down the budget, I am sure there will be
specifically set forth the most important fac-
tor, a public works programme to create jobs.
That is the problem of the day.
I say to the hon. Prime Minister that I hope
his $5 million goes fast, and if it does, that
he go right ahead and put to work whatever
else is necessary. He will get the backing of
every hon. government member, I am sure.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, so am I.
Mr. Yaremko: The other week the hon.
member for Bruce stated that he now
respects the difficult position in which the
Opposition is placed simply because they
are outnumbered. I suggest to him that num-
bers have nothing to do with it, not at all.
If the hon. member would review the past
few years for himself, he would see the real
difficulty that he and his hon. associates are
operating under. Every action of this govern-
ment, every position taken by this govern-
ment, has been so right that they have had
to dig and scratch to find the least shred of
criticism. That is the handicap the Opposi-
tion has been labouring under.
I do sympathize with the hon. member for
Bruce and his hon. associates, yes I do,
because the burning desire to criticize, which
sitting in the Opposition chairs creates, gets
the hon. member and his hon. colleagues in
some weird positions.
What was the subject matter of the
severest criticism the Opposition has made in
the past three years? I am sure the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay) would
agree with me that it has been this govern-
ment's stand on federal-provincial relation-
ships, especially on the question of dollars
for hard pressed Old Man Ontario. Never
has an Opposition opposed anything so
strongly, and never has an Opposition been
so wrong.
A year ago this government fought for the
people of Ontario, yes the little people of
Ontario, that it always fights for. Whom did
the hon. members of the Opposition fight
for? They fought for a government that, a
few months later, was rejected by the people
not only of Ontario but throughout Canada,
yes, rejected by the "little people."
The hon. member for Waterloo North is
not in his seat, but today he speaks of "sell-
outs." I say to him that a year ago, he and
his hon. colleagues tried to persuade this gov-
ernment to participate in the biggest sellout
ever. Indeed, we cannot call it a sellout,
indeed it was a free giveaway.
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
347
Last year the hon. Opposition members
were ready to settle for nothing, not even
one red cent. Today they criticize this gov-
ernment for having obtained, in the mean-
time, 22 million good Canadian dollars for
the people of this province.
I have more confidence than the hon.
leader of the Opposition has.
The hon. member speaks today of a sell-
out, but what does the Toronto Daily Star
say?
It is, however, a marked improvement
over the tax-sharing plan proposal of the
late Liberal government.
Late? Mr. Speaker, the old Liberal govern-
ment had reached the stage they did not
even know what time it was.
About 9 months ago, I had occasion to
visit western Canada. When my plane landed
in Winnipeg, I rushed out to buy the west-
ern newspapers, a whole armload, to famil-
iarize myself with the political climate. After
I read about 3 newspapers, I was not too
happy; the west did not look like a good
place for an hon. Progressive-Conservative
member from the Ontario Legislature to be.
For a fleeting moment, I had the idea that
discretion might be the better part of valour,
and that I should get right back on the plane
and head east.
But my curiosity was piqued— why this
intense animosity towards Ontario? What basis
was there for the arguments used?
Then I saw an article in the Winnipeg
Free Press of May 27, 1957, 14 days before
June 10. I do not know the complexion
politically of this newspaper, but I am sure
the hon. members of the Opposition do. It
was an article by Grant Dexter, and was
headed: It's not Ontario's Money. The
bigger headline was: Ontario Liberals
versus Mr. Frost.
I wanted to see how a Liberal newspaper
was interpreting the position of the Liberal
Opposition, in Ontario, to the people in
western Canada.
I quote the Winnipeg Free Press:
The Frost-Diefenbaker tax agreement is
being resisted in Ontario by the provincial
Liberal party as well as the federal Liberal
party.
Oh yes, it was wrong for hon. Prime Minis-
ter Mr. Frost to back Mr. John Diefenbaker
to get a better deal for Ontario, but it was
all right for the Ontario Liberal Opposition
to defend, to use a word the hon. leader of
the Opposition uses, the "indefensible" posi-
tion of the old Liberal government to deny
the people of Ontario a better deal.
I quote the Winnipeg Free Press:
It is wrong to believe that, in seeking
a much greater share of the federal cor-
poration and inheritance taxes (15-15-50),
as opposed to the St. Laurent government's
(10-9-50), the Frost government speaks for
all the people of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the Frost government did
and does speak for all the people of Ontario
and on June 10 the people of Ontario spoke
for themselves, as they will on March 31.
An hon. member: Will the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. Yaremko: After I get through with
the article, it is so interesting I enjoy it
every time I read it:
The Liberal party in the Ontario Legis-
lature, from the opening on January 28
until the close on April 3, resisted this
policy and defended the 10-9-50 formula.
Can hon. members imagine somebody in
western Canada wondering whether there
really was not something wrong with the
government of Ontario when the Opposition
opposed a measure from the day of open-
ing until the day of closing of the Legis-
lature?
I quote:
The case against the Frost-Diefenbaker
formula was argued with clarity and force.
Indeed, the speeches of J. J. Wintermeyer,
MLA for Waterloo North, the Liberal finan-
cial critic, and Ross M. Whicher, MLA for
Bruce, are abler defences of the present
federal tax agreement policy than any
speeches made at Ottawa.
How wrong can hon. members get?
Again, interpreting the hon. member for
Waterloo North, Mr. Dexter says:
The Frost Government was now [that
is on May 27, 1957 and earlier when the
hon. member for Waterloo North made
the speech] getting all that it could reason-
ably expect.
And $22 million today is something to be
sneezed at!
It is a long article, and most interesting.
I quote:
Under criticism in the Legislature, the
case of the Frost government against the
federal tax agreements did not stand up.
348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that com-
pared to the leg that the Liberal Opposition
stood on, this government's position was that
of a centipede— with 100 legs.
Yes, a year ago the offer of nothing more
was— I quote the hon. member for Waterloo
North-"basically fair," but today $22 million
is "a sellout."
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the
Opposition were wrong a year ago, and they
are just as wrong today.
I continue the interpretation for western
readers by a Liberal newspaper:
The right policy for the Frost govern-
ment to follow, said Mr. Wintermeyer, and
the Ontario Liberals supported him, is to
increase provincial taxes and not to try
further to increase direct taxes on incomes
and corporations. By provincial taxes, Mr.
Wintermeyer meant the gasoline tax, motor
vehicle taxes, liquor taxes and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, if a western reader
were reading this newspaper, he would I am
sure deduce this: "My gosh, the Frost govern-
ment doesn't want to raise their taxes; they
want to get their money from someplace else;
it is not fair of the Frost government." But
when the "right policy" of the hon. member
for Waterloo North was put to a vote in this
House, who voted for it: the government
members. And who voted against it? The
hon. member and his hon. colleagues. Having
voted in this House against his own "right
policy," he proceeded, after this House rose,
to put himself on record again in a letter
to the Toronto Globe and Mail. He wrote,
and I am only quoting part of it:
Do tears of self-pity blind us to the fact
that Ontario is a strong province [and I
referred to this earlier] with spirited,
courageous, and progressive people, and
that we are capable of providing our own
revenues?
If voting to provide our own revenues
makes a people spirited, courageous, and pro-
gressive, what did voting against the increases
in revenue make the hon. members of the
Opposition, when they voted against it?
I quote the Winnipeg Free Press article.
The Ontario Liberals also showed that
the Frost government is not going into
debt.
We can imagine the reaction of the west-
ern reader, "Why all the screaming east of
the Manitoba line if the government is not
going into debt?"
A week ago the hon. member for Bruce
spent considerable time proving how far we
had gone into debt and were going into debt.
An hon. member: That is what I want to
know. ^
Mr. Yaremko: This is not my interpretation;
this is the interpretation of the Winnipeg
Free Press for the western readers. That is how
they looked at the hon. member's words in
this House.
Now, getting into the hole is a matter
which deserves serious consideration, I agree.
But what was the position of the hon.
member for Bruce when there was a possi-
bility of plugging up that hole a little, or at
least of keeping it the same size as a year ago?
He "sat pat." Should we get more money from
the federal government, the old Liberal gov-
ernment, because of that hole a year ago?
Oh no, after all, they had reduced the federal
debt by only $2 billion in the past 10 years.
An hon. member: And every other province
reduces too—
Mr. Yaremko: But the hon. member was
quite careful when he was pointing out the
senior governments which had reduced their
debt. He was quite careful not to mention
the $2 billion federal reduction in debt, and
why would he not? Because it would prove
that again his position a year ago was wrong.
Now, because of that hole and the possibility
of that hole getting bigger, should we have
increased our revenues a year ago? Oh no,
those measures were, and I quote the hon.
member for Bruce only a week ago, "ridicu-
lous." Should we have increased gasoline
taxes? Oh no, says the hon. member for
Bruce. Let us take over some 9,384 miles of
county roads. Oh yes, says the hon. member
for Bruce. He was not worried about county
roads a year ago when monies had to be
raised.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Yaremko: Oh no, there was only one
thing the hon. member and his colleagues
were worried about a year ago, and that was
defending the old Liberal government in
Ottawa.
An hon. member: What is he trying to
defend now, the old Tory government?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The new Tory govern-
ment.
Mr. Wintermeyer: If they did not have
that $500 million, why we would be "broke."
FEBRUARY 24, 1958
349
Mr. Yaremko: $22 million. Now, Mr.
Speaker, the matter which concerned me
most a year ago in the federal election was
that there was one obnoxious detail about
the whole campaign— the setting of the other
provinces against the province of Ontario in
the campaign across this nation of ours. That
was, I think, Mr. Speaker, the most shameful
way in which any campaign could be car-
ried on.
An hon. member: Who did that? Where-
abouts?
Mr. Yaremko: The hon. members of the
Opposition established the basis from which
other people derived that kind of talk, "It is
not Ontario's money." Over and over again,
we heard in this House a year ago, "More for
Ontario means less for the rest of the prov-
inces."
Mr. Speaker, in this House and out of this
House, the hon. Prime Minister spoke on
behalf of Ontario, it is true, but in almost
every speech that he made, he mentioned
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward
Island, Saskatchewan. And, Mr. Speaker, last
January—
An hon. member: Would the hon. member
tell us what the hon. Prime Minister had
requested?
Mr. Yaremko: A fair share for every prov-
ince is the answer.
An hon. member: Like $100 million?
Mr. Yaremko: A year ago the cry, and
the basis of the cry outside this House from
one ocean to the other ocean, was the posi-
tion of the Liberal Opposition in this House;
"More for Ontario means less for the other
provinces."
And last January there came forth $87
million, of which $22 million was for Ontario,
$65 million for the other provinces.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. member
taking the position that the explanation of
the $100 million, that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter requested, has been changed to mean
$100 million for the whole of Canada?
Mr. Yaremko: The point I would make
is this— a year ago, the hon. members of the
Opposition did not want one red cent more.
Today we have $22 million.
To get back, Mr. Speaker, to the $87 mil-
lion of January. There was $22 million for
Ontario, $65 million for the rest of the prov-
inces. Mr. Speaker, the silence of the hon.
members of the Opposition about the $65
million has been deafening, they have said
not a word about it.
Mr. Speaker, why have the other provinces
of Canada 65 million more Canadian hard
dollars in their pockets, and the province of
Ontario $22 million? I say it is because of
the action of only one man, because he got
up and he fought. Because he did so, little
people of the province of Ontario are now
$22 million richer than if the Liberal Oppo-
sition in this House had persuaded this gov-
ernment not to proceed. Also, because our
hon. Prime Minister fought, there are $65
million for the little people in the remainder
of the provinces of Canada. There is only
one man responsible for the whole $87 mil-
lion, and he is hon. Leslie M. Frost.
An hon. member: I thought it was the
hon. member for Bellwoods who was respon-
sible.
An hon. member: The hon. members of the
Opposition always think wrong about it, that
is the trouble with them.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow moves the adjourn-
ment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the House. Tomorrow we
will go ahead with Throne debate and with
bills on the order paper.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 17
ONTARIO
lUgtelature of (Ontario
Mate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, February 25, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
«
Tuesday, February 25, 1958
Second report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Maloney 353
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 353
Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 353
Blind Persons' Allowances Act, 1951, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 353
Old Age Assistance Act, 1951, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 354
Mothers' and Dependent Children's Allowances Act, 1957,
bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 354
Indian Welfare Services Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 354
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Thomas, first reading 354
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 354
Public Parks Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 354
Provincial Parks Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading 355
Power Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Connell, first reading 355
Administration of Justice Expenses Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 355
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 355
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 355
Libel and Slander Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, first reading 355
Private Investigators Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, first reading 356
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 356
Presenting report, Department of Mines, Mr. Spooner 356
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne,
Mr. Goodfellow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maloney 357
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Sutton, agreed to 376
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 376
353
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 25, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney,
from the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's second report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
bills without amendment:
Bill No. 20, An Act respecting the Ontario
dietetic association.
Bill No. 21, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Teck.
Bill No. 31, An Act respecting the city of
Belleville.
The committee also begs to report the fol-
lowing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. 5, An Act respecting the Strat-
ford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of
Canada.
Bill No. 10, An Act to incorporate the
Sudbury Young Women's Christian Associa-
tion.
Bill No. 17, An Act respecting Queen's
University at Kingston.
Your committee would recommend that
the fees, less the penalties and the actual
cost of printing, be remitted on Bill No. 5,
An Act respecting the Stratford Shakes-
pearean Festival Foundation of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by hon. Mr.
Dunbar, that this House will tomorrow re-
solve itself into the committee of supply.
Before you put that motion, I should like
to refer to a question directed to me by the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver)
yesterday as to when the budget debate
would be proceeded with. I think I said on
Monday or Tuesday.
However, I would like to inform the hon.
members that on Monday it has been ar-
ranged for the hospital insurance agreement
to be signed in Ottawa, and I would very
much like to be here to listen to the hon.
financial critic of the Opposition, therefore
the debate will come on Tuesday if that is
satisfactory.
I may say if it is not satisfactory, Thursday
and Friday of this week are available, but I
should judge that next Tuesday would be the
best day.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by hon. Mr. Dunbar, that this
House will tomorrow resolve itself into the
committee on ways and means.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the
following:
The report of the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Dunlop), for the calendar year 1956.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE DISABLED PERSONS' ALLOW-
ANCES ACT, 1955
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Disabled
Persons' Allowances Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the administration of
the welfare allowances programme, blind per-
sons' allowances, disabled persons' allowances,
mothers' and dependent children's allowances,
and old age assistance has been brought to-
gether into one branch of the department,
the welfare allowances branch.
This bill brings the Act into line with the
current administrative arrangements.
THE BLIND PERSONS' ALLOWANCES
ACT, 1951
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Blind Per-
sons' Allowances Act, 1951."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
lit
354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He said: Mr. Speaker, what was said in
respect to the previous bill also applies to
this one. The amendment will bring it within
the current administrative arrangements.
THE OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT, 1951
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Old Age
Assistance Act, 1951."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the same explanation
would go for this bill, with this added, that
words will be added to provide authority for
including, in an agreement with Canada, con-
ditions of eligibility for allowances as set out
in the regulations, and also a clause will be
added to require any additional condition of
eligibility, contained in the agreement made
under section 2, to be set out in the regula-
tions.
THE MOTHERS' AND DEPENDENT
CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES ACT,
1957
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Mothers'
and Dependent Children's Allowances Act,
1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, again over and
above the explanation as given, in the other
bills there is this to be added, that the term
"foster mother" is extended so as to permit
payment of an allowance to any person, if
otherwise qualified, who acts in loco parentis
to a foster child, as for example a male foster
parent. The redefinition of the term "regional
administrator" brings it into line with cur-
rent administrative arrangements.
A new feature, also, is that the allowance
may be paid to an unmarried mother only if
she is 18 years of age or over, and her depen-
dent child is at least 6 months old. Also, a
new section provides a method for comput-
ing the required one-year period of residence
in Ontario, in cases where the mother moves
from another province into Ontario.
THE INDIAN WELFARE SERVICES ACT
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Indian
Welfare Services Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a new section to
this Act is to be added. It will enable a
mother's allowance to be paid to an Indian
mother with a dependent child or children,
if she is a widow, or if her husband is per-
manently unemployable for reason of mental
or physical disability.
Another clause to be included will enable
agreements to be made with the government
of Canada respecting the payment to Indians
of general welfare assistance, unemployment
assistance, or direct relief.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Mr. T. D. Thomas moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is permissive
legislation that will allow a municipality to
pass a by-law granting the vote to those
British subjects over 21, who have been resi-
dent in the municipality for 12 months, of
course not allowing them to vote on many
by-laws but a general municipal vote of the
municipal elections.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Train-
ing Schools Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment
provides for employment of a full-time chair-
man on a salaried basis. The function of
the advisory board is to advise the depart-
ment on all matters pertaining to the opera-
tion and government of our training schools.
They are people who perform this service as
a public duty and give us excellent service.
The work is increasing a great deal, and we
feel that it is now necessary to have them
headed by a full-time salaried chairman.
THE PUBLIC PARKS ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Parks Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the present time,
approval of the Ontario municipal board is
required for the setting apart and leasing of
certain portions of public parks for recrea-
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
355
tional purposes. It has been thought that
the approval of the municipal board is not
necessary in such cases, so we are substitut-
ing the council in the place of the municipal
board.
THE PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT, 1958
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, "The Provincial Parks
Act, 1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Act was revised
in 1954, and is now again revised in order
to bring it into line with present-day condi-
tions. The two commission-type parks, Long
Point and Presqu'ile, under part 2 of the
present Act, are now administered by the
Minister, and the commissions are dissolved.
Part 2 of the present Act is therefore obso-
lete. Part 3 of the present Act is also obsolete
-no parks have been placed under it. This
bill is therefore much shorter than the present
Act, and it continues the basic principles of
that Act.
THE POWER COMMISSION ACT
Hon. R. Connell moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Power
Commission Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: The new subsection in this Act
will authorize the commission to pay grants
in lieu of taxes based on the rate of 60 per
cent, of the assessed values, instead of the
present rate of 25 per cent.
The second section of the bill provides a
uniform and a simple, economical method to
provide lighting in townships.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
EXPENSES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Admini-
stration of Justice Expenses Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a
few amendments that tie it in with the bill
which was introduced by the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Dymond), which
transfers the duties of sheriffs in certain
respects to those persons under the jurisdic-
tion of reform institutions, and also provides
for the increase, in serving a subpoena in the
county or district court, from $1.50 to $3.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Sheriffs Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amending Act
also is to give effect to the changes that will
be brought about by the bill I have just
mentioned, transferring certain duties of the
sheriff to the reform institution officers.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Fire
Departments Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for
the agreement which may be arrived at by
bargaining— the agreement, decision, or award
to be in writing. This brings it in line with
The Police Act, which requires similar agree-
ments and awards to be in writing. It also
provides that, if the municipality and the
fire fighters consent, the collective bargaining
agreement may now remain in force for a
period of 2 years.
Under the present Act, this agreement is
limited to a one-year term.
There is also provision to correct what the
city of Sudbury seems to think is an un-
witting requirement of the Act, that if the
chief in an emergency wants to call out the
full-time fire fighters, he must call them all
out. The correction enables him to call out
those who are not on duty to the extent that
is necessary.
THE LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT, 1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "The Libel and Slander Act,
1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say that it
would be my intention, if the House agrees,
that the bill which I just introduced a moment
ago— that is, the fire department amendment
bill— be referred to the committee on legal
bills, and also that this bill be referred to
that committee.
The law of libel and slander is a complex
law, and this is a rewriting really of The
Libel and Slander Act to bring it in line
with present-day conditions such as broad-
casting, radio and television operations. Also,
it has the effect of making some alteration
in the burdens of proof, in some cases affect-
356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ing the defendants and in some cases affect-
ing the positions of plaintiffs, in establishing
their cases.
The Act, I am sure, will be given a very
thorough examination before the committee
on legal bills, and I would only say at this
point that the material contained in this Act
has received a great deal of study by people
whom I believe to be experts in this field.
THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS ACT,
1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "The Private Investigators Act,
1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would say that
this bill will take the place of The Private
Detectives Act, which has not been revised
for 30 years, and during that period there
has grown up a very substantial private detec-
tive agency business. The name "detective"
will be dropped from the title, there will be
more attention paid to the qualifications of
investigators and their employees and the
licencing of them, and the question of "iden-
tification card" will be limited to "card," and
badges and shields and that sort of thing will
be eliminated. Bonding provisions will also
be changed or modified. Mr. Speaker, I sug-
gest that this bill also go to the committee on
legal bills.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would say that
the effect of this amending Act will be to
provide for two more judges of the trial
division of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I think all of us have taken note of the fact
that we have quite a number of visitors in
the House to view the proceedings, and we
welcome them. There are students from Bed-
ford Park Public School and Howard Park
Public School in Toronto and from Port Col-
borne High School, Toronto Teachers' Col-
lege, and a large group of men and women
representing the Federation of Agriculture
from all over the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
table answers to questions Nos. 3, 6, 9, 10
and 13.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would ask leave to present to the House the
latest publication of The Department of
Mines. I am pleased indeed, so soon after
the end of the year 1957, to be able to offer
the hon. members a factual and, on the whole
I think, a very comprehensive report of the
principal developments in the field of mining
in this province during the year that has
closed.
It requires only a superficial reading of the
first few pages of this report, fittingly entitled
Forging Ahead in 1957, to show that it was
a fruitful year for the mining industry.
The value of production was at an all-
time peak as the mines of Ontario pumped
about $740 million of new wealth into the
national bloodstream. This, as the report
explains, is only the preliminary figure, and as
such it will certainly be increased by many
millions of dollars when the final returns are
in.
It is quite probable that the final calcula-
tion will show an increase in production in a
single year of a full $100 million. Just 25
years ago, that amount was more than the
full value of all Ontario's mineral production
for the 12-month period.
During 1957, we saw 10 great mines swing
into production, 7 of them were uranium
mining enterprises, two in the Bancroft area
of eastern Ontario and the other 5 in the
fabulous Blind River-Elliot Lake area.
In addition, we now have 20 other mines
under development and are nearing the time
when they too will be adding their output to
the nation's wealth.
This number would have been increased
very materially had the market for copper
and some other base metals not "gone soft."
When the price fell off so badly, a number
of extremely promising developments had to
be curtailed or suspended.
There is every reason to hope and expect
however, that the situation is only a tem-
porary one and that, when prices are restored
to a more normal level, the operations will
be resumed.
Part 2 of the report deals in detail with
the several branches and offices of The De-
partment of Mines. It is designed to acquaint
the hon. members of this House and the
general public with the functions that are
performed by each of them, and by the
department as a whole.
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
357
I think this section does much to explain
the organization through which a compara-
tively small staff of 225 persons, many of
whom are highly trained specialists, are able
to handle the great volume of work entailed
in the service of the mining industry of
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I very earnestly recommend
this report, Forging Ahead in 1957, to the
attention of every hon. member. It has been
written specifically for the layman, and the
story it tells is that of one of our greatest
industries. I expect that during the course
of this session I will have occasion to refer
to it again. May I suggest likewise that hon.
members keep a copy of it available for
future reference.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture): Mr. Speaker, in rising to partici-
pate in the Throne debate this afternoon, as
usual I would like to congratulate you, and
at the same time sympathize with you, for
the patience which you exhibit from time
to time with some of the hon. members of
this House. You are filled with the milk of
human kindness, and I know that you are
admired greatly by all hon. members of this
Legislature.
This afternoon I would like to direct my
remarks more or less to a specific subject.
First, I would like to join with you and
with the hon. members of this House, in
welcoming to this assembly a very distin-
guished group of people from rural Ontario.
These people represent one of our impor-
tant farm organizations, the Federation of
Agriculture. Represented here today are
members of commodity groups and affiliates,
and I hope the impressions which they will
take away from this chamber this afternoon
will indicate to them that the law-makers
of this province are at least attempting to
work on behalf of all the people of the
province of Ontario.
We welcome, in our department, ideas
which are constructive in nature from all
community groups, and particularly those
engaged in agriculture. We also welcome
constructive criticism, because that is good
also, because it helps us to create and formu-
late policies in the interest of this most im-
portant basic industry in the province of
Ontario.
We are pleased to note the interest ex-
hibited by the hon. members of this House
in matters pertaining to agriculture, as
indicated by the addresses they have made
during this current debate. My only regret
is that it was not possible for more of our
hon. members to avail themselves of sitting
in with the committee on agriculture this
morning. But I realize that, between the
Ontario plowmen's association and the good
roads convention, it was not possible for as
many to turn out as would otherwise have
been the case.
We are always looking for ideas which
will better agriculture in this province, and
as I said a few weeks ago, in remarks I was
making elsewhere, we have to seek advice
and guidance from those out on the conces-
sions across this province.
I think the strength of our department lies
in the fact that, not only do the officials
in The Department of Agriculture avail them-
selves of every opportunity to travel across
this province to farm meetings, in order to
gain ideas and advice from the farmers them-
selves, but also in the organization we have,
through our extension service, which extends
across Ontario and is always assisting us in
the administration or the betterment of agri-
culture in this province.
I want to say a word, in my opening
remarks, in connection with a very close
friend of mine of many years standing. He
was a man who had devoted his life to the
farm people of the province of Ontario, first
in his own respective jurisdiction as an agri-
cultural representative and later as a pre-
decessor of mine as hon. Minister of Agri-
culture in this province. He was a man of
great ability, a man who gave his all at all
times, and I think those of us who knew
him best could say that, due to the service
which he rendered to agriculture in this prov-
ince, he went to a premature grave.
I refer to the late "Tommy" Thomas, a
friend of all hon. members of this House, a
man who made a great contribution to agri-
culture in the province of Ontario.
I would also like to say a word with respect
to another predecessor of mine, a man from
whom, for nearly 15 years, I have sought
advice, frequently and regularly, a man who
has had great experience in public life
and whose advice, in my opinion, was very
valuable.
Although I would never expect to be able
to copy many of the patterns set by the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy), who I regret
is not in the House this afternoon, I assure
hon. members that he has gained many friends
in this province, especially among those en-
gaged in agriculture. As far as the farmers
358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in this province are concerned, hon. Mr.
Kennedy might well be called "Old Man
Ontario."
There are many things in connection with
agriculture in this province which I might
discuss this afternoon, but I propose to leave
those matters for some further remarks which
I hope I will have the opportunity to express
in this House at the time the estimates of the
department are brought down.
Agriculture has many facets. There are
many factors in connection with successful
agriculture in this province. I name only a
few: research, extension, farm management,
production, and quality. All of these are
important.
Particularly during the past year, one factor
in connection with agriculture in this province
has come to the fore, and I have said many
times that I felt, at the conclusion of 1957,
that I had acted not as Minister of Agriculture
■ for the province of Ontario, but rather Mini-
ster of Marketing, because of the time which
was devoted to that particular phase.
Marketing is very important to the farm
people of this province. I cannot understand
why marketing has so suddenly come so much
to the fore because, in this province and in
other jurisdictions, marketing legislation has
been a gradual evolution, and it is only in
this last year that it has gained so much
prominence in spite of what it has accom-
plished for the agricultural industry down
through the years.
Marketing is very important. It is of little
use for a farmer to produce good food
products if he cannot sell those products to
good advantage, and there are certainly ad-
vantages to be gained on the part of farmers
in this province and in all jurisdictions, to
be able to market their products collectively.
I would like to review, to some extent,
the background of farm marketing:
Farm marketing first came into the fore-
front in connection with agriculture as a
result of the drop in farm prices in the early
1920's. I well remember reading, in the
Country Gentlemen at that time, articles on
plans for farm marketing by a certain man
by the name of Sapiro, who came from Cali-
fornia, and was trying to introduce farm
marketing by trying to organize farmers for
the purpose of selling their products collec-
tively.
Unfortunately those plans failed, to a great
extent at least, because of the very fact that
many farmers, like most people— in fact I
think like all people— were always prepared to
take advantage of benefits without assuming
any responsibility for the setting up of any
of these plans. Also, many farmers had the
habit of breaking away from the co-operative
plan of marketing if they felt it was in their
own individual interest to do so.
It was found, therefore, that that type of
farm marketing could not succeed because of
the ease with which certain fanners could
break away from the co-operative selling
ventures in their particular commodity.
In other words, the marketing of a farm
commodity can succeed only if the full con-
trol of that commodity is secured under the
particular plan. That was the conclusion
reached because of experiences which farm
marketing underwent in the early days of its
introduction.
In 1934, the Canadian federal government
of the day appointed a Royal commission to
inquire into mass buying and price spreads,
and out of that Royal commission inquiry it
became quite evident that the depression was
falling unduly heavily on the agricultural
industry. This was also evidenced by farm
prices.
As a result, the federal government intro-
duced, in 1934, the first farm marketing Act
in Canada, called The Natural Products
Marketing Act.
I might say that farm marketing of this
type originated in Queensland, Australia,
about 1922, and Great Britain introduced a
counterpart of the Queensland legislation in
1931 and amended it in 1933.
As a matter of fact, during the past year,
I have received thousands of letters from
farmers who, for one reason or another— per-
haps through misunderstanding to a great
extent— do not like some features of farm
marketing.
I tried to compose a letter that would
please everybody, but that is a very difficult
thing to do, I realize. I pointed out in this
letter that this legislation was not new, and
had been in effect in Canada and Ontario
for many years, and that it dated back to
Queensland in Australia in 1922, and from
1931 in Great Britain.
I never looked into the facts as presented
to me by a certain irate farmer, who replied
that he could easily understand why these
two governments introduced this radical legis-
lation, because the government of the day
in Queensland and the government of the
day in Great Britain were social govern-
ments, but I am not prepared to vouch for
that.
I would say it was very progressive legis-
lation, as has been proved by the beneficial
effect it has had on the stability of farm
prices in Ontario.
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
359
The basic essential principle, in any farm
marketing plan, is that where a majority of
producers of a commodity desire to sell their
products collectively, the minority may be
compelled by law to join in a common sales
policy.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it sounds
much worse than it actually is, but it is
necessary in order for any farm marketing
plan to operate successfully. This was learned
through the failure of the earlier co-opera-
tive farm marketing plans. Therefore, where
a majority votes in favour of a marketing plan,
then the minority must submit to the majority
in respect to the carrying out of that par-
ticular plan.
Within two years after the introduction
of The Natural Products Marketing Act by
the federal government in 1934, some 22
marketing plans had been established across
Canada under this Act.
But then the validity of the Act was ques-
tioned, and it was referred to the Supreme
Court of Canada, which found that this Act
was ultra vires of the federal government,
and it was further referred to the Privy
Council, which upheld the decision of the
Supreme Court. Therefore The Natural Farm
Products Marketing Act was no longer effec-
tive as far as the federal government was
concerned.
But the government of the day in the
province of Ontario— and I do want to give
credit to the hon. members of the Opposi-
tion who represent that party which was the
government of the day— immediately stepped
into the breach, and in 1937 the original
Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario was
passed and put into effect.
The purpose of this original Act in Ontario
was to preserve those things which had been
established and secured for the commodity
groups under the original federal Act then
operating in the province of Ontario.
I might add that a predecessor of mine,
the hon. member for Peel, did introduce in
this House, in 1934, an Act dealing with
milk, which had many features that later
were incorporated into The Farm Products
Marketing Act and The Milk Control Act
which came into effect at that time.
From 1937 until the present time, 21
marketing plans covering 36 crops have come
under the Act. Only two of those plans in
that 20-year period have been revoked by a
vote, leaving 19 marketing plans, covering 31
commodities, at the present time in effect
under The Farm Products Marketing Act and
the complementary legislation which we have
for marketing under The Dairy Industry Act.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Could the hon.
Minister tell me what those two were?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Yes, the two market-
ing plans covered 5 crops. The Essex-Kent
early potatoes and Holland marsh vegetables
were revoked 3 years after they were ap-
proved, following a vote as to their continua-
tion. Those are the only two that have been
revoked by a vote, so that we have at the
present time 19 plans in operation, covering
31 crops.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I can quite properly
say that for the most part these are working
very satisfactorily on the whole and in the
interests not only of the producer but also
of the processor and the consumer, because
they do have an effect of stabilizing prices on
particular commodities.
It is not necessary for me to name the
various plans which are operating under this
Act, starting in 1937. The latest one, of
course, is the Ontario flue cured tobacco
growers' marketing plan of 1957.
I see here on my notes that someone in
my department has these marked off as
"schemes." Last year, I made it clear to this
House, when we introduced the amendments
to The Farm Products Marketing Act, that I
did not like any part of the word "scheme"
to be tied up with anything with which the
farmers have to do. Therefore, from here on,
it is supposed to be called a marketing plan. I
like that much better for anything with which
farmers are connected. I do not want anyone
to think that a farmer would scheme in any
way, shape or form to do anything.
Another matter which I wish to discuss for
a few minutes, one which we hear a great
deal about— we get pros and cons on this
particular feature in connection with the
farm marketing plan— and that matter con-
cerns the percentage of votes required to
introduce or repeal a plan.
I think most hon. members have heard
something about what the percentage of
votes should be on any particular plan that
is to be voted in, and in the same way any
plan that might be subjected to a vote to have
it repealed.
I might say that as far as I am personally
concerned, I have an open mind on what the
percentage of votes should be. I do feel
though that I should point out that I believe,
as a farmer myself and knowing farmers as I
think I do, that farmers are like the fellow
from Missouri, "They like to be shown."
They are individualists, and they do not like
to feel they are being pushed around in any
way, shape or form.
obO
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Therefore I believe it is important that, if
any of these farm marketing plans are going
to succeed, it is necessary to do a good "sell-
ing job" on the farmers growing that particu-
lar commodity in the first instance, but that
there should be a continuing selling job,
pointing out to those particular farmers
exactly what their marketing board is doing
for them, and the advantages they are deriv-
ing from the marketing plan under which
they are marketing their crop. I think that is
important.
I might say that from 1937 to 1957, from
the time The Farm Products Marketing Act
was first brought into effect in Ontario until
last year— about a year ago now— the per-
centage required to carry a vote to introduce
a plan on a particular commodity was 66^3
of the eligible voters. All these plans which
I could mention which are listed here— some
19 of them— came into effect by a vote for
the most part, and that vote was based on
66% of those eligible to vote.
Last year we reduced that percentage. The
first vote in the province on any commodity,
carried out on the new basis, was the tobacco
vote last May. At that time the farm mar-
keting board reduced the requirements to
51 per cent, of those eligible to vote. They
also included that 60 per cent, of those voting
must vote in favour.
I might say that the important percentage
is the 51 per cent., because almost invari-
ably a plan carried by 51 per cent, of those
eligible to vote would most certainly have
over 6Q per cent, of the voters voting in
favour.
May I refer to the peach vote which was
to have been held on January 27. Due to
circumstances beyond our control this vote
has been postponed indefinitely, due to an
injunction filed in the courts. The 60 per
cent, factor would have been dropped in
that particular vote, and only the 51 per
cent, of those eligible would have been
retained.
I might say that outside of Saskatchewan
our voting percentage requirements are the
lowest of any jurisdiction in Canada. I do
not know if we can use Saskatchewan as an
example, because Saskatchewan has only one
plan in effect at the present time, whereas
the province of Ontario has 19 marketing
plans in effect.
We find that, for instance, in Quebec and
New Brunswick they take two factors into
consideration in the requirements on a vote.
It is required there that 75 per cent, of
those eligible to vote, vote in favour and
that those 75 per cent, must represent 75
per cent, of the total crop involved. That
will appear to the hon. members to be very
rigid and very high, but that is the case in
the provinces of Quebec and New Bruns-
wick.
In Great Britain, where they have had a
great deal of experience with farm marketing
plans, the requirements are 66^3 per cent, of
those eligible voting in favour, and the 66^3
per cent, must represent two-thirds of the crop
involved in the plan.
I think, Mr. Speaker, those are things that
we should look at closely and very carefully.
As I said, I have an open mind on the mat-
ter, but I feel, in the interests of farm com-
modity groups, that they must assure them-
selves of overwhelming support if they hope
to have these plans effective with the least
possible opposition.
Of course, I realize, as the hon. members
do, that regardless of any plan that ever
was evolved and put into effect, we will
always have certain individuals in the com-
munity who will oppose it just as a matter
of principle. I am not thinking of those
people, I am thinking of the vast majority of
the good farmers who need to have a selling
job done on them as to the value to be
secured from a sound marketing plan, rather
than have them feel that they are being
subjected to something they are dubious about
supporting.
I want to speak for a few minutes on the
matter of marketing boards. It is common
knowledge now that the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) raised a ques-
tion, and I came right out in the open as I
usually do and admitted that a speculative
story was prepared and circulated in the
press last fall in connection with the con-
stitution of marketing boards.
We have, in the province of Ontario, ad-
ministering The Farm Products Marketing
Act, a board comprised of civil servants.
Such is not the case in all provincial juris-
dictions. Both in British Columbia and
Quebec, a judge is appointed to administer
The Farm Products Marketing Act. As a
matter of fact, in the province of Quebec,
this judge is not under the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Agriculture, but is directly under
the Prime Minister of Quebec himself. But
that is the way it is administered in Quebec
and British Columbia, by a judge who
becomes familiar with farm marketing and
his decisions would be judicial in nature.
Our milk industry board in Ontario is
what might be called semi-judicial, inasmuch
as the chairman of the board is a judge who
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
361
has had a great deal of experience down
through the years serving in that capacity,
under the old Milk Control Act and more
recently under The Milk Industry Act, and
the two men working with him are very
conversant with all factors connected with
the dairy industry. That is another type of
board.
I feel that administration by civil servants
is something that has to be given a good deal
of consideration. There has been some criti-
cism from some sources in respect to our
board being comprised of civil servants— and
after all, as Minister, I welcome criticism
because that is what we expect as elected
representatives of the people— that is a good
healthy sign when an elected representative
is criticized— but I feel that civil servants
should not be subjected to unwarranted criti-
cism. That is the reason why the speculative
story was put out to the farm people of this
province in connection with the manner in
which a farm products marketing board
should operate in the future.
Because of the fact that I had heard,
directly and indirectly, a great deal of criti-
cism of the present board, I was amazed at
the response I had to that story which went out
to the farm people of Ontario. I have here a
very thick file, from practically every farm
commodity group in the province which is
operating under a marketing plan, and this
file very conclusively indicates that, in their
opinion it is well, at least for the time being,
to continue under our present administration
and supervision of the farm products market-
ing board.
So with that in mind and with the support
that we have received for the present board,
the present set-up will continue until such a
time as the farm people of this province are
prepared to take over the administration of
The Farm Products Marketing Act, with all
of the headaches that would be involved.
I am looking at the president of the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture, and I am telling
him that nothing would please me better, or
please me more as Minister of Agriculture,
than to be able to turn over the headaches
of the administration of The Farm Products
Marketing Act to a board representing the
farm commodity groups in this province. I
doubt whether, if I had the president or the
executive of the Ontario Federation of Agri-
culture in a quiet place, they would indicate
to me that they desire to take it over at this
time. I think that they would rather favour
the idea of leaving the matter where it is, at
least for the time being, in view of the satis-
faction expressed by a vast majority of the
commodity groups in the province.
I might say that last Thursday, by order-
in-council, a new member was appointed to
the Ontario farm products marketing board.
I have had this under consideration for some
time, and recommended it to the government.
Mr. Clifford R. Magone, former deputy
Attorney-General, is now a member of the
Ontario farm marketing board.
It is our feeling that, with Mr. Magone's
vast experience as a civil servant working his
way up in The Department of the Attorney-
General to the office of deputy Minister, and
with his knowledge of our Farm Products
Marketing Act, he will be a great asset.
I would say that no one in Canada has a
greater knowledge of that Act than Mr.
Magone, due to the fact that he was dele-
gated by this government to carry Ontario's
farm marketing legislation before the Supreme
Court of Canada, and I might say that I think
a good deal of the success which we have
achieved, in straightening out the misunder-
standings which existed in connection with
farm marketing, has been due to Mr. Magone.
He has done much to straighten out that
situation, and I feel that he will be a very
valuable man to have dealing with the many
legal technicalities which seem to come to
the forefront from time to time in connection
with the administration of the Act.
Mr. MacDonald: Is he a new member
or a replacement?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: A replacement.
Mr. MacDonald: Who is he replacing?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Mr. Watson, the
livestock commissioner. Mr. Watson is a very
busy man as livestock commissioner, and it
was felt advisable that Mr. Magone replace
him as a member of the farm products mar-
keting board in this province.
I feel that Mr. Magone's services will be
very valuable not only to the department
and to the government, but also to the farm
commodity groups, having in mind the vast
knowledge he has of these particular Acts
which will come under his jurisdiction, along
with the other members of the board.
I would like to say a word about Mr.
Frank Perkins, the marketing commissioner
for Ontario. I worked closely with Mr. Per-
kins on many occasions, particularly during
the past year and a half, and I want to say
that Mr. Perkins, at all times, was a friend
of the farmer, and that perhaps no man any-
where has a better knowledge of farm mar-
keting than has Frank Perkins. He is of great
assistance to us in carrying out and keeping
362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on the rail, so to speak, many of these plans
and the problems which they produce.
I just want to deal with the two types of
plans which come under The Farm Products
Marketing Act, and they are vastly different
in their effect. The first type is the nego-
tiated type, or the collective bargaining type,
and for the most part that has been the only
type of marketing plan we have had in the
province of Ontario up until recently.
I find that the farmers, who are connected
with the commodities that come under this
collective or negotiated type of plan, are very
well satisfied indeed with the benefits they
have derived down through the years through
the collective bargaining arrangements, where
the regulated product is still owned by the
farmer and sold where he wishes, subject to
minimum prices and provisions of sale nego-
tiated by his marketing board.
I might say that, at the present time, we
have 15 plans of this type in the province
of Ontario. They cover 28 crops with an
estimated value last year of $250 million.
They include such crops as tobacco, canning
crops, beans, sugar beets, and so on.
I find that there is very little controversy
over these particular types of plan, and I
would say to the hon. members of this House
that as far as the percentage of vote is con-
cerned on a negotiated plan, I would be
prepared to consider, and to suggest to the
farm products marketing board, that in this
particular type of plan, if we had 51 per
cent, of those voting, voting in favour, there
would be no serious objection raised and
no one would be running into too much
trouble, because the plans are just accepted
and they work, and have been of tremendous
benefit to the farm commodity groups in-
volved.
I might say that the tobacco marketing
plan comes within this part, and I do not
want to go into any detail in connection with
the problems with which the tobacco growers
were confronted in this province. To use a
rural term, that would be threshing old straw.
But there was a question in the minds of a
great many people as to whether this plan
would work, and whether the 1957 tobacco
crop would be marketed before it spoiled.
This plan came about as the result of great
dissatisfaction— which was apparent from the
hon. members of the Opposition — to the
original type marketing which had been in
effect for many years. As a result of a vote
which took place on May 22 last, an over-
whelming majority of tobacco growers in this
province indicated that they were not satis-
fied with the existing type of marketing and
voted themselves into a farm marketing plan
under The Farm Products Marketing Act.
I am not going to go into all that trans-
pired, but with that overwhelming majority,
it was so evident that the tobacco farmers
wanted a change in the type of marketing
they had, that the government had no hesita-
tion whatever in supporting them to the full,
because we believe in our farm marketing
legislation and we believe that, where a com-
modity group indicates by an overwhelming
majority that they want such a marketing
plan, it is up to us to stand behind that
commodity group.
That is what we did insofar as tobacco
is concerned, and I might say that the pres-
sure was terrific until finally the hon. Prime
Minister of this province (Mr. Frost) called
together the growers and the buyers, and a
compromise was reached, and tobacco got
off to a good start, so far as selling through
the warehouses under the "Dutch auction
system" of selling was concerned.
I might give to the hon. members of this
House the up-to-date report. We are getting
a report on the sales of tobacco day by day
of the week previous. As of last Friday, there
had been marketed through the 3 warehouses
in this province, out of a total crop of 149
million pounds, some 63 million pounds, and
there were still 86 million pounds to be
marketed.
This is what I like about this particular
week's operation— and this has been true for
the last 3 weeks— every week the average
price which the farmers are receiving for their
tobacco has been on the increase. Last week
the average price for the tobacco marketed
through the warehouses was 52.9 cents per
pound, which is 3.9 cents per pound above
the average minimum price established by
arbitration prior to the sale of tobacco.
It is estimated that if the present volume of
sales continues— and we are being very con-
servative with a small "c" in this estimate
which Mr. Perkins has prepared for me— in
the 47 working days, it is only necessary for
the 3 warehouses to handle 1,821,000 pounds
a day to dispose of the balance of 86 million
pounds of tobacco by April 30. The average
last week, each day, was in the neighbourhood
of 2.3 million pounds, so Mr. Perkins tells me.
Without being overly optimistic, he has
every reason to believe that the entire 1957
tobacco crop will be marketed by April 15.
I say to the hon. members of this House
that, when farm commodity groups indicate
that they want to set up a marketing plan
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
363
j
under provincial legislation, it behooves us
as a government to show that we believe in
this marketing plan, and we will stand behind
that marketing group to the last degree.
Mr. Speaker, I am taking much more time
than I intended to. I could talk for a long
time about another type of marketing plan,
the marketing agency or the single sales
agency type of plan where the farmer owns his
product but the agency sells it for him and
returns payment. I believe their success de-
pends not on the strict letter of the law, but
on the soundness of the methods of operation.
We saw an example of that with the fresh
peach growers of this province who, last year,
ran into difficulty. After two or three years
of quite successful operation, circumstances
beyond their control created difficulties in
marketing the fresh peaches.
As a result, the agency found that they
owed the fresh peach growers, who were
marketing through them, some $75,000.
I might say that I believe that the growers
of peaches for this particular market still
believe in this plan, and once we can get
this vote back on the track, they will support
the plan knowing it is in the long-term inter-
ests of the peach growers to market through
a single agency.
I want to commend the fresh peach
growers' organization in this respect, that as
soon as they found they were in difficulty
they immediately came in to the board and
myself. They laid their cards on the table in
connection with their operation, with the
financial circumstances in which they found
themselves, and with the auditor's statement.
One likes to help people who do things in
that way.
And I assure hon. members that, when this
plan is again voted upon and it secures the
necessary support, we, the department and
the government, will support the peach
growers in every way we possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, I was going to take up more
time, but I am not going to discuss hogs this
afternoon. It is one of the most important
farm commodities in the province of Ontario.
The subject has been very controversial,
as .a matter of fact it was primarily on
account of the apparent dissatisfaction on
the part of certain people in connection with
this plan that our whole farm marketing
legislation was referred to the Supreme Court
of Canada. As the result of that, we have
strengthened The Farm Products Marketing
Act by amendments, which were passed by
this Legislature at the last session, which we
believe have closed all the loopholes. We
believe this type of marketing can be car-
ried on without interference.
But, at the same time, I would point out
again to the hon. members that I believe, in
order for any plan to succeed— especially a
compulsory plan— that that commodity should
have a vote in order to assure that the plan
has the support of the producers of that par-
ticular commodity.
I had thought earlier this afternoon that
maybe March 31 would be a good time, it
would save many people a lot of inconveni-
ence.
Mr. MacDonald: Has the hon. Minister a
voting list ready?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Practically all ready.
But I do feel, in the interest of all farm com-
modity groups who wish to establish a farm
marketing plan, that they should first assure
themselves that they have the support of a
predominant majority of the people who are
producing that particular commodity.
With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to
again assure the hon. members of this House
that we welcome their suggestions. We feel
that we want to do those things which are
in the interest of agriculture in this prov-
ince from the long-term standpoint, and I
will have further remarks to make about
other factors in connection with the work of
The Department of Agriculture at a later date.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question which I would like to ask
the hon. Minister, if he would answer it.
The hon. Minister has stated that he
believes that a marketing plan should have a
majority of at least 51 per cent, of those
eligible to vote. For what possible reason
can he include, among those who are eligible,
people who for religious convictions will not
vote, and as a result by reasons of religion
in fact vote against the scheme?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, of course, I
would say to the hon. member that it could
work both ways, that due to religious con-
victions they do not see their way clear to
vote, and that if they do not like the plan
it might be forced upon them. It could work
both ways, as far as those who have religious
convictions are concerned.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, it works only
one way, because when a farmer stays
away, it means that he votes against the plan.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, may
I ask the hon. Minister a question? Has the
tobacco growers' co-operative asked for finan-
cial assistance from the provincial govern-
364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ment, or would that request be made to the
federal government?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I might say to the
hon. member for Brant that there was some
intimation made that they might require some
financial assistance from government sources.
But I question at the present time, due to the
way tobacco is moving, whether they feel it
will be necessary for them to get into the
market and buy tobacco at this particular time.
That is something that is entirely up to the
tobacco growers themselves.
Mr. Nixon: Was that request made to the
provincial government?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: No, a suggestion was
made once or twice, but no specific request.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
may I first extend my thanks to you for the
co-operation and assistance you have always
given so freely, and congratulate you on the
very fair and impartial way you conduct the
proceedings in this assembly.
I would also like to extend my congratu-
lations to the hon. mover (Mr. Kennedy)
and the hon. seconder of the motion (Mr.
Guindon) now being debated. I want par-
ticularly to congratulate the hon. member
for Peel, Mr. Kennedy. Anyone with a record
of 50 years in public life has, I think, a
record which I feel quite sure will not be
equalled.
I would also like to congratulate the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Dy-
mond) and the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr.
Spooner) on their appointments to their res-
pective portfolios. I am quite sure, Mr.
Speaker, that they will administer the affairs
of their department ably and well.
For a few moments, I would like to speak
on the present acute unemployment situa-
tion. Now that we are in the middle of a
federal general election campaign, I feel
quite sure that the political parties on the
hustings will make this an issue. Prior to
the election last year on June 10, the Liberal
party had administered the affairs of this
country for 22 years, and one would expect
that they would have worked out a solution
for the present unemployment situation.
In fact, I think it was the late Mr. Mac-
kenzie King who stated in 1945 that the
Liberal party at that time had a shelf of
public works projects that they could im-
mediately put into effect if our free enter-
prise system failed in providing jobs for the
people who needed employment. Two elec-
tions were fought on that issue — in 1945
and 1949.
But in recent years, I think, Mr. Speaker,
it has been proved that no shelf of public
works ever existed. The only effort to solve
unemployment was the do-it-no w programme
since copied by the Conservative party, that
programme, Mr. Speaker, of "get your drapes
and summer clothes cleaned in January in-
stead of in the spring."
From the record of the Liberal party, I
think they are hopelessly incompetent to deal
with the present unemployment situation,
and I think they have no chance of being
returned to the government of this country
on March 31. I believe the day is fast ap-
proaching, when we will return to the two-
party system in this country, and I feel
quite sure that the Liberal party will not
be the second party.
But I believe the Liberal party, the body
of liberalism and its appeal to the country,
is quite cold, and the day is now coming
when I think we will have a repetition of
what has happened in Great Britain, the decay
of the Liberal party.
But what of the approach of the Conser-
vative party to unemployment?
Well, Mr. Speaker, the argument of the
Conservative party is they are not respon-
sible for the present unemployment situation.
I most humbly suggest, at a time of unem-
ployment like this, that we do not argue oi*
quibble over who is responsible for unem-
ployment. It does not matter whether we
have 100 persons or 600,000 persons unem-
ployed. For the particular individual who is
unemployed it is a desperate situation.
The question is, what are we prepared
to do to alleviate unemployment? I suggest
that Canada, with wise planning and intel-
ligent leadership, is destined to play a major
role in world affairs, and this young country
with its resources, I feel quite sure, can and
will rise to the occasion.
In this country today we need homes, hos-
pitals, roads, and schools, and one may ask
where the money is to come from.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there
would be any difficulty in finding the money.
If we spend only a fraction of the money
we spent in the last war, I am quite sure
our needs could be met. Of course we can
find the money.
Let us remember this, that in the building
of the homes needed by our people, and the
schools, hospitals and roads, we are helping
in building a "better tomorrow/' Public
works of all kinds are urgently needed in
this country, and I would suggest there is
not one municipality in the entire province of
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
365
Ontario that would not undertake works of
a capital nature at the present time if they
could obtain money at low interest rates.
In our country today there are hundreds of
thousands of men and women eking out an
existence with incomes of between $15 and
$30 a week. What kind of asinine, stupid
system are we living in, which will allow
men and women to eke out, in idleness, a
bare existence on $15 or $30 per week, when,
with the expenditure of a few more dollars,
we could put them to work on much needed
additions like homes, schools, hospitals, and
so on?
One other point, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to mention is this: There is some confusion
in the figures of the number of men and
women unemployed today; some say 500,000,
some go as high as 800,000. But let us take
the middle figure just to get my point across.
Supposing there are 600,000 men and
women unemployed in this country today.
Those people are deprived of the things
they need, and their purchasing power has
been cut in half. That, I suggest, is bound
to have some effect on the economy of this
country.
Now I think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) will agree that, if we are
to have any public works projects, it will take
some months before the plans come off the
drawing boards. It will take some months
before the plans are designed and approved.
In the meantime something must be done.
Perhaps that was what the hon. Prime
Minister had in mind when he mentioned in
the Legislature, a week ago last Friday, that
he intended to allot $5 million in the supple-
mentary estimates to give the municipalities
an opportunity of providing relief work at
the present time.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the
announcement on Friday afternoon was very
heartening news to the municipalities. I
thought at that time that the scheme, or the
plan, had some merit. But on the week-end
I gave the plan some thought and considera-
tion, and the only conclusion I can come to
is this, that the hon. Prime Minister was much
more interested in hitting the headlines for
the week-end news than he was in the
mechanics of the plan.
The work designated by the hon. Prime
Minister included tree cutting and, as the
hon. member for Essex North (Mr. Reaume)
said, picking up peanut shells in the park,
and work not normally undertaken by the
municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an illus-
tration of what this plan is likely to do in the
city of Oshawa. At the present time, in the
city of Oshawa, we have 2,700 men and
women unemployed. Of these, 141 are receiv-
ing relief, not full relief, from the city of
Oshawa, and because of the severity of the
weather at this time of the year, the number
of persons who would qualify for that type of
employment is exactly 36.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Of these figures, are all
the balance drawing unemployment insurance,
or entitled to draw unemployment insurance?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, I would say most of them.
Some on unemployment insurance get as low
as $6 per week, consequently they would
qualify for unemployment relief from the
local relief administrator, but at the present
time we have 141, and only 36 are eligible
for this type of employment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do think that the
government must take another look at this
plan.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I think the hon. member has made a mistake
there, they may be on relief and still be draw-
ing some unemployment insurance relief.
They are eligible to work on the scheme.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, that is right.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): I would like to
ask the hon. member a question just to clarify
this in my mind.
Does the hon. member mean that there are
115 people on relief in Oshawa and everybody
else is receiving unemployment insurance?
Mr. Thomas: Yes.
Mr. Yaremko: Does he mean that there is
nobody who is not receiving unemployment
insurance and not receiving relief? No one in
that category?
Mr. Thomas: Oh yes, there are.
Mr. Yaremko: How many are there in that
category?
Mr. Thomas: I cannot say. There are 141
at the present time receiving assistance from
the relief administrator in the city of Oshawa.
Mr. Yaremko: Then there are 141 receiv-
ing relief, so many thousand receiving unem-
ployment insurance. My question is, does the
hon. member know the number who are not
receiving unemployment insurance, not receiv-
ing relief, and who are unemployed at the
present time?
Mr. Thomas: No, I cannot give that figure.
366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, I do think the government
should take another look at this plan in order
to broaden it and make it more attractive
to the local councils. Frankly, unless the plan
is revised, Mr. Speaker, I think that the plan
is a half-baked scheme.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to yield
the floor.
Mr. Cowling: Can I not ask a question?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member will not
permit a question-
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, if the plan
is not revised, I think it is a half-baked
scheme. I think it was conceived in haste
and will be barren of returns, and I do
think that the hon. Prime Minister should
have the courage to revise this plan, or dis-
card it and throw it in the wastepaper basket
where it belongs.
Mr. Speaker, some mention has been made
of the housing situation in Ontario. I intend
to refer to it briefly. I believe that perhaps
I may have some figures that have not been
quoted by the hon. members, figures that I
would like to bring to the attention of this
assembly.
The National Housing Act is designed to
help in the building of new homes. But is
the Act effective? I submit it is not. The
Act is not effective in providing homes for
the people in the low income groups who
really need them.
In 1956, under the National Housing Act,
the average income of those assisted under
the authority— and I want you to note this
Mr. Speaker— the average income was $5,312
yearly, but only 8 per cent. — only 8 per
cent. — of those who filed income tax returns
in 1955 made above $5,000, and only 204,
out of a total of 47,593 borrowers under the
National Housing Act, or .4 per cent., came
within the $3,000 or less mark.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that
one-third of the population of Canada today
are under the age of 18 years, and it is
expected that in the next 10 years they will
get married and raise families. Add the new
arrivals from abroad, and it becomes very
evident that the housing situation with the
low rate of building today will obviously
become more acute.
The great need today, I believe, is the
low-cost home within the reach and means
of the low income group, with mortgages at
low rates of interest, and an extension of the
amortization period from 25 to 30 years.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: That does not apply to
Saskatchewan, when the hon. member said
there might be an increase of the people
being married. Last year, Saskatchewan was
the only province in the Dominion of Canada
that decreased 262 births from 1956, so that
does not apply.
Mr. Thomas: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker,
they are human out there too, and they
would like to propagate the species perhaps
as well as we would in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Fishing was good, eh?
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. MacDonald: Saskatchewan, like Vic-
toria riding in Ontario, is reducing its popu-
lation for the same reason.
Mr. Thomas: I want to refer, Mr. Speaker,
for a moment to the remarks of my hon.
friend for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay).
Speaking in the Legislature last Thursday
afternoon, he very roundly criticized the CCF
government in Saskatchewan and its educa-
tional programme in that province.
Now, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I object
to some sections of the speech, and I want
to particularly refer to page 149 of that date.
The hon. member for Riverdale said that
they are paying the lowest percentage of any
province of the Dominion of Canada, 26 per
cent. And he said:
Fifthly, proportionately to the number
of teachers and the population, there are
more teachers in Saskatchewan operating
on temporary certificates than in any other
province in Canada.
Sixthly, there are some schools in Sas-
katchewan that have no teachers at all.
They have sitters to keep order, that is
the great province that was going to take
over all the cost of education. They have
sitters just to keep order.
And seventhly, in the province of Saskat-
chewan, the government prints the books,
the books are full of naked socialist propa-
ganda . . .
Now I want to turn to the eighth point,
and that is that each year in Saskatchewan
there are fewer teachers entering into the
professional field than the year before,
because they are the lowest paid in any
province in Canada.
Ninthly, they have supervisors in Saskat-
chewan who have not even been to normal
school.
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
367
Now Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to those
statements. The hon. member mentioned one
time, during the debate when replying to
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald):
Well, the hon. member can say all he
wants, I am prepared to have my vera-
city tested against his any day.
So this is the test, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Macaulay: These are statistics, who
is the hon. member going to quote from?
Mr. Thomas: Just a moment now, the
hon. member will have his opportunity, let
him be fair.
This, Mr. Speaker, is an extract from the
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, and the report was
given by Mr. G. D. Earner, secretary of the
Saskatchewan teachers' federation who said:
Mr. Robert Macaulay, PC of Toronto
Riverdale, made statements in the Ontario
Legislature on Wednesday, in which he
achieved a perfect score, he was wrong
on every count.
Now, just a moment. Let hon. members
just sit there and "take it." We had to take
it last week, let them just take it for a change.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: We can take it.
Let the hon. member not let a little ejacu-
lation worry him.
Mr. Thomas: It does not seem like it,
the hon. members are getting quite disturbed.
Mr. Earner said the statement was errone-
ous. He noted that the Dominion bureau of
statistics was always a few years behind the
current year. But the Canadian teachers'
federation research division, supplying infor-
mation for teachers, showed Saskatchewan
had a larger percentage of first class teachers
than did Ontario.
■
In the school year 1954 to 1955, a total
of 84.6 per cent, of Saskatchewan teachers
held first class certificates or better, in con-
trast to Ontario's 75 per cent, for that
category.
Mr. Macaulay had also said some schools
in this province didn't have teachers, but
"sitters" to keep order. Referring to the
question of unqualified teachers, Mr.
Earner said: "We have 4.6 per cent, as
study supervisors. We deprecate that situa-
tion.
"Like Ontario," he said, "we once held
short courses of a few weeks' duration and
gave people teaching certificates, we did
that for 10 years. We found it was not
solving the problem."
Mr. Earner said: "The percentage of
highly qualified teachers has moved from
22.2 to 38.4 in the past 7 years. Another
significant point," he added, "was that the
number of study supervisors has gone
down markedly with the reduction of 1.2
per cent, this year."
Mr. Earner said: "It is recognized by
people who know [I do not know whether
that includes the hon. member] that Sas-
katchewan has the highest entrance and
graduation standards in Canada, for
teachers.
"We require senior matriculation for our
entrants, but Ontario admits students for
the profession with junior matriculation."
Mr. Earner said the Macaulay claim that
the Saskatchewan government was pay-
ing the lowest percentage of education cost
of any Canadian province, 26 per cent,
was incorrect. The average paid was 35
per cent., and some units through the
equalization grants received as high as 75
per cent, from the provincial treasury.
Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member's figures
are like his clippings, about 20 years out of
date.
Mr. Thomas: May I continue:
The Macaulay claim that the provincial
government printed its own textbooks was
incorrect too, Mr. Earner said. All school
texts were approved by the educational
council of the province and most of the
books were in use in all the western prov-
inces-
Mr. Macaulay: They are approved but who
are they printed by-
Mr. Thomas: —and distributed in all the
western provinces.
An hon. member: All right, the person
who laughs last on this debate is going to
have the last laugh.
Mr. Thomas: I do not know of any text in
use in our schools that is printed by the pro-
vincial government. Will that satisfy the
hon. member?
An hon. member: All right then.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Earner stated:
As a teacher, I have never been too
impressed with what is in the text or is not
in it. The important thing is the use the
teacher, makes of the material in school
books.
I
368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Macaulay: Will my hon. friend permit
a question?
Mr. Thomas: No, let him just sit down
there. He had his chance last week.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my
hon. friend to whom I always listen with a
great deal of interest, that he should always
check his figures regarding their accuracy.
Mr. Macaulay: I make certain they are up
to date.
Mr. Thomas: It is to be regretted, Mr.
Speaker, that a young man with such master-
fulness should find time, and precious time, to
waste on gathering and assembling such in-
accurate statements and I want to give this
advice to the hon. member: "Always strive
for truth and not sensationalism."
Mr. Macaulay: If my hon. friend has fin-
ished with that subject, will he now permit
a question?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Macaulay: In this article to which my
hon. friend has referred, it said that "Mac-
aulay had a perfect score, he was wrong on
every count." But I did not hear my friend
start at "Firstly," of the things that I said,
namely quoting from the Saskatchewan Han-
sard that Mr. Douglas said that they would
pay in Saskatchewan the full cost of educa-
tion.
Now, if I had a perfect score, and if I was
wrong on all counts, I must have been wrong
on all 10. Then why did the hon. member
start in at "Fifthly," and what does he say to
my accusation that there is a tax on education
in Saskatchewan, and that it was 2 per cent,
when the CCF were in the Opposition and
they said they would wipe it out because it
was an abomination, and that it is now 3 per
cent.? What does he say, for instance, about
that?
Mr. Thomas: That is quite true, there is a
3 per cent, tax on education.
Mr. Macaulay: That is why he started at
"Fifthly," perhaps?
Mr. Thomas: No, no. I am just replying
to the hon. member's inaccurate statement.
Mr. Macaulay: Then what happened to my
first 5 accusations?
Mr. Thomas: Well, of course, we are living
in a changing world, and the hon. member
should change his ideas, they change them
out there too.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suppose one can pre-
dict with certainty that we are to have an
election in Ontario this year, either in June
or November. Of course, it will be politically
expedient for the government to call an elec-
tion in 1958, just prior to the introduction of
the hospital plan on January 1, 1959. But
frankly, Mr. Speaker, I see no justification at
all for the government calling an election this
year.
Mr. McNeil: Is the hon. member afraid of
something?
Mr. Thomas: Not a bit.
An hon. member: Is he going to vote for
them?
Mr. Thomas: With the preponderance of
hon. government members I do not think the
government can provide any valid reasons
for an election in 1958.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in one's travels and
reading, one reads some very interesting
statements, and in the Ontario News Letter
published by our friend Don O'Hearne, he
mentioned this very thing, an election in
1958, and I quote:
Some government members are not too
happy about the prospects of going to
the country this year with two federal
campaigns having been fought in less than
12 months, they feel there will be little
hay left in the barn.
Now, Mr. Speaker, their opposition is of
course a little different to what mine is to
an election, but let me assure the hon. mem-
bers of the government party that the Con-
servative barn is a very big one, and there
is lots of hay in it too. I am quite sure that
the monied interests will provide the Con-
servative party with their campaign funds
this year. I am quite sure that the corpora-
tions, who have benefited from a reduction
in the corporation taxes over the years, will
show their appreciation to the Conservative
party, and will reward their benefactor the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) when an
election comes around.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate, I
would like at the outset to join with all the
hon. members who have preceded me in
extending to you my very sincere congratula-
tions on the admirable and most dignified
manner in which you preside over the
deliberations in this House.
It must indeed be obvious to you, as it
is to me, that you enjoy the confidence and
the esteem of all the hon. members of this
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
369
Legislature, no matter what their political
allegiance might be. The idea has been
mooted in another Parliament in this country,
Mr. Speaker, that the position of the Speaker
of a legislative body should be a permanent
one. If that idea should carry into the pro-
vincial Legislature, Mr. Speaker — and I say
frankly the idea intrigues me greatly— I say
further, that I know of no person more
worthy, more deserving and better fitted for
the task, than the present incumbent, your-
self, the hon. Speaker of this Legislature.
I would also, Mr. Speaker, with your per-
mission, like to extend my very sincere con-
gratulations to the hon. member for Cochrane
South (Mr. Spooner) upon his elevation to
the Ministry. No matter what the conniving
mind of the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) might attribute his suc-
cess to— whether it be collusion, connivance
or otherwise— may I say Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. Minister of Mines, coming as he
does from that section of this great province,
where the mining industry plays such an
important part in the welfare of the com-
munity, in the prosperity of the province
and the nation, we, the hon. members in
this Legislature, have every reason to believe
that this department will be efficiently admini-
stered by the present hon. Minister of Mines.
While the hon. member for York South
attributed his success to some collusion that
might have existed, may I say that it prob-
ably exists only in the mind of the hon.
member himself, because I am told that
there was only one "Grummett," and that
the only reason that he was previously elected
to this place was not because of his CCF
tendencies, but because of the fact that he
was regarded as a very high-class type of
citizen. Much of the success, I might add,
of the hon. member who represents the city
of Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) in this constitu-
ency, is likewise not due to the fact that he
is a CCF member, but because we like him.
So if there is collusion in the mind of the
hon. member for York South, might I say
to him that it is something which as usual
exists only in the mind of one who does not
permit himself to think clearly.
Might I also, Mr. Speaker, extend my very
sincere congratulations to the hon. mem-
ber for Ontario, the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond) upon his eleva-
tion to the Ministry of that department. His
predecessor in office, the hon. member for
Durham, John Foote, V.C., is a man for
whom I, as well as all hon. members I am
sure, with the possible exception of one, have
a very sincere and distinct admiration.
There were those of us who were so bit-
terly opposed to the unwarranted attack that
was directed to that hon. Minister last year
in this House, who were very pleased to see
him coming back here to resume his seat as
an hon. private member in this session. But
I am advised that unfortunately his condition
of health is again such that he is not per-
mitted to attend the sittings of this Legis-
lature.
But I say to him that he can rest assured
that the work so capably and ably carried
on by him, while he was the Minister, will
be just as efficiently carried on by the new
hon. Minister, who is so capably trained,
who has had much experience, and whose
views on reform and prisoner rehabilitation
are such that they are bound to have a very
beneficial effect on the department which
he administers.
I should also like, Mr. Speaker, to extend
my very sincere congratulations to my very
good friend, the hon. member for the con-
stituency of Peel (Mr. Kennedy). When we
stop to consider that this remarkable man
has been in the public life of this country
for over half a century in the municipal and
provincial field, is there any wonder, Mr.
Speaker, that he enjoys such a high degree
of esteem among all sections of this country
because of the tremendous service that he
has rendered to his county and to this
province?
I am sure all of the hon. members were
as shocked as I was, when the hon. member
for York South, in his own peculiar way,
after first extending his sincere congratula-
tions to the hon. member for Peel, then in
the absence of that hon. member, he drew
the stiletto and attempted to stab him in
the back, questioning his motives and his
sincerity.
Mr. MacDonald: He has not denied it.
Mr. Maloney: Well, I will deny it for him.
Mr. MacDonald: But he agrees he said it.
Mr. Maloney: And this accusation made by
the hon. member for York South— I at first
could not believe my ears— but then I investi-
gated it myself, I made it my business to track
it down.
His information, Mr. Speaker, I suggest in
all sincerity, probably came from one who
enjoys, with the same degree of pleasure,
in wallowing in the swill and the mire as
does my hon. friend from York South.
370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: But the hon. member for
Peel does not deny it. What is the hon. mem-
ber for Renfrew South so upset about?
Mr. Maloney: Well, I will say to my hon.
friend from York South if, after the conclu-
sion of 50 years in the public life of this
country, he can point back to his political
career with the same degree of satisfaction
and composure as can the hon. member for
Peel, then I say he will not have lived in
vain, but until he can do that he has certainly
made no contribution to the public life of
this province, Mr. Speaker.
A further matter that I would like to
mention, in connection with this, Mr.
Speaker, is this:
Last session the hon. member for York
South did not see fit to occupy his seat while
I was given the very distinct pleasure of
addressing this House during the Throne
debate. At that time, I predicted his immedi-
ate political demise and I had arranged for
him the benefits of a very effective funeral
service, to be provided by the Fullerton
friendly layaway plan. Might I say to you,
Mr. Speaker, that his performance in this
House in this session, up to this time, has
convinced me that not only was my predic-
tion right then, but if the hon. member for
Oshawa (Mr. Thomas), is correct, if we are to
have an election this June or this November,
we might as well say good-bye to the man
who occupies the front seat of the CCF party
now.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member knows
where the Opposition is.
Mr. Maloney: Well, if the hon. member
calls that Opposition, I would not like to give
it the proper term that it should receive.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is wast-
ing a lot of time, wasting a lot of breath.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great attention to the address delivered by the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver), a
man to whom I always listen with great
interest, and one for whom I have a very
high esteem and a great degree of respect.
I was a student at Osgoode Hall in 1926,
when I had the great pleasure of coming over
to this legislative assembly, and at that time
I saw the "boy marvel" from Grey South
who had just been elected at the age of 21
years.
Since that time he has continuously and
consistently represented that constituency
as an hon. private member, later as a Minister
of the Crown, and upon the unexplained dis-
appearance of Walter Thompson he suc-
ceeded as the leader of the Opposition in
this Legislature.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon.
members of this House, that the hon. leader
of the Opposition is a man who has rendered
a tremendous service to this province. The
views that he expresses from time to time are
not necessarily the views shared by myself,
but nevertheless he expresses them in such a
way that I, as a citizen of this province, can
truly feel proud that we have as the hon.
leader of the Opposition a man of his calibre.
And I say to him now that there is a
slogan going around being used by the
federal counterpart of the Opposition here:
"Let's give the toe to the Tories."
I say, to the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion, that the Liberal party is getting quite
expert at giving the toe to its leaders, as is
evidenced by the unruly manner in which
they dispensed with the services of that great
Canadian who had been held up to us as the
greatest statesman of all time, up until June
10, then after Presqu'ile suddenly he no
longer serves any useful purpose.
I say to the hon. leader of the Opposition
in this House, let him not let anybody kick
him around, do not let anybody kick him
out. I suggest to him that he stand on his
hind feet, and I am quite sure that I can
say to the hon. leader of the Opposition that
he can, if he so desires, win once again the
leadership of a once great Liberal party in
this province of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: How many leaders did
the party of the hon. member fire this last
week?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. members are
not making any friends of a couple of fel-
lows, both of them there.
Mr. Maloney: There is only one thing, Mr.
Speaker, and something that I always marvel
at, and that is the facility with which the
hon. member for York South can jump in and
out of one bed at the same time and then
get back into the other. It really is a marvel,
and I am sure it is something that causes
consternation in the minds of a small section
of people who might be interested in his
future.
Mr. MacDonald: The Tory party has—
Mr. Maloney: Well, we have heard that for
many years, but it seems rather significant to
me, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure it must to you,
that in this Legislature we have a leader who
is the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario, and
despite all of the bitterness and venom and
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
371
onslaughts that have been directed towards
him by the hon. member for York South, he
still rules the roost.
Nobody pays any attention to the hon.
member for York South, as was evidenced
in Elgin when the CCF candidate got the
lowest vote that a candidate of his party ever
received in that constituency. '
The hon. member should come down to
Renfrew South and we will look after him.
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. member for
Renfrew South come down to York South
and will look after him.
Mr. Maloney: Whenever that election is
called, let the hon. member, the great leader
of this party, come down to Renfrew South,
and I can assure him now that the expression
which he so frequently likes to apply, "an
ostrich with his head in the sand," will cer-
tainly apply to him when the votes are
counted down there.
There was one part of the speech of the
hon. leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,
with which I wish to disagree most em-
phatically. It was announced during the late
summer of 1957, after the people of the
Dominion of Canada had decided that they
wanted to do away with arrogance, com-
placency and incompetence, that we would
dispatch a trade mission to the United King-
dom.
At the same time it was announced by the
federal hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce
(Mr. Churchill) that the vice-chairman of
that commission would be the chairman of
the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commis-
sion. It is a significant thing that, until that
great mission returned from the United King-
dom, no opposition to his being appointed
or to his going was expressed by either the
hon. leader of the Opposition or the hon.
member for York South. In fact, the hon.
member for York South accepted some of
the hospitality of the chairman of the Hydro
Electric Power Commission, even after he
knew that he was going on that great mis-
sion, when he along with myself and many
other hon. members went down on the St.
Lawrence seaway tour.
I did not hear the hon. member for York
South saying to Mr. Duncan, with whom he
talked personally I am sure: "Look, you are
the chairman of this Hydro commission, you
should not go over on this trade mission, you
are a civil servant." No, he "hobnobbed"
with Mr. Duncan on that occasion, and at
no time did he object to his going.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not get a chance
to hobnob with him, because the hon. mem-
ber was lobbying for the Maloney pact or
formula at that time.
Mr. Maloney: Of course, the other hon.
members in this assembly would not realize
it, but I had no cause to lobby at that time,
what I sought had already been granted,
so the need for lobbying was over.
But the hon. member for York South did
fraternize with the chairman, I saw him my-
self as did other hon. members. He made
no objection to his going to the United
Kingdom at that time. Why does he do so
now? Chiefly for political, and only for
political, purposes.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not object to his
red tie, either.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I have had
occasion to complain very bitterly about Mr.
Duncan as the chairman of the Hydro Electric
Power Commission, as the hon. vice-chair-
man of the Hydro Commission (Mr. Con-
nell) knows. I was seeking something for the
people of this province, for the little people,
an expression used by the hon. member for
Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer ) , who
were without electric lights.
But it was a surprising thing to me,, Mr.
Speaker, to know that the chairman of the
Hydro Commission had such an insight as he
showed by his grasp of this problem.
And on the occasion of that interview he
told me, "Mr. Maloney, within two months
I feel that the problem that you have will
be solved for your people and for all of
the people of Ontario."
As a result, Mr. Speaker, of the relaxation
in the density requirements by the Hydro
Electric Power Commission of Ontario, I am
in a position to say to this House now that
every farmer in my riding, without excep-
tion, will receive the benefits of hydro elec-
tric energy in his home. The former con-
tracts had to have guarantee units signed
because of the density requirements at that
time. These guarantee units have now been
wiped out, and people who formerly thought
they must have additional money to pay
for hydro service are now having the burden
of these guarantee units taken away.
I would like to congratulate the commission
for the very fine men they have in my county
as area managers of Hydro. The man at
Cobden, Mr. Gordon Gibson, is an outstand-
ing public servant of the Ontario Hydro Elec-
tric Power Commission, and there are more
people in our county who go to bed at nights
372
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
singing his praises than happens with any
other other man in the county, because of the
consolation he brings to them with the electric
lights that are brought to them as the hydro
lines are extended to the various centres of
our county.
The same applies to the Arnprior area,
where we have Mr. Howatt as area manager.
Hon. members will remember that my
agitation in this House, last session, was on
behalf of the great township of Bagot and
Blythfield, and I am happy to be able to
announce, as a result of a letter received
from the area manager advising me that, as
a result of the relaxation of the density re-
quirements, some 33 miles of line will be
built to serve 72 customers, approximately 70
per cent, of whom are farmers.
That means something, Mr. Speaker, for
which we in Renfrew South have been fight-
ing for some time, and finally our efforts are
successful. As a result of the study given
to this problem by members of the commis-
sion, and by the approval that was given by
the hon. members of the government, some-
thing that was only a dream has become a
reality. The people who formerly were with-
out lights now have all the facilities provided,
by electrical energy being extended to them.
I am sorry that the hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Allan) is not in his seat, because I
would like to say that in our county— now that
our hydro problem has been solved— the burn-
ing question is the necessity for new roads.
The development road programme is one
which, I say to the hon. members of this
government and to the hon. Prime Minister
in the absence of the hon. Minister of
Highways, must be extended in counties such
as ours. Municipalities with low assessments,
with a very considerable amount of traffic
going over their roads, are not in a position
to build, and at the same time, maintain,
roads to stand up to present-day traffic con-
ditions.
The people in the back concessions are
the backbone of this province and of this
country. They are deserving of good roads,
they are deserving of considerable assistance
in the way of development road grants, so
that these roads can be built for them through
the municipalities, and then be maintained by
the municipalities themselves.
Oh, the hon. Minister has been very kind,
we have no reason to complain up to the
present time, but the need is still great, not
only for highways but for development roads
in our county.
I shudder to think of the consequences if
it should ever be in the mind of the hon.
Minister, or in the minds of the members
of engineering staff, or any committee that
might be appointed for that purpose, to cut
down on the development road expansion pro-
gramme for rural Ontario. If they do such a
thing these people are going to be deprived
of the facilities of life which their brothers
and sisters enjoy in more populated centres
of Ontario.
We need roads, we want roads, and with
respect I say we must have all of the assist-
ance that this government can give to rural
municipalities and counties, so that our people
can get to and from market and enjoy the
facilities of life as people do in any other
place.
I am glad to see that the hon. Minister of
Highways is back in his seat, and I have no
doubt my request that has just been made will
be communicated to him and, in his usual
very efficient manner, the needs of Renfrew
South will get top priority with the hon.
Minister, and our people will continue to live
in peace and prosperity under his great guid-
ance as the hon. Minister of Highways.
I would just like to point out to the hon.
Minister of Highways that there has been
the need for a bridge over the Madawaska
River at Combermere for some considerable
time, I hope that it is on the programme for
1958. If it is not, it should be.
I trust that the road from Combermere
North to Barry's Bay, which was on the pro-
gramme a year or two ago and was taken off,
will be put back on the list and given top
priority. I trust that the road from highway
No. 17 to Burnstown will be hard-topped with
all possible dispatch when the frost comes
out of the ground.
May I refer to the statements made by
the hon. Prime Minister when he was in Ren-
frew South— these are remarks made by the
hon. Prime Minister, and I hope he does not
find any fault with me calling them to his
attention and indirectly to that of the hon.
Minister of Highways.
We have highway No. 132 in Renfrew
county; the contract for hard-topping the first
7 miles of that road has been let, and there
is no reason in the world why the rest of that
road cannot be hard-topped this year.
It may be that the engineering staff of The
Department of Highways feel that they are
overworked, but I can only say to the hon.
Minister that if they are, we have been
waiting for a long, long time. It is high time
that these men have their pre-engineering
report ready for all of that highway, that the
soil tests, and whatever other tests are re-
I
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
373
quired, be made so that this highway will
become a fact.
I am sure that it is not necessary for me
to say more on that subject, and that the hon.
Minister of Highways will see to it that this
very necessary project is brought to a conclu-
sion just as speedily as it possibly can-
Mr. MacDonald: Or else, or else.
Mr. Maloney: No, no. We do not go about
problems in that manner, we make our re-
quests known as forcibly as we can. Then
we usually and almost invariably get very
well treated, but if we do not get all we ask
for, we are not like a little boy who loses
his marbles then wants them back again, like
the hon. leader of the CCF party in this
House.
We know that we are not the only county
in Ontario, but we do expect good treatment,
which we were very long in getting, because
of the fact that this country had been repre-
sented, prior to the days of "Jim" Dempsey,
by a Liberal for 16 years, and Renfrew South
got the reputation of being the forgotten
county in the whole province of Ontario dur-
ing that leadership of the Liberal party when
they were in office.
Mr. MacDonald: What did the Conser-
vative party try to do to Jim Dempsey during
the last election?
Mr. Maloney: Well, the hon. member was
not too anxious to help Jim Dempsey. I
did not hear his voice shouting out to the
housetops, as mine did, for him, and I do
not think there is any better Conservative
in Ontario than myself. If the hon. member
has any doubts about it, there are 4 Con-
servatives sitting up in the gallery from the
great township of McNab, all of whom stood
four-square by Dempsey, so let the hon.
member not talk about Mr. Dempsey.
All he was hoping was that Mr. Dempsey
would be disgraced, if it was possible to
disgrace him, and I can visualize the hon.
member licking his lips and gloating at him
if it could have been accomplished. The
hon. member for York South is not fooling
anybody but himself.
I should also like, Mr. Speaker, to pay a
very sincere tribute to an hon. Minister with
whom I have had considerable experience in
The Department of Lands and Forests over
the years, in my capacity as a lawyer— look-
ing for patents, for lots and free grants,
purchases from the Crown, and so forth.
I would like to pay tribute to the hon.
Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Maple-
doram) for the very efficient manner in
which he has taken the problem of unem-
ployment into his teeth in our county.
In Renfrew county we are fortunate enough
to have been endowed by the Almighty with
one of the greatest provincial parks in the
whole wide world— Algonquin Park. There
has not been a survey around that park for
a long time and the survey lines have been
practically wiped out. As a result of the
representations made to the hon. Minister,
by the former hon. member for Renfrew
North (Mr. Hunt) who I understand has
tendered his resignation— or if not he is about
to do so— and who will be the next federal
member for Renfrew North at Ottawa— as
a result of the representation made by him,
the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests saw
fit to provide the crew, the work and the
money so that the 240 miles of park line
could be cut out, providing employment for
a very considerable number who are out
of work in our area. To him I say a very
sincere "thank you" for relieving an acute
problem.
As hon. members know, I represent a rural
constituency, and as they all know, I am a
lawyer. I try to be a good one, not too high-
priced— so I should appeal to my friend from
York South on that score— but it always
amuses me when I hear the hon. member
for York South trying to woo the farmer.
He gives the impression that he is so
solicitous for their welfare, but he hopes
that every marketing plan and every market-
ing scheme will fall down and be of no avail
to the farmer, that is what he is hoping for,
and that is why it amuses me, Mr. Speaker,
to hear him being so solicitous for this great
basic industry.
Surely he must realize by now that the
farmers of this province will not "go for him"
any more than will the labour people of
the province. He has wooed them and wooed
them and wooed them, but invariably he
has to take the position of the spurned lover.
They turn him aside and seek elsewhere,
where their true love is, and that is with
this government.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. leader
of the Opposition when he was speaking at
the national Liberal convention in Ottawa,
and I remember well and admired his cour-
age for rising at that convention and criticiz-
ing and finding fault with the federal Liberal
party for the manner in which they were
dealing with the Canadian farmer. He warned
them that they had lost the support of the
Canadian farmer because of their failure to
deal adequately with their problems.
374
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The same thing applies to the CCF party.
What can they do for the farmers of this
province except socialize the industry— and
the greatest capitalist we have in Ontario is
the man who owns his 100 or 50 acres of
land.
Surely, unless we are to swallow the
Regina manifesto and then water down the
Winnipeg programme, surely socialism is
socialism wherever we find it, and if any
leader of any socialist party thinks that, even
if he gets down on his knees and has a ring
to put around the finger, he is going
to convince the farmer that he can do any-
thing for him, he is mistaken. I can hear
him whispering to them now, and they reply:
"Oh no, we know where our butter is, we
who go back to Old Man Ontario."
That has been the result and will continue
to be the result.
Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed
with the bill introduced by the hon. Minis-
ter of Education (Mr. Dunlop) providing that
funds could be borrowed by boys and girls
who want to go on to higher fields of learn-
ing.
Too many of our young boys and girls,
up until this bill was introduced, have had
to consider themselves as hewers of wood
and drawers of water, because of the fact
that their parents, through no fault of their
own, and because of their limited resources,
were unable to provide the funds with which
to send them on to university, and on to one
of the professions where many of them
wanted to go.
Mr. MacDonald: It might work, even if a
little late.
Mr. Maloney: When we stop to think of it,
this hon. member is the product of our
educational system, and of one of our univer-
sities. We really wonder how he ever got
through, really. We really wonder at it, but
nevertheless it shows how strong the system
is when they could even graduate him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are being provided,
no matter how late, with the funds whereby
our children, whose parents are unable to
finance them, can get the education they
desire.
I say, to the hon. Minister of Education,
if for no other reason than that, he will go
down in the history of this province as one
of the most capable hon. Ministers ever
administering that department.
Many of our people shuddered at the
thought of the huge advances made by the
Russian people, by the tremendous number
of their children who were being educated as
compared to ours. But when we see men like
the hon. members, the hon. Ministers of this
government, and the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion, getting down to wrestle with this
problem and tackle it and solve it, I say to
you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as we live in
a province having at its head a government
that will look into the interests and welfare
of all of its people, we need have no fear.
We in Ontario will be able to take our place
with any other province, or any other nation,
in the world.
I do not care what they say about Sas-
katchewan. They are good people who live in
Saskatchewan, misguided, if you will, but
good people. Many of them are leaving. This
is natural, because of the fact that they have
the same birth rate in Saskatchewan as in
other parts of Canada. But once they are
born out there they realize they have to get
out to better themselves, and that is why
their population is being reduced. But those
who stay are good, good people.
The Rt. hon. Prime Minister of this
country (Mr. Diefenbaker) comes from Sas-
katchewan. Of couse, he went from Ontario,
but we loaned him to Saskatchewan and as a
result, if the thinking in Saskatchewan is not
changed very radically, both federally and
provincially, in a very short period of time,
then I am not the judge of the pulse of the
people that I think I am.
Well, I have heard my hon. friend from
York South make great predictions, and it
occurs to me when the CCF party lost the
services of a man by the name of Jolliffe,
they have no hope of ever getting above the
mark that he succeeded in making, and under
the leadership of the present hon. leader-
well, I think York South will look after that,
so we need not waste any more time talking
about it.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should stop
to think of the situation that exists in Canada
today. We are going to the polls on March 31
to choose a government, a stable government,
a majority government to preside over the
destinies of this nation. Much has been said
up to now, by the Liberal party, of the calibre
of leadership that they now have.
I made reference at the outset to the
callous and cold-blooded manner in which
they rid themselves of the man they felt would
no longer be of use to them, a man for whom
I have always had great respect, a man who
was undoubtedly and will always continue
to be, in my opinion, one of the greatest
Canadians who ever lived, in the person of
Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent.
FEBRUARY 25, 1958
375
They chose as his successor, the hon. Lester
Bowles Pearson. Hon. Lester Bowles Pearson
was chosen at that convention in Ottawa, and
hon. members recall in his acceptance speech,
he came out of his corner shrieking defiance,
his fangs were bared for the battle. The whole
nation waited agog for his debut in the House
of Commons as the leader of the Opposition.
Hon. members remember what happened.
It is not necessary to recall it. He got up and
directed that motion of non-confidence in the
government and said: "Oh, Mr. Prime Mini-
ster, we recommend to you that you recom-
mend to his Excellency the Governor-General
that you resign, and that you recommend
further to him that you hand over the reins
of government to us— but for heaven's sake,
Mr. Prime Minister, do not let us have an
election." That was the effect of his motion.
At least the hon. leader of the Opposition
in this House had more courage than that.
He is not afraid to face the people, although
he knows that the outcome is doomed to
failure for his party again.
But here was a leader of a party that had
been rejected by the people in June, refused
admission through the front door by the
people, a leader who was a member of a party
which tried to override and sidestep Parlia-
ment, now attempting to get back into office
by by-passing the people themselves.
That is the type of leadership with which
we have to contend in this election federally.
What will the answer be? Mr. Speaker, I
say to the hon. members of this House that,
in view of the terrific efforts made by the
Rt. hon. Prime Minister of Canada in the
short 8 months he has been in office— call
him "Uncle John," call him John the Baptist,
call him what you will— I venture to say that
on March 31, the outcome in this country
is going to be so decisive and so certain that
we can begin to tackle the problem that lies
ahead.
This party, led by hon. Lester B. Pearson,
—Bowles Pearson as he calls himself— a man,
oh yes, he is a great world statesman, but
when he gets down into the hurly-burly of
domestic politics, he is eating a little rougher
piece of bread and butter than he was en-
joying over in the United Nations, so here
is the story.
These hon. Liberal members say to us here
in this House: "Oh, you have no business
talking about trade, you have no business
having Mr. Duncan go over to the United
Kingdom on a trade mission, we should not
divert any of our trade from the United States,
a country with whom we have had an ad-
verse trade balance of $1.25 billion during
the last fiscal year."
Let us listen to what the great friend of
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)
has to say, that great hunter who comes up
from the United States, John Foster Dulles.
Here is what he said yesterday:
United States Secretary Dulles suggested
today that Canadian-United States defence
co-operation would be hampered if the
United States took any step to throw trade
between the two countries, Canada and
the United States, further out of balance.
Mr. Dulles, appearing before the House
of Representatives ways and means com-
mittee, to defend Eisenhower's trade pro-
gramme, cited Canada as one reason why
Congress should approve the president's
request for a 5-year extension of The Trade
Agreements Act, noting that Canada bought
$3.9 billion worth of United States goods
in 1957, in return for sales of only $2.9
billion.
Canada has expressed its concern at the
size of this adverse trade balance. If the
Canadian government and people were to
assume that it is our purpose to make that
trade balance still more adverse, there
would inescapably be adverse repercussions
on our joint North America defences.
The Liberal party in Ottawa, which put all
their trading eggs in one basket for years, have
gone with their hats in their hands, begging
from the United States, to whom they have
tied us as an economic vassal. They found
fault with us because we have advocated the
diversion of trade; found fault with us be-
cause we say trade should be diverted to the
market we once enjoyed; where we could
sell our wheat, where we could sell our
cheese, where we could sell our apples, where
we could sell all our other agricultural pro-
duets in the markets of the United King-
dom.
This man Dulles does not find fault with
Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker for talking up to
him, but he gave a warning to the American
government.
We do not have to be afraid of these fel-
lows to the south, because in the United
States of America, great and powerful though
that country is, they cannot get along with-
out Canada, either from the point of view
of defence, economically, or any other way.
We are one of their greatest trading cus-
tomers, and that we will continue to be.
But at the same time, from the point of
view of saving the bacon for our own Cana-
376
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dian producers and farmers, it is high time
that we saw to it that at least some of the
eggs are laid in a different basket and are
not directed down across the line to the
United States.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, may I say that
it has been a great pleasure for me to have
had this opportunity of addressing these few
remarks to this House this afternoon. I am
proud to be a member of this Legislature,
particularly am I proud to be a member of
a government that is looking out for the wel-
fare of all of the people, as has been evi-
denced by the results achieved in the several
by-elections that have been held throughout
this province.
I say to the hon. members of this govern-
ment, never let it be said of us that we are
arrogant or complacent. I say to the hon.
Ministers of the cabinet, let them always
listen to the elected representatives of the
people, and give us the chance to do the
things for our people that need to be done.
Let them not brush us aside, because that
is what they did in Ottawa after 22 years. We
never hear that being said about Ontario,
never do we hear that this is an arrogant
government, never do we hear that "the brass
is getting away from the grass" in Ontario.
There is no back-bencher in the Conserva-
tive party, and may I say to the hon. member
for York South that, although he occupies a
front seat, he is by no means entitled to the
rank of a front-bencher, I can assure him. But
there is no back-bencher in our party. We
are-
Mr. MacDonald: I am cut to the core.
Mr. Maloney: Oh, he cannot be cut to the
core, it goes off him like water off a duck's
back, but nevertheless we like to hand it out
as long as he can take it.
We belong to a party, Mr. Speaker, that is
a party of the people, a party of the poor and
a party of the rich, the party of the big and
the party of the little, the party of the rich
man and the party of the employer, and the
party of the man who works for him.
Ours is the party of the Catholic, of the
Protestant, and of the Jew. We are the party
of all of the people of Ontario, and that party
we will continue to be, under the capable
guidance of our present hon. Prime Minister
and the very efficient and capable hon. mem-
bers who form his government.
Mr. R. E. Sutton (York-Scarborough): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate. j
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.50 of the clock,
p.m.
■
No. 18
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Bebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, February 26, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 26, 1958
Second report, standing committee on education, Mr. Fishleigh 379
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 379
Budget address, Mr. Frost 379
Motion to adjourn budget debate, Mr. Winterrneyer, agreed to 393
Statement re school grants, Mr. Dunlop 393
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 398
The Budget of the Provincial Treasurer 399
.
-'• .
- -
379
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. H. F. Fishleigh,
from the standing committee on education,
presents the committee's second report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 46, An Act to amend The Schools
Administration Act, 1954.
Bill No. 73, An Act to amend The
Teachers' Superannuation Act.
Bill No. 81, An Act to amend The Public
Schools Act.
Bill No. 82, An Act to amend The Separate
Schools Act.
The committee also begs to report the fol-
lowing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 80, An Act to amend The Second-
ary Schools and Boards of Education Act,
1954.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
The report of the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests ( Mr. Mapledoram ) of the
province of Ontario for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have here two messages from the
Honourable the Lieutenant - Governor (Mr.
Mackay), signed by his own hand.
Mr. Speaker: The Honourable the Lieu-
tenant-Governor transmits estimates of cer-
Wednesday, February 26, 1958
tain sums required for the services of the
province for the year ending March 31, 1959,
and recommends them to the legislative
assembly, Toronto, on February 26, 1958.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
transmits supplementary estimates of certain
additional sums required for the services of
the province for the year ending March 31,
1958, and recommends them to the legis-
lative assembly, Toronto, on February 26,
1958.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the chair, and the House resolve
itself to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
BUDGET ADDRESS
Hon. L. M. Frost (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, after a lapse of 3 years it is
again my pleasure to make that traditional
motion that you do now leave the chair. As
was its predecessors, this budget is a reflec-
tion of the times in which we live. It is
designed to meet the conditions and problems
with which we are faced. This, Mr. Speaker,
is my 14th budget. Perhaps I may have, in
view of that long series of budgets, the oppor-
tunity of saying that I think I served as
Treasurer for the longest period of time in
Ontario's history. Indeed, there are many
people who said I served much too long.
During that period, I introduced 13 budgets
on the occasion of 13 different sessions of this
House.
Now, I am about to make another record
and that record is this, that having served
longer than any other Treasurer and delivered
the most budgets, I now propose to serve the
shortest term. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
that my term of office on this second occasion
will certainly be shorter than that of any of
my predecessors, so that, on the presentation
of this 14th budget, there will be another
record.
I should like to express my thanks to my
illustrious predecessor, hon. Dana Porter, for
the work he did on two previous budgets,
and for the very great amount of work he
put into this particular budget. As a matter
of fact, I am largely delivering Mr. Porter's
380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
work, and the work of those who assisted
him, because I assumed office, on this second
occasion, I think, only on the fourth day of
this month.
I am grateful also, as always, to the staff
of the Treasury. They are second to none
in Canada. I am quite satisfied to say this,
because of the tremendous thought and care
they have given to the finances of our
province.
My experience with budgets goes back
nearly 15 years, and indeed before that, be-
cause for some years I occupied the position
of financial critic of the Conservative party
in Ontario, along with my great friend Leo-
pold Macaulay, who is unable to be here
today. I asked him to be here but he is
represented by his son the hon. member for
Riverdale. In those days we occupied, alter-
nately, the position of financial critic. That
was quite a few years ago.
I should like to thank the civil servants
who were with the department in those days,
including my old friend Dr. Chester Walters
and others who are here today.
I may say, in delivering this budget, that
it is a very great pleasure to know that
among those who will listen to it, are some
connected with the budgets of many years
ago. One who is here— my old friend George
Walsh, Q.C.— is known to the hon. members
of this House. He has been present on the
occasion of all my previous budgets.
By way of introduction, may I say that
the first budget which I introduced in this
House 14 years ago on March 16, 1944, pro-
vided for an overall expenditure on capital
and ordinary account of the sum of $115
million.
Today, 14 years later, the combined capital
and ordinary spending forecast for the com-
ing year will be no less than $817 million,
so great has been the progress and the
changes that have taken place in this fabu-
lous province of Ontario.
In introducing so immense a budget, it
of course would be idle to attempt to do
what was done in past years, that is to read
the budget. I must say this, in latter years
I found that somewhat difficult.
The late Mr. Mitchell Hepburn used to find
that very irksome. He used to tell me that he
despaired when he had to read the budget
of those days, and I want to rescue you, Mr.
Speaker, and the hon. members of this House
from despair by saying that I do not pro-
pose to read this great document. Rather,
I propose to outline an index to its contents.
The hon. Ministers, of course, will elaborate
upon the various points in the budget that
concern their departments.
This afternoon, in introducing this docu-
ment, I want to introduce an innovation to
this extent: when the budget presentation
is completed, and the adjournment of the
debate is moved, I intend to ask the House
to resolve itself into committee of supply in
order that the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Dunlop) may table certain particulars in
relation to grants on education which are
necessary to complete the budget picture.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I am
departing from the prepared budget, in order
to present, from the standpoint of an index,
the outlines of this document and what is
involved. Therefore, I do not propose to
follow the strict text, but I shall refer the
hon. members to pages of the budget itself.
I can promise my friend, the hon. member
for Brant ( Mr. Nixon ) , that I have no inten-
tion of making a political speech. It is my
intention to try to present, in as compressed a
way as I can, an explanation of the problems
we have to meet and the manner in which
we contemplate meeting them.
In doing that, I want first of all to refer
to the supplementary estimates, then I want
to refer to the forecast for this current year—
9 months certain and 3 months estimated—
and, thirdly, I want to refer to the forecast
for the coming fiscal year.
I quite realize that this method of presen-
tation is out of the ordinary, but I think it
will give the hon. members a better picture
of our fiscal problems.
First of all, may I say that the special grants
total some $19,882,000. That is made up of
these items:
Firstly, there is another grant of $1 million
to the University of Toronto for the new
dental building; there is a grant to McMaster
University of $1 million for an engineering
building. The purpose of the grant to Mc-
Master University for engineering purposes,
and the engineering building, is because of
the requirements of that particular subject.
There is a grant of $100,000 to the Royal
Ontario Museum for the extension of the arts—
that is similar to last year; $92,000 to the
Royal Botanical Gardens to retire its capital
indebtedness; a new grant of $100,000 to the
Law Society of Upper Canada for capital
purposes.
Now, as hon. members know, the long-
standing differences between Osgoode Hall
and the universities have been settled, and it
is now regarded— and should be regarded— as
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
381
part of our system of education, and accord-
ingly that grant is being made for that
purpose.
The teachers' superannuation fund is to
receive a bolstering of another $1 million. I
shall come back to the subject of education
at a later point.
For health purposes, we are making these
grants: a special grant of $200 a bed to all
public general hospitals in the province— so
they can be ready for hospital insurance— and
a grant of an additional $2 million to be made
to the hospitals that are undertaking nurses'
training.
Now, translated into action, it means this:
The Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, for
nurses' training, will receive the sum of
$25,200; and for capital purposes, to refur-
bish the place and so on, $26,800.
Now I would say, going to the other end
of the province, for nursing purposes, the
Kingston Hotel Dieu Hospital will receive
$45,000 and the Kingston General, $60,300.
For the betterment of their plant, the first
named, the Hotel Dieu Hospital, will receive
$58,200 and the Kingston General Hospital
$94,200.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) sometimes says that we forget people
from his side of the House, and may I say
this, that for the great city of Kitchener,
which I think is in the riding of Waterloo
North, for nursing purposes the Kitchener-
Waterloo Hospital will receive $23,700 and
St. Mary's Hospital $22,800. For capital
purposes, the Freeport Sanitarium will receive
$5,600; the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital
$87,800, and St. Mary's Hospital $24,400.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
members of the House will have a copy of
this budget statement in a short time. I refer
them to the appendix, pages A39 to A44 in-
clusive, for the particulars of those grants.
In turning now to the statement for 1957-
1958— that is, 9 months actual and 3 months
estimated— that will be found on pages 6
and 7 of the budget statement, which hon.
members have. Reduced to its most under-
standable terms, the net ordinary revenue
receipts— full particulars of which are given
in the statement-amount to $582,100,000,
and the net ordinary expenditures to $581,-
600,000 for a surplus of $547,000.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that my hon. friends
smiled when that surplus was mentioned.
May I point out to them that that surplus of
course could be $1, and actually that is the
effect of it, because included in the expen-
ditures of $581,600,000-and I want my hon.
friend from Waterloo North (Mr. Winter-
meyer) to underline this— is no less than
$116 million paid from current account to
capital account.
The total of this year's expenditures, capital
and ordinary combined, will amount to $758,-
300,000.
In turning to next year, that is the fiscal
year commencing on April 1 next— found on
pages 34 and 35 of the budget statement and
A12 and A13 of the budget appendix— hon.
members will see that the net ordinary
revenues are estimated at $599,200,000, and
expenditures $598,900,000, giving an estim-
ated surplus of $280,000.
The combined capital and ordinary expendi-
ture rises from $758 million for the present
year to a total of $817,600,000 in the year to
come. In these two years of 1957-1958, the
year we are in, and 1958-1959, next year, we
shall have paid in cash on capital works no
less than $177 million. I shall refer to that
later on in another connection.
In order that the hon. members of this
House may, I hope, enjoy this budget presen-
tation, may I say that we contemplate no
new taxes next year.
That brings me to this point: having given
a very sketchy reference to the position of
the province, its expenditures in this year
1957-1958 and what is forecast for 1958-1959.
I want now to turn to certain questions that
I know hon. members will ask me, and also
to refer to questions that have been asked
of me.
May I say that this year there will accom-
pany the budget a statement of highlights
which makes it easy for the hon. members
to refer to particular items, and to find in the
text the references to those items.
In my opening remarks, I referred to Mr.
Leopold Macaulay, with whom I sat in this
House for a number of years. One of Mr.
Macaulay 's favourite references was that
"this is the meat of the coconut." I do not
know whether his son ever heard him say
that or not, but he used to say that to me
as a younger man.
I want to give to the hon. members, in an
understandable way what I think is the meat
of the coconut in connection with this budget,
and the very vast expenditures that have been
made this year, and which are contemplated
for next year, if I can persuade the hon.
members of the House to vote for the estim-
ates which his Honour the Lieutenant-
Governor has graciously placed before us.
I think hon. members will ask me this
question: "Well, Mr. Treasurer, what are the
highlights of this budget?" May I say that
there are several highlights of this budget.
382
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As a matter of fact, in the statement which
hon. members will receive, they run some-
thing in excess of 30 highlights, but I want
to condense these into 4 highlights, and I
propose to inform hon. members about these
things, in condensed form, concerning the
affairs of the various departments, giving
the necessary cross-references:
Firstly, the provision we are making for
employment and the expansion of employ-
ment in this province of ours. Secondly, what
we are doing in the various facets of this
budget for education, to meet the challenges
of the development of our human resources
in Ontario. Thirdly, what we are doing for
our municipalities— 1,000 of them in this
great province— and what the effect of our
actions will be. Fourthly, I would like par-
ticularly to refer to our financial position and
to our surplus.
Following that, I want to refer to our
federal-provincial position, and to our need-
indeed, our right— to ask for a better deal at
Ottawa, a continuation of what I asked for
in this House, this time last year, with a great
deal of success.
In conclusion, I want to tell the House
about the economic prospects of this great
province in which we live, and which it is
our honour to serve.
That is the way I would like to deal with
this great budget and I shall, as I say, refer
back to the various points in the budget text
which enable me to do that.
The first point I want to bring to the
attention of this House— and there is a very
great deal of thought in the statement I am
about to make— is the provision for employ-
ment and for taking care of the unemployed,
from the standpoint of what we are doing
by means of built-in stabilizers provincially
and federally.
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I
think that all hon. members of the House
will agree with me, that never in all history
has such a programme, such a complete pro-
gramme, been presented to any Legislature
in Canada.
Now, sir, in making that statement, I by
no means want to say that what we are doing
is the last word, or that it is perfect, because
it is not— humans never reach that particular
position— but I would say this, that it lays
a great foundation for the stabilizing of
employment in this land of ours.
In making my explanation, may I say that
if we went back some 20-odd years to the
middle of the depression, we would find at
that time there were certain months in the
years of 193$ and 1934 in which 450,000 of
our population were unemployed, and at that
time Ontario's population was 3.6 million.
Our 1,000 municipalities were contributing
to unemployment relief, in some months, for
no less than 450,000 people. The contribu-
tion from the municipalities ran all the way
from 20 per cent, up to about 45 per cent, of
the amount. We had something in the order
of 100 municipalities which were bankrupt.
What is the story today? May I say to
my hon. friends that there is no comparison,
and I think it is a very great mistake to
create the idea— I want to disabuse the hon.
members' minds, if any of them have that
lingering doubt— that today bears any rela-
tionship to the middle 1930's, because it
does not. As a matter of fact, the estimates
that I have from the various departments of
government are that today the work force
in Ontario is 58,000 greater than it was a
year ago.
It is true that we have unemployment, but
also in Ontario we have some 58,000 more
people working than worked a year ago.
We have had very great additions to our
work force.
Now, what has happened since the 1930's
and what does this budget outline?
In the meantime, we have built-in provi-
sions for the care of unemployment, one of
them of course is the universal old age pen-
sion. May I say that old age assistance has
been increased, and in this budget there
will be provision for the payment of that
betterment, which last year rose from $40
to $55. Built-in stabilization applies to all
of these: old age pensions, old age assistance
at 65 on a means test, disabled persons' pen-
sions—which is entirely new in the last half-
dozen years— and also we have the blind
persons' pensions.
May I say that these are, first of all, built-
in protections against unemployment which
we did not have some years ago.
Secondly, I should say that one of the
greatest built-in provisions we have is unem-
ployment insurance. Seasonal unemployment
insurance benefits have this year been ex-
tended for 12 weeks, I believe, and now
extend from December 1 to May 31—1 speak
from memory. I would say that the under-
lying provision of unemployment insurance
has had a tremendous effect in our country.
We have other built-in stabilizers, of course.
We have had since last year a tremendous
change in connection with our plans for, and
our dealings with, the unemployed.
We have the abolition of what I elaborated
on last year, the .45 per cent, portal provision.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
383
Its removal by the federal government has
enabled us to deal objectively with the relief
problem, to the extent that today in Ontario
we have no differentiation between the em-
ployable and the unemployable unemployed.
We have been able to reduce the munici-
palities' contribution toward relief payments.
At one time, it was 50 per cent, and was
reduced to 40 per cent.; it is now down to
20 per cent., with a contribution of 80 per
cent, on the part of the two senior govern-
ments.
The third point is this: we have introduced
in Ontario this year, as an experiment, as I
said, an emergency work plan which is on the
basis of a 70 per cent, contribution on the
part of the province, and 30 per cent, for the
municipalities. In addition, we have provided
work on access roads and provincial parks in
the more remote areas of the province.
May I refer to one of these items, the
matter of unemployment relief. Let me give
hon. members an example of the working of
these built-in provisions. These figures are
estimates, but they are the latest figures that
I can give.
A moment ago, I referred to the mid-part
of the 1930's when we had 450,000 people
on relief in some months out of a population
of 3.6 million. Today, Ontario's population
verges on 6 million.
In November, on the old 60-40 basis, we
had on our relief rolls, 30,378 persons. The
80-20 provision came into effect on Decem-
ber 1, and then in the month of December
our relief rolls in the province totalled 35,000
persons.
In the month of January, according to the
best estimate of The Department of Public
Welfare, and I have no doubt that it is
reasonably accurate, there were approximately
40,000 people on municipal relief rolls.
Now let hon. members contrast this with
the figure of a year ago. With the 60-40
basis, there were then 28,815 persons on our
relief rolls, and that was with the operation
of the .45 per cent, portal provision. Today,
with the abolition of that portal, and with
the elimination of the invidious distinction
between the unemployable and the employ-
able unemployed persons, we have 40,000
on our relief rolls in the province.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, that one of the
things that stands out most sharply in the
budget today, comparing it with the budgets
of the past, is the effect of the built-in
stabilizers in relation to unemployment.
May I give this further illustration: in the
1930's the municipalities were paying from 20
per cent, to 45 per cent, of the cost of caring
for 450,000 unemployed, in some months. No
wonder we had 100 or so municipalities
which were insolvent.
Today, what is the story? The municipal
share of the built-in stabilizer that I have
referred to does not run over 20 per cent.
That is the extent to which these provisions
have affected the financial well-being of our
municipalities, and the extent to which the
assistance to the municipalities, in so many
of these things, has worked.
I mention those things just to point out to
the hon. members of this House the effect,
when we get down to it, of provisions that
we have discussed in a host of different ways
here in this Legislature.
In talking about the matter of providing
employment and taking care of the unem-
ployed, may I say to the hon. members of
this House that I see it to be the duty
of this government, the duty of this House,
to keep things rolling to inspire confidence
on the part of our people.
If there is any keynote in what I am say-
ing today, it is a sure and certain confidence
in the ability of Canada and Canadians to
provide for her people.
I wish now to refer for a moment to the
matter of public investment. After all, it
is one thing to look after the people who are
aged, infirm, and unemployed, but it is an-
other thing— and an added thing— to look at
the development of our country and the de-
velopment of the great opportunities that are
ours in 1958.
In a previous budget— I think it was mine
of 3 years ago, or perhaps it was in the
budget of my predecessor— an assessment was
made of the job opportunities created by the
various departments of government and the
various undertakings of government commis-
sions and other emanations of government,
and the municipalities which are very heavily
subsidized by this government. Together,
they provide about 175,000 jobs. As a matter
of fact, that estimate was made at a time of
very high employment, but at a time of very
high need as well.
Now, in the current year ending on March
31, the combined total of expenditures and
public investments made by this government,
its commissions, and by the municipalities
and other emanations of the provincial gov-
ernment, which are very heavily subsidized
by us, amounted to no less than $875 million,
providing for 215,000 jobs in the province
of Ontario.
384
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What about the year coming? For the
year coming, the comparable figures are
this: we plan, in expenditures by the govern-
ment itself, by government commissions such
as Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Northland
Railway, the Ontario water resources commis-
sion and other organizations of that sort, and
by emanations of government and subsidized
agencies including the municipalities, to spend
or to spearhead the spending of no less than
$955 million, providing 235,000 jobs for
workers in this province.
I would say that this province today is
spearheading a tremendous programme of
public investment amounting to nearly $1
billion.
I very well remember when, on ordinary
account back about 16 years ago, we passed
in this House the $100 million mark in
ordinary revenue. This province is approach-
ing this year, in investments which will pro-
vide for the betterment of Ontario and her
people, nearly $1 billion.
I should like to give some very rough
references to this immense programme. The
Department of Highways expenditures will
reach a total in the coming year of nearly
$253 million. There will be some $55 million
expended in buildings and public works, .
There will be at least $2 million expended
for mining and access roads. There will be
an appropriation of approximately $7 million
for projects, including conservation work and
dams.
Now, I give hon. members the breakdown
of the $955 million in this way:
Last year, the government of Ontario in
its direct works expended $300 million. This
coming year we plan to spend $340 million.
In the year we are in ending on March 31,
Ontario commissions expended $275 million,
which, of course, includes the great works
on the St. Lawrence and the reconversion of
frequencies and so on. This year the commis-
sions, it is estimated, will spend about $280
million.
Our municipalities last year expended
some $300 million on schools, waterworks,
electric power, roads, sidewalks, and so on,
and it is expected this year that the total
will be about $335 million, so that we have
for next year, as compared with this year's
total of $875 million, a total of $955 million,
providing on-site and off-site employment for
approximately 235,000 workers.
Now, in referring to the commissions, may
I express my regrets— and I am sure they are
those of everyone present— on the passing of
Dr. T. H. Hogg, the past chairman and chief
engineer of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power
Commission. I should like to acknowledge
a great friendship with Dr. Hogg over many
years; I should like to express my apprecia-
tion of his advice, as a valued consultant,
as a great hydraulic engineer, and also for
the services he rendered to Ontario over a
period of many years.
The next point I should like to discuss,
I hope very briefly, is the matter of educa-
tion, which will be found on pages 9. to 15
of the budget statement on hon. members'
desks. Perhaps I could refer to these high-
lights by saying that, first of all, there will
be sweeping revisions in our educational
grant system. In 1958-1959 we will increase
our assistance to local education to the record
sum of $133 million. That is $33 million in
excess of the current year.. That, of course,
is an increase of one-third, and it is an
enormous sum of money for school grants
alone.
The hon. Minister of Education will be
referring to this in more detail in a few
minutes, but I may appropriate just one short
sentence or two of what he is going to say
for purposes of emphasis:
Approximately $133 million in provincial
grants will be distributed to local school
boards this coming year. This is an increase
of 64 per cent, in the last two years. Last
year, the increase was $19 million, and in
two years we shall have increased our assist-
ance to education by no less than $52 million.
Thus, over these two years we have had
an increase of 64 per cent., and one of more
than 100 per cent, in the last 4 years.
I make reference to this, that the president
of the United States recently asked Congress
for a federal appropriation of $1 billion for
education. On a per capita basis, the increase
in provincial grants to schools in Ontario
during the past two years alone would be
equivalent to approximately $1.5 billion, if
it were translated into the population of the
United States. This will give hon. members
some idea of the magnitude of Ontario's
effort in this regard.
When I say Ontario leads the United States
in education, I do not think I am making an
immodest statement in view of what I am
about to say.
We propose to place $3 million in a student
aid loan fund to assist students who want to
borrow from that fund. I would say that, in
regard to our universities, we are increasing
maintenance grants very substantially in the
coming year. There will be something over
$11 million for university grants as contrasted
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
385
with about $9 million this year, and the cap-
ital grants will be increased to $12 million,
making a total of more than $23 million in
university grants and assistance.
These include $3 million to the University
of Toronto, $1 million to Queen's University,
$1 million to Western University, $1 million
to McMaster University— to which, of course,
is added $1 million for the engineering
building. In addition, there is $1 million for
the Toronto dental college.
There will be $1 million to Ottawa Univer-
sity for its medical and science faculties, $1
million for Carleton College, $1 million for
Assumption University, and a like amount to
Waterloo College— which ought to please some
of the hon. members in this House. This, I
think, is a very satisfactory statement.
The grants-in-aid of education are, of
course, the dominant feature of this year's
budget. In the next fiscal year the total
education bill is estimated to reach $177
million in the province of Ontario. That is
an increase of $37.5 million over the appro-
priation last year, and is $102 million more
than our expenditures on education just 5
years ago.
Just by way of giving comparisons in that
matter, may I point out that 14 years ago
this coming month, when I introduced my
first budget, the total ordinary expenditures
for the province of Ontario to run everything,
including roads, hospitals, education and so
on, amounted to $115 million. In the next
fiscal year, this province is proposing to
spend nearly $178 million on education alone.
I think that is a very great record.
The hon. Minister of Education will
explain the grants system and table many
great volumes of key requirements to the
working out of that plan. But may I just
make this very brief comment to the hon.
members of the House:
Actually speaking, in its simplest terms and
perhaps it might be an oversimplification,
may I point out that what we are doing this
year is extending to the urban areas what we
have been doing, in general, in the rural areas
over the last half-dozen years or so. That is
the effect.
As a matter of fact, as hon. members know,
population has been the main basis in judg-
ing what a municipality is to receive for
education. Two towns of 10,000 people in
different parts of the province, with different
problems, received the same amount of
money. But that did not happen in the rural
areas. I would like hon. members to remem-
ber this, that what we will now be doing in
urban education is, in principle, what we have
been doing in rural education for many
years past now, where we have grants extend-
ing from perhaps 40 per cent, up to as high
as 92 per cent, in the poorer areas of the
province, which has made a vast contribu-
tion toward equalizing opportunity in this
province of ours.
I want to compliment very highly the
officials of The Department of Education
through their civil service chief, Dr. Cannon,
for the immense work that has been done
throughout the whole area of that department,
and also through the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) for the work
that Mr. Grant Crawford, his deputy minister,
and his staff have done in certain features of
this very great work.
I should like to mention particularly Dr.
Robert Jackson— who is here in the Legislature
today— the director of research of the Ontario
College of Education, for what has been a
mammoth task in connection with this work.
Dr. Jackson has been associated in the last
15 years with all the grant revisions, and I do
not think there is anyone who has the encyclo-
paedic knowledge of the problems of Ontario
schools which he has.
What we are doing is this: Population will
now enter into the picture only to a certain
extent. However, Solomon in all his wisdom
could not devise a system of grants that would
work equally in Metropolitan Toronto and in
some of the smaller townships in the province
of Ontario.
As a matter of fact, it is necessary to break
the urban portions of our schools into certain
classes. One could provide a grants system
that will take care of the 5 largest cities, but
when he gets down to a city the size of
Peterborough, it does not work, therefore
there had to be divisions there, but within
those divisions, these things apply:
First, provincial equalized assessment. Now,
Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to
warn the hon. members of this House, because
there are very many former councillors sitting
here who know all about the problems of
equalization, that there is no equalization that
is positively accurate. As a matter of fact,
there is no equalization that anybody can
argue really approaches accuracy. But it does
provide a fairer basis upon which to work.
That is the purpose.
Now, I would say to the municipal people
in this province that the real requirement is
a manual assessment throughout the province.
But that is a huge undertaking. We have a
manual assessment now, for Metropolitan
Toronto, which should be extended across the
province as rapidly as we can do it. In the
meantime, it would be fatal to hold up further
386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
development of grants for education. I think
that it will go ahead now apace, with the
introduction of a provincially equalized factor
which will affect, of course, each individual
municipality and school board. But it is very
difficult to discuss here any particular group
of municipalities, because they vary on that
account.
Now the second factor is this, to take the
realistic view of using the average daily
attendance in the school rather than the
population of the municipality.
Now the population of the municipality
at one time might have had some bearing on
it, but in these days of great growth and
change in the province, the fact that a town
or a small city has, say 15,000 population,
has no reference to the number of children.
We have in this province now, I think, one
of the highest birth rates in Canada. All
of these things have thrown out of tune the
eld system.
We have also introduced a growth-need
factor, which will be explained to the hon.
members of this House. I would not attempt
to explain it myself, Mr. Speaker. I often
think of one time when my hon. friend from
Brant (Mr. Nixon) was introducing the esti-
mates for The Department of Education in the
absence of Dr. McCarter. Somebody asked
him to explain the grant system, and he said
that he could not explain it to save his life.
I must say that, likewise, I do not profess to
be a great expert in these matters.
I would say that the best way to discuss
these things is to meet with the experts in
The Department of Education and talk over
the problem with them in the committee on
education, where hon. members can get the
fundamentals involved in this matter.
Now, this completes what I have to say
with regard to education, but the hon. Minis-
ter of Education will elaborate on my state-
ments in a short time.
Now, in hurrying along, I would like to
come to the third point of what I think are
the highlights, and that concerns our treat-
ment of the municipalities.
First of all, may I refer the hon. members
to the very fine schedule shown us in the
budget appendix, entitled "Assistance to
Municipalities by the Province of Ontario."
In referring to this, may I pay particular
tribute to the deputy Minister of Economics,
Mr. George Gathercole, and those who work
under him, for the information that they make
available to this House, to the government,
and to the people of this province. As a
matter of fact, I know of no abler Depart-
ment of Economics in Canada than our own,
and I can assure hon. members that the
assistance it renders is very, very great.
In just very briefly referring to the schedule
I mentioned, might I, at the same time, refer
hon. members of the House to the graphs
and to the charts that are shown in the
appendix to the budget. They give graphic
explanations of the situation as related to
a great variety of subjects.
In referring to the matter of population,
may I say this, that the great increase of
course has had a tremendous impact on our
province, both municipally and from a stand-
point of our school boards, to which I have
referred. The impact of industrial and popu-
lation growth on the province and the muni-
cipal services has been very great indeed.
May I point out that Ontario is the fastest
growing area, that is of comparable size, on
the North American continent. Last year
there was added to our population, every
month of the year, no less than 18,000 per-
sons. Now what that means to Ontario may
be demonstrated by taking one of our com-
munities in Ontario, of approximately 18,000
or 20,000 population, and contemplating what
is required every 30 days across this province
in the form of housing and all of the things
that go with the living of people, and with
the industry necessary to support the way
of life of those people.
Our population growth last year was 4
per cent. The average for Canada is 3.1 per
cent, and the population growth of our great
neighbour to the south is 1.8 per cent., which
gives an idea of the growth of this fabulous
province in which we live.
Speaking from memory, sir, I think over the
last dozen years that our population growth
in Ontario has been in the order of more
than 1.5 million people. We have added
more people to the population figure of On-
tario in that time than is the total population
of any of the other provinces in Canada, with
the exception of Quebec. In other words,
we have added more people to our popula-
tion here in Ontario, in the last 12 or 15
years, than is the present total population of,
say, the great province of British Columbia.
Regarding municipalities, may I say this.
Although the increase in our grants for local
education is the largest in our history, and
forms the biggest part of the increase of our
assistance to municipalities, other municipal
services are also to receive more provincial
aid.
Municipal road subsidies are being in-
creased from $57.7 million to $61.4 million
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
387
in the 1958-1959 fiscal year. May I say that
15 years ago the total of these municipal sub-
sidies in Ontario was only $3 million and
next year it will be up to $61 million.
Unconditional grants to municipalities in
the coming fiscal year are increased to $21.6
million, an advance of $9 million, or 70 per
cent, over the last 2 years.
We have mentioned the increased assistance
for unemployment relief costs, medical costs
for persons on unemployment relief, and in-
creased provincial contributions to homes for
the aged and other charitable institutions,
which are to be increased to approximately
75 per cent, in the case of municipal homes,
and for charitable institutions up to 75 per
cent, of the cost of those who are unable to
pay or make contribution, which very greatly
assists these institutions.
During this past week or two, I accom-
panied my friend, the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare (Mr. Cecile), on two particular
occasions. We attended the launching of a
new house of providence by the Sisters of St.
Joseph, and also the opening of a Salvation
Army hostel for the aged which is now in
operation.
I could not help but think, in both of those
cases, that the fine people who run those in-
stitutions are going to receive approximately
75 per cent, of their operating costs.
Last year's appropriation for assistance to
municipalities, school boards and local auth-
orities is being raised by $45.3 million. In
other words, last year this House voted to the
municipalities $214.8 million, in order that
they might undertake and continue their great
work. This coming year, starting with April
1, that $214.8 million will be increased to
$260 million.
It causes me to be reminiscent when I think
of my first budget. We provided $18 million
for the municipalities, and that has grown in
this coming year to $260 million, which is an
increase of 21 per cent, over last year, and
$101 million or 64 per cent, over the last 3
years. That is a wonderful record. I think
my hon. friends in this House will agree.
We are increasing the grants to mining
municipalities by $1 million. In this past year,
the Ontario municipal improvement corpora-
tion has purchased some $44 million of muni-
cipal bonds.
This year, we are providing a special item
to purchase the bonds of certain develop-
mental municipalities, which are very defin-
itely the children of the government at the
present time. They are the areas of Mani-
touwadge, Elliot Lake and Bicroft. In those
cases we are providing $1.7 million for that
purpose.
May I point out that the population of
Elliot Lake is shortly going to exceed 30,000,
in an area which was solid bush just a few
years ago. In my own area, at Bicroft, in a
place that was in the very deep bush area,
there is being developed today a municipality
with a population of between 4,000 and 5,000
people, with new houses, new sewers and
everything else that has to do with modern
living.
Of course, it is necessary for us to assist
these municipalities by giving them the finan-
cial backing, that is the credit, that is neces-
sary.
My fourth point deals with our financial
position and the surplus. Let me ask hon.
members these questions, or let me lay down
these conditions. Obviously, the first objec-
tive in the matter of finances is a balance on
ordinary account. Now may I say that if we
take the history of this province— and hon.
members will get it in a very short review in
the appendices to the various budget state-
ments, the surplus and deficit accounts, and
the growth of the net debt of the province.
Of course, the great battle that was faced
by governments in preceding days was that
of providing for a surplus on ordinary account
and, in most cases, additions to net debt were
passed on with apologies to the future.
I want to refer to that. I think that puts
it in an understandable way. It makes it pos-
sible for those who are interested in the
subject, on both sides of the House, to
understand it. Now, sir, may I give you this
picture?
In order to preserve and strengthen our
credit, this government has deliberately, as
a matter of policy, applied all we could on
capital account, namely, we have paid as
much as possible of capital projects in cash,
or from the current account, that is what we
have done.
I must admit here that I have some feel-
ings on that subject. It would be very easy
for me, as Treasurer, to provide for an over-
all surplus, just as simple as this; I could
cut our capital account roughly in two, our
capital spending roughly in two, and there
would be a surplus on ordinary account. It
is just as controllable as that. As a matter
of fact, was that not the case in other days
for the reason that the whole objective was
to balance the ordinary accounts?
Now sir, may I again refer to the House
the matter of, I think it is $116 million from
ordinary account that is applied on capital
388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
account this year. However, I will not refer
again, other than in passing, to a total of
$177 million in these two years. But I should
like to tell this House what this administra-
tion has done and to compare it with past
history.
I could go back into history to the days
of Sir James Whitney, to the Drury adminis-
tration, and to the Ferguson-Henry adminis-
tration. I am very glad to see Mr. Henry
here in the House today, it is a very great
pleasure to see him here. I could refer to
the Hepburn administration which should
more properly be referred to as the Hepburn-
Conant-Nixon administration. I could refer
to any one of those.
As a matter of fact, the growth of net debt
in this province commenced with the end
of, or the beginning of the end of, World
War I, that is when it started to increase,
by $10 million, $20 million and $30 million
at a time.
I think I can give the best example of
what we are doing by comparing two admin-
istrations—a tale of two cities. I have com-
pared two administrations here— this adminis-
tration and the one immediately preceding
it, the one I shall term, for purposes of
brevity, the Hepburn administration.
In so doing, I do not make any invidious
comparison, I do not criticize the Hepburn
administration although I used to criticize
them at one time, when I sat opposite. But
I am not in that mood today— not in a criti-
cizing mood at all.
As a matter of fact, I think the position
of the Hepburn administration was not parti-
cularly different from that of the Ferguson
administration or the Drury administration or
the others.
In making a comparison with the Hepburn
administration, if people might think that I
have any hardness in my heart, I can assure
you that I have not.
May I pay a tribute to Mr. Hepburn, who
was the leader of that administration and to
whom I sat opposite for a number of years.
I hope in the course of this session to have
Mr. Hepburn's picture unveiled and placed
in the halls of this assembly. He was a very
refreshing personality. I often look back on
the days when I sat opposite to Mr. Hepburn,
and the position that he took in budget pres-
entation. Perhaps I may have learned from
one who was a master in his way in relation
to that type of thing. I am delighted to have
his picture unveiled and placed in the halls
of this historic assembly.
I may say this, that I have prevailed upon
the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy), to
consent to our doing likewise in his case.
We have his picture painted, but it is in cold
storage because "Tom" told me that he did
not want to be hung while he was in public
life, so we have the picture. I make the same
offer to my hon. good friend from Brant
and if he would agree to sit we would
keep his picture until some day, in the far
distant future, when he retires from this
assembly and we can hang his picture. And
I promise to place Drew, Kennedy, Nixon and
Hepburn together where they will be happy.
For the purposes of comparison, to make
this thing plain, let me say this. In the days
of the Hepburn government— taking the
budgets that were introduced at that time and
the budgets that were introduced by this
government— we find this. In the days of the
Hepburn government approximately $207
million was either added to the public debt or
was chargeable because of deficits that had
occurred. As a matter of fact the deficit
item does not enter into it because there was
a combined surplus on ordinary account dur-
ing the Hepburn years, as I shall mention in
a moment. But there were $207 million
added to the public debt, which of course
was done by that government. There was
credited in accumulated surpluses and sink-
ing funds the sum of $11.1 million, and there
was therefore charged to debt in that period
of time a net amount of $196 million— now
that is over the life of that particular govern-
ment.
May I give the contrast, so that hon. mem-
bers can see— and I would like my hon. friend
from Waterloo North to understand the situa-
tion and this policy which we have been fol-
lowing.
In the days of this administration, since
August 17, 1943, we have done in capital
works $1.38 billion worth of works, that is
$1,038 million worth of work in that time.
We have accumulated surpluses, additions to
the sinking fund, the highway reserve
account, and this year there is $39 million
for payment directly from ordinary account
to capital account— no less than $667 million.
In other words, sir, I would say that this
grand old province has been able to do over
$1 billion worth of work, and in these 15
years it has paid in cash $667 million on
account, and it has left over for posterity and
other years, counting ourselves in posterity,
$370 million. That is what we have done.
First of all, the problem is as simple as
this: should we, in this day and generation,
with these vast works we have, pay for them
all in cash? I say to the hon. member for
Parkdale (Mr. Stewart) that it is just the
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
389
same as his city, or Metropolitan Toronto,
paying for the subway on Bloor Street all in
one year, that is similar to what we are
doing.
Why do we pay $667 million in cash? For
this reason, that the municipalities and
government agencies have to rely on our
credit for their credit, and we cannot afford
to fall down. That is the point.
Now, there are various statements in the
budget which deal with that particular
matter. I might refer to one of them in a
moment.
May I say this to the hon. members of the
House. If they want to take apart our net
debt, they will see that we have paid for
everything that could be called "non-revenue
producing." Now I am not one of those who
thinks that a mental hospital is non-revenue
producing. I think it is, because of the bet-
terment of people, the betterment of condi-
tions of people, the ability it gives to people
to be well and to go out and earn money
and incidentally pay taxes.
However, if we rule those things out, then
we have paid for everything, we have paid
vast amounts on the highways of this prov-
ince, which are revenue producing in a very
big way.
I would like to say this in relation to net
debt, in concluding my remarks on that fea-
ture. Page 7 of the budget shows that the
massive capital construction programme, to
which we have been committed by the un-
precedented growth of our population and
industry, has obliged us to add to our net
debt at least in some measure. I have pointed
out that this year, ending March 31, our
capital construction programme totals $216
million. As our net debt increase will be
about $99.6 million, we have succeeded in
financing out of current revenues $116 mil-
lion of capital improvement, that is, more
than half of our capital investment in physi-
cal assets, and this continues our past ex-
perience.
Now, in my first few years as Treasurer,
we had a surplus on overall account. Capital
expenditures in those years averaged only
$4 million, whereas our capital expenditures
in this fiscal year, the one we are in right
now, is $216 million, and next year it is
going to be $241.7 million.
Thus, our revenue deficiency in relation
to our overall expenditure stems directly from
the great volume of capital investment we
have underway. Indeed, we have done much
better than these figures indicate, because
we paid towards such things as schools and
public general hospitals, which are not in-
cluded in the figures I gave.
While our net debt has risen, so has our
provincial production and the personal in-
come of our people. Let hon. members not
think that 235,000 jobs do not have an effect
on the economy. The personal income of our
people and our revenue have grown much
more rapidly than our net debt.
When I delivered my first budget 14 years
ago, Ontario's net debt formed 14.4 per cent,
of the total personal income of the people.
This year it represents only 9.4 per cent. In
1944, it would have taken 4 years— as a matter
of fact nearly 5 years— of the province's rev-
enue to retire the net debt, as against 1.5
years at the present time.
It is true that we have not, as have some
provinces, reduced our debt, but let any hon.
member show me any province that has done
the job that we have done in the improve-
ment of our capital stock, the improvement
of the basis on which the people of Ontario
can live and better themselves, and produce
revenues for themselves and, if I may say
it modestly, for the rest of Canada.
It is true that we have not, as have some
provinces, reduced our net debt. But, Mr.
Speaker, this House can reduce the net debt
of this province next year by a simple ex-
pedient, merely by taking the capital plan
that we have before us and cutting it in two.
By doing that, we will reduce the net debt.
Is there any hon. member of this House who
would rise up in his seat and ask us to do that?
Not one. Is there any hon. member of this
House who would ask us to get up and in-
crease taxes? Not one. I think we have
unanimity, sir.
It is true, on the other hand, that most
provinces have not experienced the rapid
growth, with all of its incidental problems,
that we have had. If it were not for this cap-
ital programme, which has no parallel in our
history, our revenue-expenditure position
would be favourable beyond words. If we had
done no capital work in the current fiscal year,
we would have a surplus of $116 million on
ordinary account. Of course, we could cut
taxes. Of course, we could do a lot of
things. But would anybody with any red
blood in his veins, or with a view and con-
ception of the possibilities of our province,
think of doing any such thing? I would say
that, taking all factors into consideration, and
judging by any standards, we have taken a
very reasonable and a very proper course.
I shall hurry along because I have ex-
ceeded the time I allotted myself, but I
should like to say something about federal-
390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
provincial relations. I do that because I
noticed, in the Toronto Globe and Mail of
February 23, an article referring to a meeting
held in Kitchener on February 20. It was
headlined: Frost Blamed. It said that the
hon. member for Waterloo North said that Mr.
Frost had agreed to financial arrangements
with Ottawa which are for political expediency
and not for the good of the little people.
The hon. member claimed that Mr. Frost has
been consistently demanding $100 million,
whereas he has settled for $21 million.
Now I find the press very accurate in this
province, but I have no doubt that that is a
misreport of what my hon. friend said. But
if he did say it, I would suggest that he
would be better doing his homework, reading
my speeches, than getting into bad company
at a Liberal convention.
I should like to refer the hon. members
of the House to pages 31 A, and following, of
the budget, and I will just simply paraphrase
parts of it.
In referring to the federal-provincial con-
ference, to which my hon. friend is said to
have referred, and I hope erroneously— I hope
he has been misquoted— held on November 25
and 26, the attitude of the federal government
was cordial and receptive, and from that
preliminary meeting already have come sev-
eral measures that are of benefit to the people
of this province.
I would say that, in my experience, no
other federal-provincial conference has pro-
duced such quick results. These results— I
will just run over them rapidly— are:
Firstly, the abolition of the iniquitous .45
per cent, threshold provision which enabled
us to bring in for our municipalities the 80-
20 relief payments formula to which I have
referred.
Secondly, hospital insurance. It has enabled
me to go to Ottawa next Monday and sign
that great measure for the betterment of our
people, the hospital insurance agreement. It
has doubled the hospital grants. Now I see
hon. members here who are affected by that.
I am, in my own town. Doubling the hospital
grants has made all the difference in the
world, and I would say to the hon. member
for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) that, in his municipal-
ity, the doubling of hospital grants assisted in
the extension of the hospital and the building
of a new nurses' residence.
May I conclude on that point by simply
saying this, that still another advance in
the field of federal-provincial relations is
the amendment to the tax-sharing arrange-
ments Act which increases from 10 per cent.
to 13 per cent, the province's share of the
personal income tax.
Hon. members will recollect that, prior to
this amendment, the best arrangement that
we could obtain was a formula of 9, 10 and
50 per cent. In the light of Ontario's rapidly
growing needs we could not accept these
rates as either equitable or realistic. We
submitted that the standard rate should be
increased to 15, 15 and 50, capable of yield-
ing this province $100 million more annually.
I would say to the hon. member for Water-
loo North that that is still the policy of the
government, and it is still the objective of
the government. I want to send over to him,
for his reading, a copy of the proceedings
of the federal-provincial conference of Nov-
ember 25 and 26 last, and I would commend
to him the reading of the address that I
made on behalf of the people of the province
at that time.
I can assure him that the $21 million or
$22 million is by no means a settlement. It
is a payment on account. That is what it is.
These rates I mentioned, of course, remain
our objective.
In passing, it may be noted that the reduc-
tion of federal personal income taxes which
came into effect last January will have no
effect on us. As a matter of fact, the 13
per cent, which we receive on the 1956 rates
is really equivalent to about 14 per cent., or
a little better, on the present rates in effect.
I would say again that, from a federal-
provincial standpoint, the municipalities are
the principal beneficiaries of the deals which
we have made at Ottawa.
I should like now to refer the House to
pages 29 to 31 of the hon. members' copies
of the budget, "The Need for More Provin-
cial Revenue." While we are gratified by the
additional revenue we are receiving from the
interim adjustment with the federal govern-
ment, it is apparent that, if we are to meet
our heavy obligations and responsibilities, we
must obtain still more revenue from progres-
sive taxation and from those particular tax
fields. The fact that this year our net debt will
rise by about $99.5 million, despite the fact
that we pay $116 million of capital improve-
ments out of current revenues, emphasizes
the fact that if this old province is going to
pull its weight in confederation, if it is going
to do the job that is expected of Ontario, then
of course we have to have a fairer share of
the revenues that the fathers of confederation
allotted to us in that great document, The
British North America Act.
I would say to the hon. member for Water-
loo North that there has been no retreat from
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
391
that position at all. I do not think it will be
necessary. As a matter of fact, I could not
make a dent in the other fellows who were
at Ottawa and we went down on November
25 and we made a good interim deal for the
people of this province.
At this time I will not elaborate further on
that point except to say that that is the
policy of this government.
In conclusion, I would like to refer to
pages 1 through page 36 of the budget,
which I shall not read other than to refer
to the economic position of this province.
I have referred before, in 1955 notably, to
the ups and downs that we can expect in our
economy. At that time, I emphasized the
need of keeping things in perspective.
If we are to look at the year 1957 as a
whole, we will find that by most measurable
tests it was an impressive year. The physical
volume of investment and production in-
creased to a very marked extent. Capital
investment rose to over $3 billion, 3 times
that of 10 years ago. Personal income was
6 per cent, higher. The consumption of
electric power was 7 per cent, higher. On-
tario's pulp and paper industry maintained
its 1956 level.
Great advances were made in mining and
as was indicated yesterday, our mining rev-
enues are forecast to increase. Our mineral
production last year rose to nearly $740
million, 13 per cent, ahead of 1956.
There are, as I say, very many things that
are strengthening in our economy. An in-
crease in new residential construction accom-
panied the move away from the tight-money
policy which made it very difficult for us
just a year ago.
On the whole, economic dislocation both
at home and abroad has not been unmanag-
able as far as we are concerned. Corporation
liquidity is high and personal savings have
increased. While any realistic appraisal of
the situation must acknowledge points of
weakness, which there definitely are, there
are nevertheless many strong and vigorous
elements in our economy which justify an
attitude of confidence, and I would ask hon.
members to consider the following:
Our markets are growing rapidly. Last
year, Ontario's population increased by over
210,000 or nearly 4 per cent. Each year
there are an additional 3 million people in
the United States and 40 million abroad
who must be fed, clothed, and furnished
with some of the comforts and amenities of
life. As far as our home market is concerned,
the high birth rate and the increase in family
size underline the need for food, clothing,
domestic services, children's equipment,
schools, highways, electric capacity, hospitals,
water and sewage systems and similar
services.
By the mid-1960's the high birth rate of
the post-war years will be reflected in the
family formation group, which should provide
a major stimulus at that time to demand for
motor vehicles, household furnishings, and
other durable goods.
Secondly, an increasing proportion of our
labour force is being employed in services
such as transportation, communication, electric
power, trade services and the like. Between
1946 and 1957, the portion of our labour
force engaged in these services rose from 39
per cent, to 49 per cent. And the continuation
of this trend will open up many new avenues
of employment.
The third point is the growing propensity
for young people to prolong their formal
education and thereby withhold their services
from the labour market.
Capital investment intentions for 1958 sug-
gest a very high volume of spending.
I would say that credit in 1958 will be more
readily available and will cost less, and it
should serve to stimulate both private and
public investment.
Another point is the increased outlays which
are made under the built-in stabilizers, which
were referred to earlier in this address.
Farm marketing, to which the hon. Mini-
ster of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow) referred
yesterday, will strengthen and improve farm
income and purchasing power.
Our major trading partners, the United
States and the United Kingdom, are no less
dedicated than ourselves to a policy of high
levels of employment and we are confident
that by working in unison, a resurgence of
our economic growth can readily be brought
about.
Mr. Speaker, the coming year, of course,
will bring its problems, but I am confident
that they will not be unmanageable. It is
true that in some lines of activity we have
more productive capacity than is needed
to satisfy demand. But this pause in the
upward momentum of demand is temporary.
As I have said, the North American market
alone is growing by 3 million persons a year,
and that of the world to a very much greater
extent. There is an ever-widening search for
higher living standards. In this province and
nation, we have great resources, productive
capacity and skilled management and labour.
The world has need for them all.
392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We cannot, of course, force our customers
to buy our products, nor can we be content
to sit back and wait for time to provide solu-
tions. In our dynamic economy, there are
bound to be dislocations which give rise to
unemployment and loss of income. We can-
not avoid that. They are inescapable aspects
of life.
But there are many things that we can do.
We can and must improve our productive
efficiency, we can try for those measures and
methods that will improve and not impair
our competitive cost position. There will be
additional time and opportunity for research
aimed at the improvement and lower cost of
products. Let us use them all. Government,
business and labour together can push ahead
with new ventures and projects that will
insure that, while some industries are con-
tracting, others are expanding. In this way,
the utilization of our resources can be at a
maximum.
To achieve this, let us accept the fact that
adjustments and, therefore, adaptability are
essential. Let us learn to live with it. Let us
keep in mind that our interests are indivisible,
and that the indispensable ingredient of suc-
cess in maintaining a sustained rate of eco-
nomic growth is the preservation of public
confidence. That does not mean that we
should bury our heads in the sand. It does not
mean that we can dispense with sound finan-
cial and economic planning. It simply means
that fear and anxiety can sap our strength
and undermine our well-being. There are
very many strong forces in our economy that
favour a continuation of our vigorous growth.
Our united policy should be to encourage
those forces.
Three years ago, when I delivered my
budget address, I said I believed that we were
on the threshold of great things. I pointed
out that we had increased living standards by
a substantial margin, that we had strengthened
personal and family security, and that there
was no reason why we should not, in the next
dozen years, surpass those achievements.
The necessary conditions that I laid down
for the achievement of these objects are still
applicable. Let me remind hon. members
that first I said it would be necessary to main-
tain an economic environment that fosters
confidence, that is both friendly to new ideas
and adaptable, that encourages industrial ex-
pansion, preserves the right of earning, and
that retains just rewards.
Then bringing the government's sector into
focus, I said, secondly, that we should exercise
common sense and recognize that, if we wish
more public services, we must be prepared
to pay for them.
Thirdly, I held that we must maintain
public confidence in our securities and keep
our credit standing bright and clean.
Fourthly, I was convinced that, while
undertaking the great development works that
would increase the efficiency and productivity
of our workers and of our industry, we should
keep our taxes as low as possible.
Those were my views at that time and they
are still my convictions. If we follow this
course and work in unison with our trading
partners, I am confident that we can achieve
those higher living standards and make the
fruit of our progress available in an ever-
widening circle.
I did not intend to do this, but I should
like to refer the hon. members to the con-
cluding part of the budget I introduced in
this House on March 20, 1946, 12 years ago.
I do this for this reason. This is a time for
confidence, a time for an assessment of the
great opportunities that stand before us. I
was led to do this by listening, as I do very
often, to my grand old friend, the hon mem-
ber for Peel. He referred to this passage,
which is an inadequate one, in his motion in
reply to the speech from the Throne.
I may say that I have been with my good
friend on numerous occasions and I have
heard him refer to this passage, which was
given 12 years ago. Today, he is as young
as he was 12 years ago, and I would say
that if my reading of this would keep him
in harness for another 12 years, then we will
have accomplished great things.
Now, I think these words are applicable
to the days in which we live, in 1958. These
are times when we are faced with challenges
and opportunities, as we were in this budget
of 1946, which was the first peacetime budget.
It was given at a time, if hon. members will
recollect, when people talked about the dis-
mantling of war industry and the resultant
unemployment that was going to be brought
about. At that time, we talked to the people,
confidently, of opportunities that lay ahead.
At that time, I said:
We claim that the measures we propose
to adopt possess that virility, that force
and character, which will assuredly carry
this province forward to periods of ever-
increasing prosperity for all. While we
invite criticism— constructive and sincere
criticism— we ask for co-operation. May
all of us unitedly invoke those measures
which will assure to all our people the full
fruits of our abundant resources.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
393
Let us think, not merely in terms of
money values, not in columns of figures
and decimals and statistics, but in terms
of human values, of people, of develop-
ment and of an abundant and peaceful
countryside.
In entering into this period of great de-
velopment, our spirits must not flag. Be-
fore us lies the greatest opportunity ever
given to a people, an opportunity which
has been saved for us at great price. Now,
as never before, is needed the same spirit
which brought us through the wilderness
of war, but now, to be devoted to the
peaceful development of a goodly heritage.
At this turning point of our history, we
need all our courage, our enthusiasm and
our energy for the great and inspiring task
which is before us. We have turned to the
lessons of history— to the experience of our
fathers who so well laid the foundations of
our Dominion.
At this time, when we survey the great-
ness and possibilities of our country, we are
reminded of the words of a leader of other
times who encouraged his people with a
description of a land which was to be theirs.
These words taken from the book of
Deuteronomy, in the Holy Bible, are a
matchless passage in our language. They
might well refer to the opportunity which
awaits but the creative spirit of our people.
"For the Lord thy God brought thee into
a good land, a land of brooks of water, of
fountains and depths that spring out of
valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley
and vines and fig trees and pomegranates; a
land of oil, olives and honey; a land where-
in thou shalt eat bread without scarceness,
thou shalt not lack anything in it; a land
whose stones are iron and out of whose hills
thou mayest dig brass. When thou hast
eaten and are full, then thou shalt bless the
Lord thy God for the good land which he
hath given thee."
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT RE SCHOOL GRANTS
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Education):
This year the government of Ontario, in ful-
filment of the second stage of its 3-year
programme, will increase its grants to local
school boards by $33 million— by far the
largest increase in the province's history.
As last year's provincial contribution
through The Department of Education to the
local school boards was raised by $19 million,
the increase this year brings to $52 million the
additional money made available to the muni-
cipalities for education in the last two years.
Approximately $133 million in provincial
grants will be distributed to the local school
boards this year, an increase of 64 per cent,
in the past 2 years, and over 100 per cent*
in the last 4.
The president of the United States recently
asked Congress for an appropriation of $1 bil-
lion for education. On a per-capita basis, the
increases in provincial grants to schools in
Ontario during the past two years alone would
be equivalent to approximately $1.5 billion if
applied to the United States, which empha-
sizes the magnitude of Ontario's effort.
Education is today, and has been for more
than a decade, Ontario's most absorbing prob-
lem. Last September, nearly 1.2 million pupils
were enrolled in the elementary and secondary
schools of Ontario. This means that one in
every 5 of our population is attending one
of Ontario's 7,500 schools, which contain
nearly 39,000 classrooms, staffed by more than
39,500 full-time teachers.
Under the direction of 3,900 school boards,
over $250 million is being spent on operating
expenses, while an additional $55 million of
capital funds are being spent for new schools
and other facilities.
A high birth rate, and additions to popula-
tion through immigration, have complicated
the school problem. School enrolment has
soared, almost doubling since 1945. Each year
the increase has been more than double the
rate of our population increase.
That growth has presented us with the
most formidable and challenging task in our
history. It has involved more than construct-
ing new schools. It has meant educating and
recruiting teachers, finding the money for
expansion, evolving a grants structure founded
on a just basis of distribution, and maintain-
ing and strengthening the character and stan-
dards of our educational system.
Our school system is a product of the vision
and efforts of those who have gone before.
It did not evolve easily or quickly. On the
contrary, it required patience, foresight, plan-
ning and courage to mould it into today's
system of high standards.
In many respects, our forefathers fashioned
our school system in much the same way
394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as they met the other problems of their day
—through trial and error, hard work and sacri-
fice. They created a school system based on
local needs and requirements. Thus, all our
publicly-supported elementary and secondary
schools are in a true sense local schools.
They are owned, operated, controlled and
directed by the representatives of the local
communities. For many decades, elementary
and secondary school education was financed
almost exclusively by the people in the
locality.
In some countries there is no opportunity
at the community level, except in a limited
and most circumscribed way, to exercise con-
trol and initiative in school affairs. In On-
tario, on the other hand, there is this op-
portunity. Within the broad limits set out
in the relevant Acts and Regulations, there
is freedom to experiment in curricula, text-
books, teaching methods and school organiza-
tion.
Parents, teachers and pupils have mutually
benefited from this interplay of local initia-
tive and interest. Certainly our ancestors
believed that local responsibility in school
affairs was essential. In retrospect, perhaps,
nothing has been more effective in keeping
strong the forces of democracy in Ontario
than the local control that is exercised over
school and municipal affairs.
The province's role in education
None of this suggests that the province
can be indifferent to our standards of educa-
tion. Constitutionally it has overriding re-
sponsibility. It must strive constantly for
higher standards, and for those conditions
which will ensure equality of opportunity for
education throughout the province. These
conditions have not always prevailed.
In the early years, the assistance given by
the province was almost exclusively a small
per-pupil grant, and as such it failed to take
into account the widely different financial
needs of the municipalities. In the decade
prior to 1945, in addition to the per-pupil
grant, special legislative grants were provided
to improve teachers' salaries and make pos-
sible the acquisition of new equipment.
Although helpful, this plan still fell far short
of a real attack on the problem.
The first major advance in the system of
school grants was made in 1945. In that
year, the basis of distribution was completely
changed, and the total amount of the grant
was nearly tripled— from $8.4 million to
$23.4 million.
The governing principle underlying the
1945 plan was that the major portion of pro-
vincial aid should be so distributed that, as
nearly as possible, it equalized the burden
of taxation for education throughout the prov-
ince. Grant schedules were worked out in
such a way that the percentage of approved
school costs, met out of provincial grants,
was considerably higher in areas where real
property assessments were lower than in areas
where the assessments were generally higher,
because they reflected not only the presence
of more valuable residential property, but
also the existence of industrial and business
assessments.
The grant percentages ranged from 92 per
cent, in some rural areas to a minimum of
16 per cent, in the largest urban centres.
Although this system was experimental in
nature, and not altogether free from defects,
it represented a notable step forward in the
direction of equality of opportunity in educa-
tion for children in all parts of the province.
In the ensuing years, a number of improve-
ments were adopted. By 1950, such substan-
tial changes had occurred in local population
and assessment that the limited percentage
graduations for elementary schools were no
longer adequate, and had to be modified in
order to minimize the often considerable
effect of even minor changes and differences
in population and assessment.
Similarly, to achieve a greater degree of
equity, revisions were made in the grant
schedules for secondary schools. It was also
found necessary to raise ceilings on approved
costs, and to provide greater aid to school
boards faced with large capital expenditures.
Commencing in 1955, the province paid a
supplementary per-pupil grant, in addition
to all other payments. This began at $4 per
pupil in 1955 and was increased until, in
1957, it reached $11 per pupil for elementary
schools and $20 to $30 per pupil in con-
tinuation schools, high schools and vocational
schools.
In addition, last year the province raised
the recognized allowance for the salaries of
elementary school teachers, upon which
grants were calculated, from $75 per pupil
to $100 per pupil.
These various revisions represented a realis-
tic effort to improve both the amount and the
equity of the school grants and to alleviate
the especially acute problems of rapidly devel-
oping areas. The province recognized, how-
ever, that as long as one of the criteria of
financial need was the assessment of prop-
erty, as determined in each municipality by
local assessors, there could not be just dis-
tribution.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
395
Despite the increase in grants, which have
nearly doubled in the last 4 years, and the
many other improvements, the absence of a
common yardstick for municipal assessment
made it desirable for municipalities to under-
assess in order to obtain a larger school
grant.
In these circumstances, some form of
equalization of assessment on a province-wide
basis for grant purposes became imperative.
Three years ago, this assessment problem
was tackled, but so immense has been the
task that it was not until this year that the
information became available for establishing
a province-wide basis of equalizing assess-
ment for grant purposes.
The assessment branch of The Department
of Municipal Affairs has published a manual
to guide assessors in the evaluation of real
property, and through actual assessment of
properties on a sampling basis, has prepared
a set of equalization factors which will now
be used for legislative grant purposes. The
significance of this development cannot be
over-emphasized.
The ultimate objective must be assess-
ment on a uniform standard throughout the
province, following the procedure set out in
the manual previously mentioned. No pretence
is made that the present system is completely
accurate, and it is freely admitted that there
is no fully satisfactory substitute for a uniform
assessment of the type carried out in Metro-
politan Toronto, without which the Metro-
politan area could not have functioned.
The procedure adopted for equalizing
assessment for school grant purposes does,
however, provide an approach toward
accuracy, and no one can deny that it will
give a much more equitable distribution of
school grants than has ever been attained
before.
Before describing the grants system that
will come into effect this year, it should be
pointed out that the assumption by the prov-
ince, of an increased proportion of educational
costs, does not entail any interference with
the traditional autonomy, functions and opera-
tions of the local school boards and the
municipalities. Fundamental changes in our
economy have made it necessary, however,
for the province to participate more fully in
the financing of education.
In the early years of our history, members
of the family commonly lived, attended
school, and worked in the same community.
Today, with the vast improvements in trans-
portation, the situation has changed. Many
people live in one community and work
and make their major commodity purchases
in another.
The result is the emergence of residential
communities having little industrial and busi-
ness assessment, but large numbers of school
children and all the problems incidental to
the provision of educational facilities.
The two contrasting patterns of munici-
pal growth— one with a heavy concentration
of industry and business and relatively few
children, and the other with a concentration
of children and little commercial and in-
dustrial assessment— have been a distinctive
feature of our development since World
War II.
Modern education has become a very ex-
pensive business. Better educational facili-
ties, higher salaries, the spectacular rise in
enrolment in elementary schools, and a pro-
nounced trend for children to continue their
education in secondary schools, have com-
bined to increase costs and thrust heavy
burdens on municipal finances, which are
met primarily from levies on real estate.
In the face of this situation, the province
has continued to move forward by assuming
an increasing proportion of educational costs.
The people of Ontario have gained in 3
important ways from this course of action.
1. As never before, equality of opportunity
has been achieved. Whether the child comes
from the farm or from the city, from a
wealthy residential district or from a rela-
tively poor area, he should have the oppor-
tunity of developing to the limit of his
ability.
Because of increased grants from the On-
tario government, municipalities and school
boards lacking adequate resources have been
able to provide educational facilities of a
standard comparable with those of more
favourably situated communities— certainly far
above the standard that would otherwise have
been possible.
2. Increased provincial assistance has made
possible a province-wide betterment of
teachers' salaries, conditions of work, and
educational facilities.
3. The onerous burden of municipal tax
rates on residential, farm, and industrial prop-
erty has been eased, and home ownership has
been encouraged.
In underwriting a greater share of school
costs, the province has sought to foster stan-
dards of education that make the most effec-
tive use of the intellectual resources and
potentialities of our people. We are confident
that this objective can be achieved without
disturbing the traditional basis of our system,
396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Elementary and secondary school education
must continue to be a local function; and
where there is local direction and control,
there must also be local financial responsi-
bility.
The second stage of the new
school grants programme
In addition to the $19 million increase
provided in 1957 in the first stage of the
new school grants programme, the distinctive
features of the second stage are as follows:
1. A further increase of $33 million in
school grants has been provided. Grant
schedules have been scaled upward to give
relatively higher grants in practically all parts
of the province.
2. Throughout the province the school
grants will be based, in part, on a provincially
equalized assessment of real property in each
school district.
3. In certain areas of the province, where
the full application of provincially equalized
assessment would result in drastic reductions
in school grants, a substantial step toward full
equalization will be taken in 1958, and there-
after equalization will be attained in progres-
sive stages.
4. A growth-need factor has been adopted
to provide additional assistance to school
boards in any area of the province where rapid
growth has led to the construction of new
schools and a consequent heavy burden of
debt charges and other extraordinary school
costs. This growth-need factor affords a higher
percentage of assistance to any municipality
that is obliged to incur heavy capital costs
and other extraordinary expenditures.
Recognition is thereby given to the specific
requirements of school boards beset by a ris-
ing tide of school population. Municipalities
and school boards which experience difficulty
in financing the construction of schools will
receive relatively more by way of provincial
assistance than those which have less for-
midable problems because of their stable
situation.
Expressed more precisely, for municipalities
where rapid development has taken place,
the application of the growth-need factor
raises the basic percentage of aid on recog-
nized costs as well as the basic per-pupil
grant on average daily attendance. The grants
are adjusted upwards in accordance with
the recognized extraordinary expenditure per
classroom, in the case of elementary schools,
and the recognized extraordinary expenditure
per pupil of average daily attendance in the
case of secondary schools.
"Extraordinary expenditure" includes recog-
nized debt charges, capital outlays from
current funds, and transportation costs.
The growth-need factor is an innovation.
To the best of our knowledge, no other juris-
diction has embodied it in a general grants
structure. Its aim, both in principle and prac-
tice, is to direct additional assistance to those
rapidly expanding areas that are required to
pay large debt charges and meet other extra-
ordinary costs.
Experience in Ontario shows that the im-
pact of school costs is more serious in com-
munities of rapid growth than in those with
relatively stable populations. This has also
been our experience in other provincial ser-
vices. Our new formula is therefore designed
to provide additional revenue for education
in these "growth municipalities".
Under the new system, the basic grant
payable to elementary school boards will be
graded in accordance with the provincially
equalized assessment per classroom. The
lower this assessment per classroom is, the
higher will be the percentage that is applied
to the recognized school costs, and the higher
will be the graded payment per pupil of
average daily attendance.
The growth-need factor will increase the
basic rates of assistance in keeping with the
level of recognized extraordinary expendi-
ture per classroom. The new grants to sec-
ondary schools will be determined in a some-
what similar manner.
However, the graded percentage that is
applied to the recognized school costs, and
the graded amount per pupil of average daily
attendance, will be scaled according to the
equalized assessment per capita rather than
the equalized assessment per classroom.
The basic grant will again be graded upward
for growth-need, but in this case it will be
in accordance with the level of recognized
extraordinary expenditure per pupil of aver-
age daily attendance.
Under the new plan, greater weight has
been given to assessment and less to popula-
tion, although population is still retained for
grouping purposes to ensure a smooth transi-
tion from the old plan to the new. Thus, a
series of grant schedules, rather than a single
one, has been prepared. The grant schedules
are arranged, for convenience, according to
the population of the municipality or muni-
cipalities concerned.
The changes in the grants structure this
year have been substantial; It is expected
that difficulties may be encountered in the
application of these new principles and in
FEBRUARY 26, 1958
397
the implementation of the changes. Major
adjustments, if any are required, will be made
next year in the light of the experience
gained during this year's operation. If any
cases of inequitable treatment are brought to
Our attention during the year, they will
receive our most earnest and sympathetic con-
sideration.
The complexity of our school system is
produced by varying local circumstances and
the existence of nearly 4,000 school boards,
each one of which presents a different prob-
lem. Therefore, the introduction of a series
of fundamental changes such as these is an
immense task. Moreover, in our rapidly
expanding province, conditions are always
changing, and anything we do must be sub-
ject to constant review and refinement.
Copies of the new school grant regulations
have been prepared, Mr. Speaker, and I now
table them for the information of the hon.
members of this House. Since the grant
schedules incorporated in these regulations
cannot be used without the corresponding
provincial equalizing factors, the hon. Minis-
ter of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) will
wish to table these factors at the same time.
Recognizing that the municipal councils
and school boards, in particular, will be most
anxious to learn the effect of these changes
upon their own communities, we have
arranged to place all the relevant informa-
tion in the hands of our school inspectors
at once. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the inspectors
have been called in to our department to
study these new regulations, and even as we
sit here groups of them are meeting in the
city.
School boards will, therefore, be given the
details of the new programme at the earliest
possible moment.
Conclusion
The introduction of this second stage of
the new school-grants programme is a notable
contribution to education in this province.
We are, however, under no illusion that it is
the last word. On the contrary, in announcing
last year our 3-year educational programme,
we emphasized that, following the adoption
< f this second stage, it would require at least
another year to effect refinements in the light
of experience.
The improvement of our school-grants
structure has been founded on continuing
study and painstaking research extending over
many years. It is part of a rational and
planned effort to continue to maintain and
develop high standards of education for our
people without placing an excessive burden
of taxation upon them.
It is encouraging to see the lively interest
of the people of Ontario in education. Our
whole economic progress, and the enrichment
of our way of life, depend upon the success
that is achieved in developing and using our
intellectual resources.
Obviously, finance alone will not meet all
challenges or satisfy all educational needs.
But there is evidence that where financial
support is adequate, a generally higher stan-
dard of education is obtained.
Because of the mounting enrolments and
the unprecedented demands for teachers and
school accommodation, the financial burden
will be formidable. The money that is needed
cannot be provided without sacrifice; it must
come from taxes.
The new school-grants programme is not
designed to encourage frills and extravagance,
for the financial task will be difficult enough
even if we confine our attention to the provi-
sion of the essentials of education. It does,
however, enable school boards to plan soundly
for the future, and in this way serves to
reinforce and strengthen the whole educational
system of Ontario.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Might I ask the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation if this move on his part introduces the
educational estimates, or what is the object?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I
adopted this expedient as the only one that
I could devise in which to place before the
House the factors that are required to enable
the boards and municipalities and this House
to assess the new system.
It was not my intention to do any more
today than merely introduce the matter, and
place the grants, the regulations, and the
equalized assessment on the table so the hon.
members could study them. Later on, we
will call the estimates of The Department of
Education, when this House is ready to
consider them, perhaps in a week or 10 days'
time.
Mr. Oliver: What has happened today-
does that indicate that The Department of
Education estimates will be the first ones
called?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I would think that
the hon. members would require time to
see how these factors work out.
As a matter of fact, it is impossible with
4,000 boards, to lay the particulars of each
board out. They have to be worked out with
the inspectors and with the boards, and no
doubt they can be made available to the
398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. members just in the ordinary course of
working the matter out.
The only purpose of using this method
was to make available to the House the par-
ticulars which are today being released to
the school boards throughout Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee
rise and report progress.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report progress and asks leave to
sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, before I
move the adjournment of the House, may I
say that tomorrow we will proceed with bills
on the order paper and the Throne debate.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Could the
hon. Prime Minister tell us when we are
likely to get copies of the report tabled by
the hon. Minister of Education this afternoon?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does the hon. member
mean the regulations?
Mr. Thomas: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, the regulations will
be available at once. Now concerning the
equalization factors, and as a matter of fact,
I could provide the hon. member with all
the equalization factors that would affect his
riding. Quite obviously— I mean there are
several hundred of them, and it is quite
obvious that many of them would have no
reference to his area, but I would be very
glad to get the equalization factors and I
will see that he gets a copy of the regula-
tions.
I will see that each hon. member gets a
copy of the regulations immediately, and also
that he receives a statement of the equaliza-
tion factors as affect the areas and school
boards in his particular riding.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.35 of the clock,
p.m.
BUDGET STATEMENT
of
THE HONOURABLE LESLIE M. FROST
PRIME MINISTER AND TREASURER OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1958
CONTENTS
Introduction 400
The Provincial Contribution to Capital Investment and Employment . . 401
Statement of Expenditure and Revenue and Surplus ...... 402
Provincial Net Capital Debt 402
Special Grants and Payments 403
Education 403
Health 403
Special unemployment assistance ......... 404
Other 404
Human Betterment 404
Education, health and welfare 404
Provincial grants to universities 406
Health 407
Welfare 409
A Balanced Programme for Expansion and Development 410
Highways and roads 410
Ontario Hydro 410
Natural resources ............ 410
Provincial parks ............ 412
Provincial assistance for water and sewage works ...... 412
Housing 412
Provincial Assistance to Municipalitdzs 413
Need for Provincial Revenue ........... 414
No New Taxation 414
Federal-Provincial Relations 415
Forecast of Revenue and Expenditure for 1958-1959 ...... 416
Conclusion 417
400 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE BUDGET
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, after a lapse of 3 years, it is again my
pleasure to bring down the budget of Ontario. As all its predecessors— and this will be my
fourteenth— it is a reflection of the times in which we live. It is designed to meet the conditions
and problems with which we are faced. It has been formulated in the light, not only of our
pressing requirements for education, health, welfare, highways and other services, but of the
economic conditions and realities of the day.
After a decade and a half of unparalleled expansion, that carried capital investment,
production, employment and living standards to historic high levels, we should not be surprised
if economic adjustments are required. In my budget statements of both 1954 and 1955 I
pointed out that, in a dynamic economy, adjustments in industry and employment are the
normal process by which production is adapted to demand, and I stressed that in all sectors
of our economy we must constantly aim for flexibility and adaptability to meet changing
conditions.
I also emphasized the need for keeping things in perspective, and if we look at the year
1957 as a whole, we shall find that by most measurable tests it was one of impressive accom-
plishment. Despite the remarkable increases in 1955 and 1956, the physical volume of invest-
ment and production together with employment were all higher in 1957.
Capital investment rose to over $3 billion, 3 times that of a decade ago. Personal income
was 6 per cent, higher, while electric power consumption increased by nearly 7 per cent.
Ontario's pulp and paper industry maintained its 1956 record level of output, while sales of
uranium and nickel more than offset declines in copper and other base metals, with the result
that Ontario's mineral output rose to $739 million, 13 per cent, above that in 1956.
Agricultural production held almost to the 1956 level, and was higher than that in each
of the years 1953, 1954 and 1955.
The housing industry developed a marked upturn after reduced down payments were
effected and more funds were made available. New residential units and conversions
completed in Ontario in 1957 totalled nearly 46,000, a level exceeded only in the peak years
of 1955 and 1956, while the number of residential starts fell only fractionally short of those
record years.
Purchases of food and soft goods also continued to advance, roughly offsetting the decline
in the purchases of motor vehicles and certain other consumer durables. Thus, by most
standards, the past year has been a prosperous one. More people were employed and more
goods were produced than ever before in our history.
Each year brings its special set of problems, and this year is no exception. To overcome
the accumulated shortages of the war years, and to meet the requirements of rapid growth, a
prodigious increase in productive capacity has been brought into operation, not only in
Ontario and Canada but in other countries. In some fields, this increased capacity cannot be
fully employed for the time being. In others, there has been an easing of demand.
Although our overall production has continued on a high plane, adjustments have been
necessary, and these have given rise to more unemployment than we have recently been
experiencing. To the volume of seasonal unemployment that normally occurs, at this time
of the year, has been added a number of unemployed workers who are in the process of
changing their places of employment as conditions adjust themselves to the changing pattern
of demand.
On the whole, economic dislocations both at home and abroad have not been unmanage-
able. Corporation liquidity is high and personal savings are increasing. While any realistic
appraisal of the situation must acknowledge points of weakness, there are nevertheless many
strong and vigorous elements in our economy which justify an attitude of confidence. I would
ask the hon. members to consider the following:
1. Our markets are growing rapidly. Last year, Ontario's population increased by over
210,000, or nearly 4 per cent., while about 500,000 people were added to the Canadian market.
Each year, an additional 3 million people in the United States, and about 40 million abroad,
must be fed, clothed arid furnished with some of the comforts of life.
, As far as our home market is concerned, the high birth rate and the increase in family
size underline the need for food, clothing, domestic services, children's equipment, schools,
highways, electric capacity, hospitals, water and sewage systems and other similar services.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 401
By the mid-1960's the high birth rate of the years immediately following World War II
will produce a bulge in the family formation group which should provide a major stimulus to
demand for motor vehicles, household furnishings and other durable goods.
2. An increasing proportion of our labour force is being employed in services such as
transportation, communications, electric power and gas, wholesale and retail trade, finance,
insurance, restaurants and recreation. Between 1946 and 1957, the proportion of our labour
force engaged in these service industries had risen from 39 to 49 per cent. The continuation
of this trend will open up many new avenues of employment.
3. There is a growing propensity for children to prolong their formal education and
thereby withhold their services from the labour market. For instance, in 1951, 60 per cent,
of the male population between 14 and 24 years of age was in the labour force; by 1957 this
proportion had declined to 53 per cent.
4. Capital investment intentions in 1958 suggest another high volume of spending. The
contraction in private capital investment will largely be offset by the expansion in enterprises
such as pipe lines, electric power and telephone systems as well as schools, university buildings,
highways, hospitals, and local services. The expansion of such services affords strong support
to current business, and lays a firm foundation for a broad economic advance.
Owing to new injections of capital funds, 1958 will also be an active year for housing.
The acceleration of housing completions should spur sales of furnishings and electrical and gas
appliances and fixtures. In all this work, the federal, provincial and municipal governments
are co-operating closely.
5. Credit in 1958 will be more readily available and will cost less. This should serve
to stimulate both private and public investment.
6. Increased outlays will be made under such built-in stabilizers as old age pensions,
old age assistance payments, family allowances, unemployment insurance and direct relief
benefits. Increased appropriations for education, health and welfare will also be required.
Together with the reduction in individual income taxes, these programmes reinforce and
enhance consumer spending.
7. Farm marketing and support programmes will be strengthened to improve farm incomes
and purchasing power.
8. Our major trading partners— the United States and United Kingdom— are no less
dedicated than we are ourselves to a policy of high levels of employment and income, and
we are confident that by working in unison, a resurgence of our economic growth will be
achieved.
The Provincial Contribution to Capital Investment and Employment
Although, in Canada, the federal government is primarily responsible for maintaining
a high level of employment because of its control over monetary policy, its regulation of
tariffs and trade, and its possession of the main fiscal and tax powers, nevertheless the
province and the municipalities can, and do, make a significant contribution to maintaining
sustained growth. The fact is that the most essential public projects, which are in demand
today and underlie our development, fall within provincial and municipal jurisdiction.
During the current fiscal year, the government of Ontario, together with the municipalities
and the various commissions and agencies, will spend a total of $875 million on capital
formation, and repairs and maintenance to physical assets. Of this amount, $300 million will
be for provincial projects such as highways, roads and hospitals. The provincial commissions,
mainly Ontario Hydro, will spend a total of $275 million— $215 million for new construction
and the remainder for frequency conversion, repairs and maintenance.
The municipalities, school boards and local commissions account for an additional $300
million, making the aggregate expenditure by Ontario's various provincial, municipal and
other authorities $875 million.
This huge expenditure is over $175 million more than was spent just 3 years ago when
I referred to this matter. At that time, it was estimated that it provided employment for
approximately 175,000 workers. In the year closing, our programme has been furnishing
on-site and off-site jobs for more than 215,000 full-time workers who are engaged in building
new physical assets and structures and maintaining and repairing our existing facilities.
402 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Nor does this tell the whole story: In carrying out such a huge volume of work, there
are obviously other indirect effects which ramify throughout the whole economy, generating
secondary and tertiary income and employment.
In the coming year, an even larger capital investment and repair and maintenance
programme will be undertaken. The municipalities, faced with pressing needs for an
extension of their facilities, are projecting a volume of work that exceeds that of 1957, while
the province, on its part, is increasing its appropriation for its undertakings by an additional
$40 million.
We are therefore making a telling contribution to the alleviation of unemployment.
And I give this assurance, that should there be unemployment conditions that call for a
further extension of our capital investment policy we shall, in co-operation with the federal
government and with its assistance, take an even more active part in creating useful assets
and employment for our people.
It may not be amiss, however, to point out that private enterprise accounts for 70 per
cent, of all capital expenditure. Thus, the success of any policy designed to maintain a
sustained rate of economic growth depends upon private business— upon its initiative, its good
judgment and ingenuity, the restraint that both business and labour exercise, and the harmony
with which they work together to solve their common problems.
Statement of Expenditure, Revenue and Surplus
Although from the standpoint of both assistance to municipalities and direct provincial
services, we have carried out the largest programme in our history, I am able to announce a
surplus on ordinary account. The government's net ordinary expenditure for the current fiscal
year ending March 31, 1958, is estimated at $581.6 million. This expenditure includes certain
special grants and payments, which I shall describe in the next section, as well as $17.8 million
for sinking funds, $57.5 million for transfer to highway construction account, and $39 million
for application to capital expenditure.
The province's capital expenditure during the current fiscal year totals $215.7 million, an
increase of $43.9 million over that of last year. Of this amount, $164.1 million will be spent
for highways and natural resources and community access roads, while $43.9 million will be
for public works, including the Ontario hospitals, and conservation and developmental projects.
The combined net ordinary and capital expenditure of the government, in the fiscal year
1957-1958, is therefore estimated at $758.3 million, including $75.3 million for sinking funds
and highway construction account.
Three services— education, highways and health— account for two-thirds of our total expen-
diture. Expenditures for education, excluding those for the agricultural and veterinary colleges,
total $142.8 million; the combined ordinary and capital expenditure on highways amounts to
$230 million, while that for health totals $69.1 million.
Among other large spending departments are: welfare, $35.5 million; municipal affairs,
$37.9 million; lands and forests, $20 million; and The Department of the Attorney-General,
$17.6 million.
The net ordinary revenue of the government for the current fiscal year, 1957-1958, is
estimated at $582.1 million, of which the largest sources are corporation income tax, $147
million; gasoline tax, $135 million; motor vehicle licences, $51.5 million; tax rental agreement
for personal income tax, $74.4 million; liquor control board profits and fees, $65.6 million;
succession duties, $30 million, and revenue from timber dues and game and fish licences,
$22.1 million.
Thus, after making provision for sinking funds, transfers to the highway construction
account, and the application of $39 million in current revenue to capital expenditures, our
interim surplus on ordinary account is estimated at $547,000.
Provincial Net Capital Debt
The massive capital construction programme to which we have been committed by the
unprecedented rate of our population and industrial growth, has obliged us to add to our
net capital debt at least in some measure. As I have pointed out, this year, our capital
construction programme totals $215.7 million, yet our net capital debt increase will be held
to $99.6 million.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 403
Thus, we have succeeded in financing, out of current revenues, $116 million of capital
improvements. That is more than half our capital investment in physical assets and continues
our past experience.
In my first three budgets, from 1944 to 1946, we had a surplus on overall account, but
our capital expenditure in those years averaged only $4 million, whereas our capital expenditure
in this current fiscal year is $215.7 million. Next year it is estimated to be $241.7 million.
Thus, our revenue deficiency, in relation to our overall expenditure, stems directly from
the great volume of capital investment we have under way.
Indeed, we have done much better than these figures would indicate, for we have financed
a substantial part of the capital cost of local services, such as new schools and public general
hospitals, and we have done it out of our current revenue.
While our net debt has risen, our provincial production, the personal income of our
people, and our revenue have grown much more rapidly. When I delivered my first budget
address 14 years ago, Ontario's net debt formed 14.4 per cent, of the total personal income
of the people of Ontario. This year it represents only 9.4 per cent. In 1944 it would have
taken over 4 years of the province's revenue to retire the net debt, as against 1.5 year's
revenue now.
It is true that we have not, as have some provinces, reduced our net debt. On the other
hand most provinces have not experienced the same rapid growth with all its incidental
problems. Were it not for this capital programme, which has no parallel in our history, our
revenue-expenditure position would be favourable beyond words.
But so long as we are in this expansion phase, we are committed to a large volume of
capital investment, and this reflects itself in the rise in our net capital debt.
However, taking all factors into consideration and, particularly, the need for a moderate
structure of taxation, our assistance to the municipalities and this huge accretion of physical
assets which is contributing so much to the economic well-being of our people, the increase
in our net debt, judged by all standards, has been very moderate.
Special Grants and Payments
As in previous years, we are providing a number of special grants and payments for
education, health and cultural services. In addition, this year we are asking for a special
appropriation for the relief of unemployment. These measures, I am sure, will receive the
full endorsement of this House.
Prior to last year, we included in this list a number of capital grants to facilitate the
expansion of university facilities. This year, as last, such grants are mainly provided in the
estimates for 1958-1959. Supplementary estimates authorizing special grants to be paid out
before the end of this fiscal year will be introduced as follows:
Education
University of Toronto— for new dental building $ 1,000,000
McMaster University— for engineering building 1,000,000
Royal Ontario Museum— for extension of the arts 100,000
Royal Botanical Gardens— to retire capital indebtedness 92,000
Law Society of Upper Canada— for capital purposes 100,000
Teachers' superannuation fund— special contribution 1,000,000
Health
A special grant of $200 per bed is to be paid to the public hospitals before the end of
this fiscal year to assist them in meeting their capital costs. In addition, it is proposed to
provide a special grant totalling $2 million to assist hospitals which undertake the training
of nurses. Thus, to summarize these and other health grants:
$200 per bed in public general, chronic and convalescent hospitals $ 6,075,000
To assist hospitals in nurses' training 2,000,000
The Banting and Best research fund 20,000
The Ontario Heart Foundation 100,000
Ontario Cancer Institute 600,000
404 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Special unemployment assistance
As recently announced in the House, the government is proposing to make grants to
municipalities of 70 per cent, of the direct labour costs incurred on special work projects. The
amount of $5 million is being placed in the supplementary estimates for this purpose.
Other
A special grant of $35,000 will be paid to St. John's training school for boys.
A special contribution of $1 million will be made to the public service superannuation
fund.
The amount of $1.76 million will be placed in the supplementary estimates for making
advances to, and purchasing the debentures of, the improvement districts of Elliot Lake,
Manitouwadge and Bicroft. These communities are meeting with exceptional developmental
problems, as a result of their rapid population growth, and require special aid at this time
to finance their capital projects.
In total, these special grants and payments amount to $19,882,000.
Human Betterment
Education, health and welfare
To me, education is Ontario's most important and absorbing problem. I make no apologies
for so describing it. Last September 1.2 million pupils were being taught in Ontario's elementary
and secondary schools by nearly 40,000 full-time teachers. Nearly 4,000 school boards directed
the expenditure of over $250 million for current operations, and spent an additional $55 million
for the construction of new schools and other facilities. Our school enrolment has almost
doubled since 1945, and each year the problem grows in magnitude.
For every student we now have in our elementary schools, we will have two in another
15 to 20 years. Requirements for this growth have presented us with our most formidable task.
It involves more than constructing schools. It means educating and recruiting teachers, finding
the money for expansion, evolving a grant structure founded on a just basis of distribution,
and maintaining and strengthening the character and standards of our educational system.
This is the challenge we face now, and which we shall continue to face well into the future.
The province's contribution to education has increased greatly through the years. As
far as grants to local boards of education are concerned, the first major advance occurred in
1945. In that year, the basis of distribution was completely changed, and the total amount of
the grant was tripled— from $8.4 million to $23.4 million.
The governing principle underlying the 1945 plan was that the major portion of pro-
vincial aid should be so distributed that, as nearly as possible, it equalized the burden of
educational costs throughout the province. The new system was not free from defects, but it
was a notable step forward in the direction of equality of opportunity for education to children
in all parts of the province.
In the ensuing years, a number of improvements were adopted. It was also found
necessary to raise ceilings on approved costs, and to provide better aid to school boards faced
with large capital expenditures.
Commencing in 1955, the province paid a supplementary per pupil grant in addition to
its other payments. This amounted to $4 per pupil in 1955, and it was progressively increased
until in 1957 it reached $11 per pupil for elementary schools and $20 to $30 per pupil for
children in continuation, collegiate and vocational schools.
In addition, last year the province raised, from $75 per pupil to $100 per pupil, the
recognized allowance for salaries of elementary school teachers upon which grants were
calculated.
These various revisions represented a realistic effort to improve both the amount and the
equity of the school grants and to ameliorate the especially acute problems of rapidly develop-
ing areas.
• The province recognized, however, that as long as one of the criteria of financial need
was the assessment of property rateable in each municipality by local assessors, there could not
be a just distribution of aid. Despite the increases in grants— doubled in the last 4 years— and
many other improvements, the absence of a common yardstick for municipal assessment created
inequities. Indeed, the province's grants, based as they were partly on local assessment, dis-
couraged any effort at assessment reform.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 405
In most instances, the practice of under-assessing was self-defeating, for one municipality's
gain was at the expense of another. Municipalities which kept their assessments arbitrarily
low tended to forfeit more revenue from industries and business and other property owners
than they gained in the form of provincial grants. In these circumstances, some form of
equalization of assessment on a province-wide basis for grant purposes became imperative.
Three years ago the assessment problem was tackled, but so immense has been the task
that it was not until this year that sufficient information became available to establish a
province- wide operating basis of equalized assessment for grant purposes.
The significance of this development cannot be over-emphasized. Not that we believe
that our system is the last word. We are under no illusion that it is completely accurate, and
that it will not require refinements.
Nevertheless, the system that has been developed has stood the test of experience, and
will provide a far more equitable distribution of school grants than has existed before. With
the marked increase in grants that we are providing in this budget, the adoption of a common
yardstick for municipal assessment cannot be delayed.
Last year, as the first instalment of a 3-year programme of assistance to school boards,
we increased our grants, on an interim basis, by $19 million. This year, in fulfilment of the
second stage of our programme, we are providing for an additional increase of $33 million—
by far the largest increase in the province's history.
The payment of this amount brings to $52 million the additional money the province has
made available to the municipalities for education in these two years alone. It means that in
the coming fiscal year, we will distribute grants of $133 million to the local boards— an
increase of 64 per cent, in 2 years and 100 per cent, in the last 4 years.
The people of Ontario gain from this policy in 3 important ways:
First, as never before, equality of educational opportunity has become a reality. Whether
the child comes from the farm or the city, from a wealthy residential district or a relatively
poor area, he has an opportunity of developing his talents to the fullest extent of his ability.
More diversified courses, better facilities, higher teachers' salaries, a spectacular rise in
enrolment in secondary schools, and a marked and most gratifying propensity for children
to remain in secondary school for a longer period of time— all these have combined to increase
costs and thrust heavy burdens on municipal finances, supported primarily from levies on
real estate.
The province has therefore assumed a much greater proportion of educational costs.
It has adopted a system of grant distribution that enables municipalities and school boards,
lacking adequate resources, to provide educational facilities of a standard comparable with
those of more favourably situated communities— certainly far above the standard that would
otherwise be possible.
Secondly, more generous provincial assistance has made possible a province-wide better-
ment of teachers' salaries, conditions of work and educational facilities.
Thirdly, the new grants system has eased the burden of municipal taxation on residential,
farm and industrial property, and encouraged home-ownership.
An important feature of our new formula is the growth-need factor. The growth-need
factor is an innovation. As far as it is known, no other jurisdiction has embodied it in a
general grants structure.
Its aim, both in principle and practice, is to direct additional assistance to those rapidly
expanding areas that are required to meet sharply increased debt charges and other extra-
ordinary costs. Experience in Ontario shows that the impact of school costs is more serious
in communities of rapid growth than in those of relatively stable populations. This has also
been our experience in other provincial services. The Ontario formula is therefore designed
to provide additional revenue for education in these "growth" municipalities.
In introducing this new grant formula and underwriting a greater share of school costs,
the province has sought to foster standards of education that make the most effective use
of the intellectual resources and potentialities of our people. We are confident that this
objective can be achieved without disturbing the traditional basis upon which our system rests.
Elementary and secondary school education must continue to be a local function; and
where there is local direction and control there must also be local financial responsibility.
All the lessons and experiences of the past underscore the need for local autonomy.
406 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On the other hand, the province recognizes its own responsibility to provide financial
assistance and, therefore, this year is making available this great increase in grants. Next year,
as the third stage of its programme, it will undertake to make additional refinements and
improvements.
The future of our province depends not only on the success achieved in our elementary
and secondary school system, important though that may be. Careful consideration must be
given to the needs of our universities which, over the next 10 to 20 years, will be confronted
with an avalanche of students seeking to harvest the fruits of higher learning.
To assist the universities, the province in the last 6 years alone has paid out a total of
$27.7 million for the construction of new buildings and the acquisition of new equipment. In
this budget provision is being made for an additional $12 million for capital purposes, bringing
the province's total capital grants to universities over a 7-year perod to $39.7 million. With
the payment of an additional $1 million for the new dental college facilities of the University
of Toronto, we will have increased to $5 million the capital funds the province has made avail-
able to accommodate this very pressing need.
A special grant of $2 million will also be provided for the construction of an engineering
building and other facilities at McMaster University. Half of this amount will be paid out
of this year's revenue as a supplementary estimate. All other universities will be provided with
special capital grants.
Provincial grants in support of universities' operating costs will also be increased. They
have been scaled up steadily from $3.2 million 10 years ago to $9.4 million this year, and in
this budget we are increasing them to $11.2 million. Thus, the province's grants to universities
in this budget, both for capital and operating purposes, total $23.2 million.
PROVINCIAL GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES PROVIDED IN 1958
Estimates, fiscal year 1958-1959
University of Toronto
for Ontario College of Education
Queen's University
University of Western Ontario
McMaster LTniversity
University of Ottawa,
for instruction in medicine and sciences
Carleton University „
Assumption University for Essex College
Waterloo College associate faculties
Lakehead College of Arts, Science and Technology
Ontario College of Art
Special grant for archaeological research
Grants for
Maintenance
capital
grants
purposes
Total
($000's)
($000's)
($000's)
6,532
3,000
9,532
645
645
925
1,000
1,925
925
1,000
1,925
650
1,000
1,650
450
1,000
1,450
325
1,000
1,325
200
1,000
1,200
150
1,000
1,150
100
100
175
175
10
10
Supplementary estimates, fiscal year 1957-1958
University of Toronto for new dental building ...
McMaster University for engineering building
Royal Ontario Museum for extension of the arts
Total provincial grants provided in 1958
11,087
10,000
21,087
100
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
100
100
2,000
2,100
11,187
12,000
23,187
In addition to this assistance to universities, the province has provided in the current
fiscal year $430,000 for capital facilities at the Lakehead College of Arts, Science and
Technology. Rapid progress is also being made on the reconstruction and expansion of the
Ryerson Institute of Technology, and in the coming fiscal year $1.5 million will be provided
to further this work.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 407
Our broad educational programme embraces many other forms of assistance. Among
these are bursaries and loans to students. In 1957-1958 provincial and provincial-federal
bursaries were awarded to 2,200 students at a cost of $494,000, of which the province
contributed $394,000.
The bursary system is now being expanded and, in addition, we are establishing a student
aid loan fund of $3 million to make available loans to students who require financial assistance
to continue their studies.
It is estimated that in the coming year as many as 2,000 students may benefit under
this plan. Progress has been made for the construction of facilities for the training of school
teachers. The new teachers' college at Hamilton is now occupied and the teachers' colleges
at New Toronto and London are nearing completion.
Recognizing the invaluable contribution that our public libraries make to our people, an
additional $115,000 is being made available which will raise our total grants for this purpose
to $1.1 million.
Modern education has become an expensive business. Next year our educational bill
will total $177.3 million, excluding the provision for student loans. That is an increase of
$37.4 million over the appropriation last year, and $102 million more than that just 5 years
ago. I think it speaks eloquently of the province's devotion to achieving high standards of
education, and to sharing equitably the burdens of educational costs with the municipalities.
Health
Our health services are continuing to receive most careful study and consideration. The
negotiation of an agreement with the federal government and the creation of an administrative
organization for the introduction of hospital insurance on January 1, 1959, have been
proceeding apace. It is anticipated that an agreement will be signed very shortly.
Under our hospital insurance plan, coverage will be available to all subscribers regardless
of their age, condition of health, disability or occupation. All may join and share in its
benefits. There will be no limitations on the length of stay in hospital and there will be
no cancellable features.
It will, therefore, meet both the requirements of short-term stays in hospitals and the
catastrophic hospital burdens often associated with prolonged illness.
Benefits will be provided in all approved public general, chronic and convalescent hos-
pitals, as well as in mental institutions and tuberculosis sanatoria. Insurance coverage will,
therefore, be available to patients who are mentally ill or suffer from tuberculosis. Recognized
social assistance cases who are unable to pay a premium will be enrolled in the plan and will
be eligible for benefits.
Insurance coverage will be mandatory for employees of all firms having a specified number
of employees, and while, initially, it will not be mandatory for others, every assistance and
encouragement will be given to non-insured employees and self-employed persons to obtain
coverage.
The Ontario hospital insurance programme, therefore, offers advantages to people in every
walk of life. Despite the fact that the benefits will be far more comprehensive than those
available under any existing plan, the premiums will be very moderate, amounting to $2.10
per month per single person and $4.20 per month per family. The family rate will cover all
dependent children up to and including those 18 years of age.
The revenue from premiums will meet only one-third of the estimated cost of the pro-
gramme in 1959, amounting to over $200 million. An additional one-third will be paid from
the general revenues of the province, and the remaining third will be contributed by the
federal government.
In order to ensure administrative economy with respect to indigent patients, a municipal
contribution will be required on a per diem basis for every resident-indigent patient in an
active treatment hospital. In this way, the support of the municipalities is enlisted to insure
that indigents are not kept in hospital at the expense of the hospital insurance fund any longer
than is necessary.
As the municipalities are now required to make a statutory per diem payment on behalf
of such resident-indigent patients, the present practice is simply being continued with this
difference: effective in 1959, the province will pay to each municipality a special unconditional
408 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
grant that will generally compensate them for their payments on behalf of hospitalized
indigents.
Thus, our municipalities will obtain two distinct advantages: they will be relieved of the
payments to meet hospital deficits, and they will receive from the province an additional
unconditional grant which will in general compensate them for the payments they are making
to hospitals for indigents. In effect, the province will be relieving the municipalities of an
expenditure now totalling about $12 million a year.
Hospital insurance is only one phase of the province's many-sided programme to reinforce
Ontario's health services. During the past year, the province paid capital grants on an
additional 1,400 hospital beds and bassinettes. Since the end of World War II, the net
increase in public general accommodation, after allowing for the loss of beds through
obsolescence and other factors, was 13,000, or 80 per cent.
To give further impetus to hospital construction— which has been made necessary by the
growth in our population and the commencement of the Ontario hospital insurance programme
next January— we have this year doubled our capital construction grants to hospitals. The
province's action coincides with that of the federal government.
The following table shows both the old and the new grants that became payable by the
province and the federal government on January 1, 1958:
Province Federal Combined Total
Beds Old Rate New Rate Old Rate New Rate Old Rate New Rate
$CJ tfj tf) o o
Kp O u> u) u)
Active treatment 1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 4,000
Chronic and convalescent .... 2,000 3,000 1,500 2,000 3,500 5,000
Nursery bassinettes 333^ 666^ 333^ 666^ 666^ 1,333H
Nurses' beds 1,000 2,000 500 750 1,500 2,750
Internes' beds 2,000 750 2,750
Tuberculosis beds 2,500 3,000 1,500 2,000 4,000 5,000
For every 300 square feet of
space for emergency and
out-patient services and for
diagnosis and treatment .. 1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 4,000
The expansion in our public general, chronic and convalescent hospitals has been paral-
leled by the increase in the hospitals for the mentally ill. The new Ontario mental hospital in
North Bay was opened in October, 1957, and now offers accommodation for over 750 patients.
Plans are also under way for additional space throughout the province. They include 285
beds at Brockville, 500 beds at Kingston, 150 at Penetanguishene, and 586 at Woodstock.
In addition, the hospital at Thistletown, near Toronto, is being renovated to provide
residential treatment for emotionally disturbed children.
In accordance with the government's policy of making vaccines as freely available as
possible, the government on January 1, 1958, placed the Salk type polio vaccine on the "free
biologicals list." Sufficient supplies are now available to make this possible and we are appro-
priating $250,000 to pay for it.
The Ontario cancer institute, considered to be the largest cancer treatment and research
unit in Canada and one of the finest in the world, is now in operation. An additional $600,000
has been provided in the supplementary estimates of this year for capital expenses.
In addition, funds are being appropriated to operate the cancer institute, as well as 6
treatment centres at Hamilton, London, Windsor, Kingston, Ottawa and Port Arthur, which
possess the "cobalt bomb."
In consequence of these varied health services, expenditures this year, including the supple-
mentary grants to hospitals, will total $69.1 million, an increase of $6.6 million over the
amount disbursed last year. It is anticipated that even a larger amount will be required in the
year commencing on April 1.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 409
Welfare
Notable progress has been made over the past year in extending and improving the
province's welfare system. This has taken several forms.
Coincidental with the federal government's increase in old age assistance payments, the
province raised its maximum allowance in such cases from $40 to $55 per month. This increase
was also extended to blind persons and disabled persons.
In addition, supplementary allowances, the cost of which is shared by the province and
the municipalities, may also be paid up to the maximum of $20 monthly.
Excellent progress has been made in expanding the accommodation in homes for the
aged and other private charitable institutions. Improvements are also being made in respect
to child welfare services.
A new system of nursing and homemakers' services will be brought into operation next
year. Many persons who are at present patients in our hospitals are capable of being treated
in their own homes, providing nursing care is available. Such a programme will be experi-
mental in the beginning, but should it prove successful, as we have every reason to believe
it will, it will produce appreciable economies and savings.
To insure effective operation, the co-operation of the municipalities and organizations,
such as the Victorian Order of Nurses and the St. Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association, will
be required. The services of homemakers will also be made available for those in need.
Programmes of this nature may not only achieve economies but also preserve the therapeutic
benefits of normal family life.
Measures have been adopted to expand the administrative machinery for providing direct
relief to unemployed workers, and also for creating certain types of emergency employment.
Until last December, the province reimbursed the municipalities to the extent of 60 per cent,
of their expenditures on direct relief to unemployable persons.
However, as a result of a new agreement worked out with the federal government,
under which it contributes 50 per cent, of the cost of direct relief to both unemployable and
employable persons, the province, on December 1, 1957, undertook to reimburse the munici-
palities 80 per cent, of their outlays for direct relief.
This new arrangement closes a gap in our welfare programme. It makes it possible to
meet the pressing needs of workers who have either exhausted their unemployment insurance
benefits or have not been eligible to receive them.
On February 14, 1958, the province also introduced an emergency works programme
under which it will reimburse municipalities to the extent of 70 per cent, of their direct
labour costs incurred between February 15 and May 31, 1958, on any approved municipal
project or work undertaken in the municipality.
The approved projects and works include such activities as repairs to sidewalks, streets,
roads and sewers; park and beach clean-up; repair and painting of buildings; renovation of
heating and wiring facilities; and tree planting and trimming.
The programme has been designed to stimulate employment for those who are in need,
but are able to work and are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. It is not
intended to provide funds for any projects or work which would be undertaken in the ordinary
course by a municipality in the period up to May 31, 1958, and therefore the province's
assistance applies only to the amount by which the municipality's expenditure for wages in
the period from February 15 to May 31, 1958 exceeds those expenditures for the same type
of work or project in the corresponding period in 1957.
This precaution has been taken to ensure that the province would not simply be assuming
70 per cent, of the labour costs of a function that would, in the normal course, be performed
by a municipality, but would, in fact, give rise to additional work and employment.
The province's broadening concern for welfare is well illustrated in the increase in its
appropriation in 1958-1959 to $42.8 million— $7.3 million over its estimated expenditure in the
current fiscal year. In fact, welfare, health and education all make heavy demands on our
revenues. In the current fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, our expenditure on these services
will total $247 million.
Next year, with the implementation of the broad programme I have just outlined, our
expenditure will rise by $46 million to the unprecedented total of $293 million. Our appro-
priation for these services which are devoted to what I call "human betterment" is nearly
double what it was 4 years ago.
410 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
A Balanced Programme for Expansion and Development
I do not have to emphasize that our capacity to support high standards of education,
health and welfare is dependent upon the productiveness of our province and nation. We
cannot, therefore, be unmindful of those services and policies that contribute to industrial
development. Ours must be a balanced programme. Without provincial and municipal
services, our communities cannot grow nor can industry expand.
Highways and roads
The importance of highways and municipal thoroughfares to our economic development
needs no elaboration. Our highway system not only is an integral part of our industrial
structure, but underlies our whole social and economic way of life. Last year, motor vehicle
registration increased by 5 per cent, or 90,000 vehicles.
To cope with this mounting traffic, aggravated by the addition of a million vehicles in the
last dozen years, we have undertaken a construction programme that is unprecedented.
During the current fiscal year, the province of Ontario is spending a total of $230 million on
highways and municipal roads, of which $67.2 million is for maintenance and $162.8 million
for capital. These expenditures include $57.7 million payable to the municipalities in
subsidies, of which $35 million is for new construction.
When the municipalities, own share of road expenditure is taken into consideration, the
total expenditure on highways and municipal roads in Ontario in the current fiscal year,
ending March 31, 1958, will have been $288 million. Of this total, $198 million is for
capital purposes.
This highway programme is being continued. Our appropriation next year totals $252.8
million, composed of $73.2 million for maintenance and $179.6 million for capital, including
$61.4 million for municipal subsidies, of which $24 million is for maintenance and $37.4
million for capital construction.
Ontario Hydro
The Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario has also contributed immeasurably to
our development. Today, Ontario Hydro operates 65 hydro-electric and 2 major thermal
generating stations, having a dependable peak capacity of 5.7 million horse power. With the
addition of purchased power, Ontario Hydro has a dependable peak capacity of 6.5 million h.p.
That is a 3-fold increase since the early World War II years.
Each year, additional capacity is being brought into operation to meet Ontario's require-
ments. Last year alone the increase was 391,000 h.p., principally as a result of bringing into
operation two additional units at the Sir Adam Beck generating station. By 1962, it is
expected that the commission's dependable peak capacity will reach 9 million h.p. A major
contribution to this increase will, of course, come from the St. Lawrence power development
that is now over 80 per cent, completed, and from which the first power is expected to be
delivered next August. By the end of 1958, 6 of the 16 units are expected to be in service.
When completed, this project will generate 1.1 million h.p. for Ontario.
Other new generating stations or additions to established plants are planned or under way
at White Dog Falls on the Winnipeg River, Manitou Falls and Caribou Falls on the English
River, Silver Falls on the Kaministiquia River, at the Alexander and Cameron Falls plants on
the Nipigon, at Red Rock on the Mississagi River and at the site of the Abitibi Canyon
generating plant. In addition, work is progressing at the thermal station in Toronto to triple
its size and plans are being prepared for electric power thermal stations at Fort William,
Long Branch, and Hamilton. Simultaneously, research is being undertaken in the development
of nuclear power plants.
The vast programme that Ontario Hydro has had under way has involved a capital
expenditure in the past calendar year of $247 million including $40 million of expenditure on
frequency conversion. To assist the commission's post- World War II development, the
province has either issued its own bonds or guaranteed Ontario Hydro securities to the
extent of $1.3 billion.
Natural resources
Many projects involving the conservation and development of our natural resources are
being carried forward. With the growth in population, not only here but abroad, one cannot
but be optimistic of our economic prospects. This applies equally to agriculture, mining and
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 411
forestry. The favourable natural resource-population ratio we enjoy and the unfolding world
need for our strategic resources present unrivalled opportunities for increasing our productive
power and our living standards. It is always well, however, to bear in mind that the prosperity
of our natural resource industries depends upon the fortunes of our export trade and this
necessitates that our costs, whether they arise from private or public services, should be such
as to keep our price structure internationally competitive.
In the important field of natural resources, the province's policies must be founded upon
both long-term and short-term considerations. Conservation as well as development must be
an objective.
In agriculture, as in other natural resource fields, the province has kept these fundamentals
in mind. Emphasis has been placed upon the adoption of scientific methods. At the Ontario
Agricultural College and the Ontario Veterinary College a large-scale expansion is being
undertaken to modernize and improve teaching and research facilities. During 1958-1959, we
are providing for these colleges and the agricultural schools $6.6 million for maintenance and
$4.1 million for new capital construction, or a total of $10.7 million— far in excess of our
appropriation a few years ago.
Through education, research, field extension work, mechanization and farm marketing
every effort is being made to improve the well-being of this important sector of the Ontario
economy. Since the end of World War II, electric power has been extended to farmers at an
accelerated pace. Including the 28,000 who have been connected for service in the past year,
nearly 300,000 rural customers have been supplied with hydro-electric power since 1945 at a
cost in provincial subsidies of $90 million. It is anticipated that with the plans that are now
being made, 27,000 additional rural customers will this year be connected for electric service
for the first time.
As a result of a change in the regulations governing rural power extensions, the Ontario
Hydro commission will now instal the first two-thirds of a mile of line free to an established
farmer instead of the former limit of one-third of a mile. Several thousand farmers will
benefit from this new policy. Two-thirds of Ontario Hydro's rural customers have been
connected for electrical energy in the last dozen years. So rapid has been the rate of progress
that 94 per cent, of Ontario's farmers now have electric power compared with only 32 per cent,
in 1941.
The decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in January, 1957, removed
doubts about the legality of the farm marketing policy. The sale of 28 crops was accomplished
through 16 collective bargaining plans, while other produce was sold under the provisions
of 3 single sales agency plans. The 1957 tobacco crop is being handled through the new
Flue Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board and Ontario's wheat crop is also to be brought
under the control of Ontario's Farm Marketing Act. Every effort is being made to improve
marketing arrangements.
The province is continuing to make loans to settle young farmers on the land. Under The
Junior Farmers Establishment Loan Act, 562 loans, involving a total of $4.1 million, have been
made in the twelve months ended January 31, 1958. Since the inception of the plan in 1952,
2,629 loans, having an aggregate value of $18.2 million, have been made to young farmers.
These, of course, are capital items, and except for administration, are not included in our
ordinary expenditures which next year for all purposes will total $14.1 million, an increase of
$1.3 million over this year's expenditure.
In forestry and mining, our objective is sound management. This involves a many-sided
programme to which only the briefest reference can be made. As part of our policy of develop-
ment and conservation we have undertaken several projects, some in co-operation with the
federal government, to make our resources more accessible, to enhance their value and to
create employment opportunities in the northern regions of the province. One means by
which these objectives are being served is through the construction of new access and inter-
community connecting roads.
For our next fiscal year we are again providing an appropriation of $1 million for access
roads into mining and logging areas and one of $800,000 for forest management roads. Forest
regeneration is being expanded and every encouragement is being given to private operators
to undertake similar programmes. The appropriation for The Department of Mines is being
increased from $2.6 million to slightly over $2.7 million, while that of The Department of
Lands and Forests is being increased by $5.5 million, from $20 million to $25.5 million.
412 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Many flood control and storage dams and remedial works are being carried out. Nineteen
conservation authorities are now established in the province, including two new authorities,,
one on Junction Creek and the other in the North Grey region. Nearly 300 municipalities are
taking part in the valuable work done by these groups. The Conestogo Dam on the Grand
River is now virtually completed. Work on a number of other smaller projects has also been
advanced or completed with the result that the total expenditure during the year on such
projects was $4.9 million. During the coming year, the completion of a larger volume of
work is anticipated, for which an appropriation of $7 million is being provided.
Provincial parks
Few policies of the province are, in the long run, likely to prove more rewarding than
the establishment of provincial parks under the policy introduced by this government two
years ago. A St. Lawrence parks system is being created which will extend from the Bay of
Quinte to the Ontario- Quebec boundary. Among the parks acquired are the Sibbald Point
Park at Lake Simcoe and the Pinery, a 4,000-acre tract on Lake Huron. Negotiations are also
proceeding which are expected to result in the addition of over 20 other parks which will
raise the total number of parks under provincial operation to 115. To advance this parks
policy, we are placing $5.8 million in our estimates for capital purposes.
Provincial assistance for water and sewage works
Through the Ontario water resources commission, which was established in 1956, contracts
have been let to a value of $9.1 million as of December 31, 1957, to build sewage and water
systems in certain communities.
At present 3 commission-built water supply systems are in operation at Port Perry,
Sunderland and Havelock, while others are under construction in 5 other communities, namely,
Bancroft, Harrow, Richmond Hill, Dresden and the town of Essex. Water test drilling is
proceeding at Winchester and in Markham township. The commission has sewage projects
under way at Toronto township, Stratford, Streetsville, Trenton and Richmond Hill. Agree-
ments have also been executed with 6 municipalities in the county of Essex for integrating a
water pipe line system from Lake Erie.
In addition, a number of other projects, involving an additional cost of $6 million, are
nearing the agreement-signing stage. These involve sewage and water facilities for Frankford;
sewage plants for Brantford and Tillsonburg; water for Alfred; sewage for Korah township; and
an integrated sewage system for North Bay and the townships of Widdifield and West Ferris.
Housing
In contrast to the recent downward trend in some lines of activity, the volume of housing
construction, spurred by easier credit conditions, additional public funds and lower down
payments, moved into high gear. The result was that despite the slow beginning, the number
of housing starts at the close of the year was only 2 per cent, less than that at the end of 1956.
The sharp upturn in housing activity from September on augurs well for 1958.
As in past years, we are participating with the federal and municipal governments in
various serviced land assembly and other housing projects. During the past year, Ottawa,
Windsor, Sudbury and London entered into serviced land assembly schemes. Thus, by the
end of 1957, there were 59 land assembly schemes and 44 housing projects in operation across
the province. Thirty-five new projects of both types were undertaken in the past year— more
than in any previous year.
The assembly phase of Scarborough's Malvern project, covering 1,663 acres, has been
virtually completed, while another 600 acres in Etobicoke is under study for development, all
assembly having been completed. In many communities, the serviced land provided under
the tri-level government programme is the only suitable property available for large-scale
residential construction.
Many units in both the Lawrence Heights and Regent Park South housing projects have
already been completed and are now occupied by tenants. When fully completed, these twc
rental housing undertakings alone will provide 2,000 new dwelling units in the Metropolis
area.
A start on the 105-unit addition to the Regent Park South project has been advanced to
February from the original starting date which was to be next autumn. While the project will
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 413
also provide a substantial addition to the new housing supply ahead of schedule, it also affords
on-site jobs for some 200 workers.
The amount of $5.8 million is being placed in the Estimates in 1958-1959 for the
province's varied housing activities.
Provincial Assistance to Municipalities
I come now to a subject of unsurpassed importance. I refer to the measures taken by the
province to assist the municipalities in carrying out their local services. The same forces of
growth and expansion which have imposed such heavy burdens upon the province weigh with
equal severity upon the municipalities, who, with their long history of experience and intimate
knowledge of local conditions can alone provide efficiently a range of public services that are
indispensable to our people. Recognizing their administrative advantages in many fields, we
have sought not to take over their services but, on the contrary, to strengthen and invigorate
them.
In recent years, we have increased our financial assistance to municipalities, school boards
and other local agencies many times, and this budget provides for another increase— an increase
that is without parallel, an increase that exceeds last year's appropriations by $45.3 million
and that raises the level of our assistance to a record of $260.1 million. Given legislative
approval of this budget, we shall pay to the municipalities and other local agencies over 40
per cent, of next year's revenue. That is a striking fact. It means that the money we make
available to them out of our revenue is equal to over half the total municipal tax levy in this
province.
We, therefore, have in operation today a partnership system that is very much different
from that of a decade and a half ago. As we have said elsewhere, virtually all the revenue
that we receive from the 3 major direct tax fields— namely, corporation and personal income
taxes and succession duties— is transferred to the municipalities.
By far the largest increase in our assistance this year goes to local education. This budget
provides for payments to boards of education totalling $133 million, an increase of $33 million
over those last year.
Recognizing that the municipalities are confronted with pressing needs for improvements
to their thoroughfares, we have endeavoured to match their needs with grants. In this fiscal
year ending March 31, 1958, we will have paid out $57.7 million in municipal road subsidies
and we are proposing to raise that amount next year to a total of $61.4 million.
We are anticipating that the unconditional per capita grants— first introduced in 1954 and
greatly advanced last year— will amount to $21.6 million this coming fiscal year. These have
been increased by 70 per cent, or by $9 million in the last two years. Mining municipalities,
in addition to sharing in the general grants distribution, will receive next year special grants
of $3.5 million, an increase of $1.1 million.
Provincial assistance under various welfare schemes is being extended. Last year, the
municipal share of direct relief cost was reduced from 50 to 40 per cent., and recently,
as a result of a satisfactory arrangement with the new government in Ottawa, we have been
able to cut the municipal share of direct relief costs to 20 per cent.
Payments for unemployment relief are, of course, no substitute for work and wages.
For this reason, we have devised, in co-operation with the municipalities, a plan to provide
immediate employment for those able to work who are in the greatest need. We have under-
taken to reimburse the municipalities to the extent of 70 per cent, of their direct labour cost
which they incur between February 15 and May 31, 1958, on special projects or works. As
the plan is designed to create additional work and give immediate employment in lieu of direct
relief, the province's contribution will apply only to those projects which would not normally
be undertaken by the municipalities during these months. The province's assistance will
therefore apply only to the amount by which the municipalities' expenditure for wages in the
period from mid-February to the end of May, 1958, exceeds those expenditures for the same
type of work or project in the corresponding period of 1957. To finance this programme, which
is open to all municipalities, the province will introduce a Supplementary Estimate of $5 million.
The province's share of medical costs for persons on unemployment relief has been raised
by one-third— from 60 to 80 per cent, and we have also assumed 80 per cent, of the total cost
of tuberculosis after-care, formerly wholly borne by the municipalities.
414 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We have also increased our maintenance contribution to municipally-operated homes for
the aged and undertaken as well to meet 75 per cent, of the deficits of charitable institutions
providing accommodation for the aged.
In many other ways, the province has fostered the development of community services.
It has set up the Ontario water resources commission to undertake on behalf of the muni-
cipalities the construction and operation of water and sewage facilities. It has also established
the Ontario municipal improvement corporation which, since its inception in 1950 has
purchased $43.6 million of debentures of nearly 150 municipalities. In this manner, funds
have been made available to municipalities that either were unable to borrow at all or could
not borrow on satisfactory terms.
Need for Provincial Revenue
While we are gratified by the additional revenue we are receiving from the interim
adjustment in our tax sharing arrangements with the federal government, it is apparent that
if we are to meet our heavy obligations and responsibilities we must obtain still additional
sources of revenue. The demands which our growth and development impose for highways,
thoroughfares, schools, hospitals and a host of other things seem almost insatiable. We are
faced with pressures not only to expand our own services, but to give financial assistance to
our municipalities far beyond anything heretofore imagined. Our need for revenue is revealed
no more clearly than in the rise of $99.6 million in our net debt this year. Next year, con-
fronted as we are with a massive capital investment programme, it will no doubt be higher.
We could quickly resolve our deficiency of revenue on overall account by radically paring
our capital expenditures. However, as long as we are in this expansive phase and there is a
pressing need for provincial and municipal services as well as opportunities for work and
wages, such a course would not, I am confident, command the serious consideration of any
hon. member of this Legislature.
It has been estimated that over the next 20 years the province and our municipalities
will require not less than $11 billion of new capital works and projects. The figures may not
be exact in detail, but no one will question the magnitude of the task which is before us.
Consider our growth in population, the remarkable increase in the number of births in this
province and the rising tide of young people who will soon be entering our elementary schools
and then moving up to the secondary grades and on to university. Visualize the many other
demands that this mounting avalanche of young people will make for other services. The
question is not whether we are faced with a continuation of this staggering capital programme;
the only question is where the money is coming from. The money, of course, in the end has to
come from taxes and they should be progressive taxes directly related to the developmental
projects which we are fostering and servicing. These developmental projects and works
produce employment, wages and general benefits for our people. Thus, it is from progressive
taxes, geared to these projects, that our revenue should come.
A large proportion of the income generated by the capital works we are undertaking will
accrue to the federal government in individual and corporation taxes, sales tax and customs
and excise taxes. Because the federal government occupies by far the largest share of the direct
fields of taxation, their revenues respond to and reflect the expansion and development of this
province. Their soundest course is, therefore, to share equitably with the provinces the major
direct sources of taxation. The revenues thus made available to the provinces and devoted to
sustaining a high rate of development will create new freshets of federal revenue and multiply
the returns to them many times.
Ontario has made it plain that the province's share of the main direct tax fields should not
be less than 15 per cent, of the federal personal income tax, 15 percentage points of corporation
income and 50 per cent, of federal succession duty collections in each province. We believe
this to be the minimum. Our revenues should come from our development. We should not be
forced into the untenable position of supporting expansion by regressive types of taxation.
I have said that Ontario needs $100 million in direct taxation. The recent federal-provincial
adjustment in individual income tax has benefited us to the extent of $22 million annually.
Our revenue needs determine our goal, which is 15, 15 and 50.
No New Taxation
Despite the huge capital construction programme which we have under way and its effect
on our overall revenue-expenditure position, I am very pleased to announce to the House that
there will be no new taxes or increases in rates. On the contrary, I am happy to state that
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 415
through a change we have effected in our method of allocating corporation profits between the
provinces, we have succeeded in avoiding any question of duplicate taxation arising from the
two different systems of profit allocation that are in use in this country. An amendment to
The Corporations Tax Act, 1957, will be introduced that has the effect of confirming regulations
made under the Act since the last session. These regulations remove any possibility of any
corporation that carries on business in Ontario as well as elsewhere having to pay tax to
Ontario on any part of its income that is also taxable in another province. Complementary
regulations have been made under The Income Tax Act (Canada). These latter regulations
allocate the corporate income amongst the provinces of Canada in exactly the same proportions
as apply under the Ontario Act.
Elsewhere, I have referred to the need for an adjustment in our tax sharing arrangements
with the federal government that will make available to this province additional revenues
which arise from our production and development. The first meeting of the federal-provincial
conference held last year demonstrated the fruitful results that can be achieved in this field
in an atmosphere of understanding and co-operation. We are very hopeful that with a
continuation of these good relations a workable solution will be effected, enabling all levels
of government to proceed with the challenging tasks which lie ahead.
Federal-Provincial Relations
Since we last met, a new federal-provincial conference has been convened. The first
meeting of this conference, a preliminary one, was held on November 25 and 26. The
attitude of the federal government was cordial and receptive, and from that preliminary
meeting already have come several measures that are of benefit to this province and its people.
No other federal-provincial conference has produced such quick results.
Of benefit to Ontario— particularly at this time— is the change effected in the method of
sharing the cost of unemployment relief assistance. The former Canadian government was
willing to share the cost of relief for employable persons, that is above .45 per cent, of the
provincial population, but it was not prepared to contribute towards the cost of relief for
unemployable persons. Ontario properly maintained that if the province was to assume half
the cost of relief to employable persons— those above this "threshold", which authorities have
agreed is primarily a federal responsibility— the federal government should bear half the cost
of relief for those below it. In the circumstances, Ontario refrained from signing an agreement.
Happily, at the November meeting of the federal-provincial conference, this "threshold" was
removed and Ontario has now entered into an agreement which provides for equal sharing of
all relief costs.
Three advantages devolve from this agreement: first, it establishes an orderly system for
providing direct relief to indigent employables; second, it eliminates the arbitrary and invidious
distinction between unemployables and employables; and third, the province has reduced the
municipal share of relief costs from the former rate of 40 per cent, to 20 per cent.
Another achievement of the November conference relates to hospital insurance. Hon.
members will recall that the federal Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act contained
a provision governing the time of commencement of the federal government's contribution.
In effect, the Act provided that the federal government would not contribute until at least 6
provinces containing at least half the population of Canada had entered into agreements and
had Acts in force. This condition made it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to make plans
and enter into all the commitments necessary to bringing the Ontario programme into operation
on January 1, 1959. The uncertainty of whether or not there would be 6 provincial hospital
insurance plans in effect and entitled to federal contributions was an unnecessary inhibition to
progress. The government of Canada has now given assurance that this restriction will be
removed. An agreement will shortly be signed, and the Ontario hospital services commission
is now able to proceed with the strengthening of its administrative organization and its arrange-
ments with all persons who wish to enrol in the plan and participate in its benefits.
The federal government's increase in capital grants for hospital construction, which
became effective January 1 of this year, is also an illustration of the understanding and
co-operation that have pervaded these discussions. We have recognized for some time that
with the rise in construction costs, these capital grants for hospitals, which the province
pioneered in 1947, left proportionately too heavy a burden on the local hospital boards and
municipalities. We therefore made representations to the federal government that their grant
should be increased and that if they could entertain this proposal favourably, we would
increase our capital grants accordingly. Thus, upon the announcement of the federal
416 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government that, effective January 1, 1958, their grants would be approximately doubled,
we took similar action.
Still another advance in the field of federal-provincial relations is the amendment to the
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, which increases from 10 to 13 per cent, the standard rate of
individual income tax. Hon. members will recall that prior to this amendment, the best
arrangement that we could obtain was a formula which provided for a standard rental rate or
tax abatement of 10 per cent, of federal income tax, 9 percentage points of corporation income
and 50 per cent, of succession duty collections in each province. In the light of Ontario's
rapidly growing needs, we could not accept these rates as an equitable or realistic basis of
tax sharing. We submitted that the standard rates should be increased to 15-15-50, capable
of yielding this province $100 million more revenue annually. These rates remain our objective.
But meanwhile, we have obtained this interim adjustment in the form of an increase from 10
to 13 per cent, of the federal personal income tax collections in the province, which under our
rental agreement, will yield an additional $22 million in the coming fiscal year 1958-1959.
In passing, it may however be noted that as a result of the reduction of the federal
individual income tax rates which came into effect last January, the new standard rate, which
is adjusted in accordance with any change in federal individual income tax rates, exemptions,
or deductions will become something over 14 per cent. This increase in the standard rate
does not yield the province any additional revenue, but it does protect the province against
the decline in its rental payment which would in the normal case result from the reduction
in federal income tax rates effected at the beginning of this year. By tying the standard rate
of tax abatement to the federal income tax rates of 1956, we have safeguarded the province
against a loss in revenue in our next fiscal year of over $7 million.
It might also be pointed out that virtually all the revenue we obtain from the three major
direct tax fields, namely, corporation and individual income taxes and succession duties, is paid
over to the municipalities, the school boards and other local agencies. While next year, our
revenue from these three sources will be somewhat higher by reason of the increase in the
standard rate of individual income tax, all this revenue and more will be paid over to the
municipalities and local school boards. The municipalities have, in fact, been the principal
beneficiaries from the fruitful results that we have achieved recently in our federal-provincial
negotiations.
Forecast of Revenue and Expenditure for 1958-1959
We are budgeting for increased expenditures next year on both ordinary and capital
accounts. Net ordinary expenditure of $598.9 million— including $17.9 million for sinking
funds, $20 million for highway construction account, and $23 million to be applied against
capital expenditures— is forecast for 1958-1959.
This will be an increase of $70 million over the current year's expenditure after excluding,
in both years, the appropriations for highway construction account and the amount to be
applied against capital expenditure. The largest increases occur in education, $34.6 million;
health and welfare, $11.2 million; and highway maintenance, $6 million.
In the coming fiscal year our major spending departments on ordinary account will be:
education, $177.3 million; highways (for maintenance purposes including municipal road
maintenance subsidies), $73.2 million; health, $73 million; welfare, $42.8 million and muni-
cipal affairs, $27.6 million.
An expanded capital investment programme is expected to require $241.7 million in 1958-
1959— $26 million more than in 1957-1958. Appropriations for highways and roads, including
municipal subsidies, will be increased to $179.6 million— $17 million more than a year ago,
while those for public works and buildings, including new hospital construction, will amount
to $51.1 million. We have also provided $4.2 million for conservation.
In total, it is estimated that our combined net ordinary and net capital expenditure
(including $17.9 million for sinking funds and $20 million for highway construction account)
will amount to $817.6 million in 1958-1959.
Obviously, in appraising our sources of revenue, consideration must be given to our
economic prospects. The effects of the decline in corporation profits, which commenced in
the third quarter of 1956, are reflected not only in the reduction in our revenues from cor-
porate sources this year, but also next year. One bright spot is the additional $22 million
which it is anticipated Ontario will obtain under its personal income tax rental agreement with
the federal government.
FEBRUARY 26, 1958 417
Taking this additional revenue into account, we are forecasting a total net ordinary
revenue in 1958-1959 of $599.2 million. This is an increase of $17.1 million over our estimated
ordinary revenues in 1957-1958.
The principal revenues forecast for 1958-1959 are: corporation taxes, $147 million;
rental of individual income tax, $87 million; gasoline and diesel fuel taxes, $145 million;
motor vehicle licenses, $53 million; liquor control board profits, $65 million. The forecast
of revenue and expenditure is shown in detail on pages A12 and A 13.
Conclusion
Mr. Speaker, the coming year will bring its problems, but I am confident that they
will not be unmanageable. It is true that in some lines of activity we have more productive
capacity than is needed to satisfy demand. But this pause in the upward momentum of
demand is temporary.
As I have said, the North American market alone is growing by 3.5 million persons
a year, and that of the world at large by many more. There is an ever-widening search for
higher living standards.
In this province and nation we have great resources, productive capacity and skilled
management and labour. The world has need of them all. We cannot, of course, force our
customers to buy our products. Nor can we be content to sit back and wait for time to
provide solutions.
In our dynamic economy there are bound to be dislocations which give rise to unem-
ployment and loss of income. We cannot avoid them. They are inescapable aspects of life.
But there are many things we can do. We can, and must, improve our productive efficiency.
We can try for those measures and methods that will improve and not impair our com-
petitive cost position. There will be additional time and opportunity for research, aimed at
product improvement and lower costs. Let us use them.
Together, government, business and labour can push ahead with new ventures and projects
which will ensure that while some industries are contracting, others are expanding. In this
way the utilization of our resources can be maximized.
To achieve this, let us accept the fact that adjustments and therefore adaptability are
essential. Let us learn to live with them. Let us keep in mind that our interests are indivisible,
and that the indispensable ingredient of success in maintaining a sustained rate of economic
growth is the preservation of public confidence.
This does not mean burying our heads in the sand. It does not mean we can dispense
with sound financial and economic planning. It simply means that fear and anxiety can sap
our strength and undermine our well-being. There are many strong forces in our economy
that favour a continuation of our vigorous growth. Our united policy should be to encourage
those forces.
Three years ago, when I delivered my last budget, I said that I believed we were on
the threshold of great things. I pointed out that we had increased living standards by a sub-
stantial margin, that we had strengthened personal and family security, and that there was no
reason why we should not in the next dozen years surpass those achievements.
The necessary conditions that I laid down then for the achievement of those objects are
still applicable. Let me remind hon. members of them.
First, I said, it would be necessary to maintain an economic environment that fosters
confidence, that is both friendly to new ideas and adaptable, and that encourages industrial
expansion and preserves the right of earning and retaining just rewards.
And then, bringing the government's sector into focus, I said, secondly, that we should
exercise common sense and recognize that if we wish more public services, we must be
prepared to pay for them.
Thirdly, I held that we must maintain public confidence in our securities and keep oui
credit standing bright and clean.
Fourthly, I was convinced that while undertaking the great development work that
would increase the efficiency and productivity of our workers and our industry, we should
keep our taxes as low as possible.
Those were my views at that time; they are still my conviction. If we follow this course
and work in unison with our trading partners, I am confident that we can achieve those
higher living standards and make the fruits of our progress available in an ever-widening
circle.
No. 19
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, February 27, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
.o'V
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 27, 195S
Third report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Maloney 421;
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 421
Came and Fisheries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Mapledoram, first reading.: '. 421
Ontario School Trustees' Council Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 424
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 424
Anatomy Act, bill to amend, reported ,.:.. 432!
Beaches and River Beds Act, bill to repeal, reported 432
Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, reported 432
County Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 432
General Sessions Act, bill to amend, reported 432
Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, bill to amend, reported 432
Interpretation Act, bill to amend, reported 432
Separate school board of the town of Lindsay, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling,
second reading 432
Huron College, bill respecting, Mr. W. A. Stewart, second reading 432
Township of Grantham, bill respecting, Mr. Kerr, second reading 432
Township of London, bill respecting, Mr. W. A. Stewart, second reading 432
Township of Chinguacousy, bill respecting, Mr. W. J. Stewart, second reading 433
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 433
Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada, bill respecting, Mr. Edwards,
second reading 433
Sudbury Young Women's Christian Association, bill to incorporate, Mr. Monaghan,
second reading 433
Queen's University at Kingston, bill respecting, Mr. W. J. Stewart, second reading 433
Ontario Dietetic Association, bill respecting, Mr. Rowntree, second reading 433
Township of Teck, bill respecting, Mr. Herbert, second reading 433
City of Belleville, bill respecting, Mr. Sandercock, second reading 433
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Sutton,
Mr. Daley, Mr. Rowntree 433
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 446
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to... 446
: . .
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
'4&L
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney,
from the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's third report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 7, An Act respecting the city of
Waterloo.
Bill No. 12, An Act respecting the Royal
Victoria Hospital of Barrie.
Bill No. 23, An Act respecting the Lake-
shore district board of education.
Bill No. 38, An Act respecting the village
of Long Branch.
Your committee also begs to report the
following bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. 16, An Act respecting Waterloo
College associate faculties.
Bill No. 18, An Act respecting the town
of Thorold.
Bill No. 19, An Act respecting the city of
London.
Bill No. 24
of education
York.
An Act respecting the board
for the township of North
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. L. M. Frost moves, seconded by hon.
Mr. Dunbar, that, notwithstanding any appli-
cation which rules 8, 9 and 14 may have to
this motion, any hon. Minister of the Crown,
in presenting his estimates to the House, may
occupy a seat in the front row of the House,
and may have two members of his staff
seated in front of or adjacent to him, to
supply the information required by the hon.
Minister.
He said: Before you put the motion, Mr.
Speaker, may I say that it is not my inten-
Thursday, February 27, 1958
tion to call any estimates till at least next
Wednesday, and that this motion might be
put in the" rules of the House rather than
having it necessary to pass it each year. The
procedure has been the custom in the past,
and I think a very good one.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
Annual report of the commissioner of the
Ontario provincial police, from January 1,
1957, to December 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome to the assembly this
afternoon a group of students from school
section No. 9 Esquesing township, in Halton
county; students from Trans Lake Club from
Northern Technical Commercial School, To-
ronto, and the United Nations Club from J.
W. Sexton High School, Lansing, Michigan.
We also have teachers from the Toronto
Teachers' College and a large group of
teachers from my own constituency (Dufferin-
Simcoe) and that of Mr. Root of Wellington-
Dufferin, and we welcome these groups who
are here today to view the proceedings of the
House.
Introduction of bills.
THE GAME AND FISHERIES ACT
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Game
and Fisheries Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in section 1, the
privilege given to farmers to hunt or trap fur-
bearing animals other than beavers on their
own lands is being extended to include beaver.
Section 2, subsection 13, in the Act now
prohibits the possession of any game by any
hotel or public eating place except on the
authority of a licence. The section as re-
enacted would permit the possession in such
places, without a licence, of pheasants which
have been procured from a person who is
licenced to propagate or sell pheasants.
In section 3, these provisions which relate
to the licencing of tourist outfitters are deleted,
422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as they are being dealt with under The Tourist
Establishment Amendment Act, 1958.
Section 4: a present requirement that non-
resident hunters must be accompanied by a
licenced guide is removed, except in the case
of the district of Rainy River.
Section 5: the purpose of this amendment is
to bring non-residents within the prohibition
respecting firearms.
Section 6, subsection 1: the fees for the
4 types of fur dealers licences are reduced
from $25, $100, $200 and $200 to $5, $25,
$50 and $50 respectively.
Subsection 2, relating to the fees for tourist
outfitters, is deleted. Hon. members can see
the note to section 3 of the bill.
Section 7: provision is made for the shoot-
ing of muskrat or beaver on terms and con-
ditions.
Section 8: provision is made for permitting
the placing of traps within 5 feet of a beaver
house during the open season for beaver. The
present Act prohibits this practice.
Section 9: the reference to bull moose is
obsolete and there are now open seasons for
all moose.
Section 10: the species of fish known as
flake is added to the species of game fish
enumerated.
Section 11: the subsection is amended by
replacing the word "designated" with the
word "used" in order to clarify the intent.
Section 12, subsection 1: the new clause
authorizes the making of regulations providing
for and establishing a programme to promote
the safe handling of firearms by hunters.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I
wish to take this opportunity to make a state-
ment of interest not only to the hon. members
of this House, but also to the people of the
province.
The Department of Transport, in the course
of its continuing supervision of the examining
and licencing of drivers throughout the prov-
ince, has discovered certain irregularities in
the obtaining of drivers' licences.
The office of the department requested the
Ontario provincial police and the Metro-
politan Toronto police force to conduct an
investigation.
As a result, charges have been laid against
an appointed driver examiner. The driver
examiner involved is not an employee of the
department, but rather an agent appointed
to conduct drivers' tests pursuant to The
Highway Traffic Act. The investigation is
continuing, and the department will be pre-
pared to examine those persons who have
been granted licences by this examiner dur-
ing the period of irregularities.
Fortunately, the plans of the department
had already been completed for driver exam-
ination by civil servants in the area affected,
and are presently being carried out.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I would like to
direct a question to the hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Daley), concerning an article
in the Hamilton Spectator of Tuesday, Feb-
ruary 25 which says:
Might As Well Abolish the Office, Say
Bricklayers of Labour Minister.
Hamilton's 450 - member bricklayers'
union has told Prime Minister Frost that the
office of the Ontario Minister of Labour
might well be abolished. The union, en-
raged since last fall at names it was called
in connection with an arbitration report,
has complained to the Prime Minister that
it has been put off with childish subterfuge
by the Minister's office, in trying to get
an investigation. Says the union: "It is the
general attitude of the PC party towards
labour that results in our receiving such
shoddy treatment from the party's Minis-
ter of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the prominence
given this particular article, and the headlines,
it is quite conceivable that many people
might interpret the statement to be 100 per
cent, accurate.
Speaking as a Progressive-Conservative
member for Hamilton, frankly I know this
is not the case, it certainly is not the govern-
ment's policy towards labour.
As a matter of fact, I feel that in many
cases it is continually amending and passing
legislation to strengthen the hand of the
labour movement in Ontario.
However, since the bricklayers' union has
made a complaint formally and through the
newspapers to the public, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister if the union, in his
opinion, is justified in asking for an investiga-
tion.
If there has been a delay, what is the
reason for it?
Thirdly, if an investigation is necessary,
when will it be completed?
Hon. C. Daley: (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, that is quite a question.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): He is going to
abolish himself.
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
423
Mr. MacDonald: Self-extermination.
Hon. Mr. Daley: I would say, at the outset,
in answering the question of the hon. member
that The Labour Relations Act, and amend-
ments which have been adopted year after
year by this government, have done more for
the construction trades, and given them greater
ability to negotiate, than they ever enjoyed
before, and they are the people who appreci-
ate it. This union evidently does not, but
that is a fact.
This is a dispute between the bricklayers
and the Canadian porcelain ceramic workers.
It is strictly jurisdictional— a dispute as to
which union is going to lay certain materials.
It is a very difficult problem.
Their complaint about me was that the
ceramic workers, I believe, appeared before
the select labour committee and made certain
representations. At least, it is claimed they
said certain things derogatory to the brick-
layers, and the bricklayers did not like it.
Now, I do not know whether or not they
want me to hold their hands and let them
cry on my shoulder, but I am not here for
that purpose. It is a jurisdictional dispute,
and a question that I feel should be settled
between the two unions.
For instance, a building that formerly was
sheeted with wood siding now, because of
new materials and new developments, might
be sheeted with metal siding. Therefore, the
carpenters claim it because they once sheeted
it with wood; the tinsmiths claim it because
it is sheeted now with metal, and who can
decide questions of that nature? Solomon
in his heyday would not have been able to
answer that question satisfactorily.
Mr. Whicher: He had some pretty good
days.
Hon. Mr. Daley: He could not have decided
it satisfactorily during the best day he ever
had. I do not think it is my job to try to
decide it.
I think it is a matter of common sense for
these unions to get together, to decide who is
to use the new materials.
To the hon. member, I cannot say that I
can answer his question. There are difficulties
in this problem but it is not one for The
Department of Labour to rule on. Somewhere,
it has been said that I had called the brick-
layers some names. I never called them any
names, but right now I can think of some.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Before
the orders of the day, I would like to address
a question to the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Griesinger).
Employees of The Department of Public
Works are supposed to received their pay on
the tenth and the twenty-fifth of the month.
Actually, employees do not receive this pay
for 2 or 3 days after those dates, resulting
in great inconvenience and hardship to the
families of the workers involved.
Protests have been made, all to no avail,
and now apparently, in the Mimico area, the
foreman on the job has told the men that
if their protests continue, the men will lose
their jobs.
Will the hon. Minister give the House
assurance that pay cheques will reach the
men on the day they are supposed to, and
further, that an immediate halt will be called
to the threat of firing the employees if they
insist on trying to get their rights?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, the tone of
that speech is highly objectionable. How does
the hon. member know that there is truth in
the statement that any threats were directed
at all?
Mr. MacDonald: I have asked a question.
Perhaps the hon. Minister could reply to it
without all these interruptions. I have had
assurance by the workers involved that this
threat has been made to them by the fore-
man on the job.
Mr. Maloney: The hon. member's assur-
ances are inaccurate.
Hon. W. Griesinger (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, during recent months,
the working staff of The Department of
Public Works, particularly in the Metro area,
has been built up from approximately 300 to
over 750 skilled union employees in order
to alleviate, to some extent, the unemploy-
ment situation that is with us.
True, there has been some delay in getting
the pay cheques to some of these men because
these jobs are spread over 7 or 8 different
projects. Our staff which, to some extent,
is a bit short handed, made every effort
to get these pay cheques out, and when
we take into consideration the necessity of
having these cheques audited by the audit
department, and also passed by the treasury
department, some delay has been caused.
I do not agree with the hon. member for
York South, that there has been any hardship
caused, only some inconvenience. We can
hope that, in the future, this staff will prob-
ably be built up to 1,500.
Now, as to his second question. No com-
plaints have reached us about anybody being
threatened with losing their jobs.
424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: I have just registered it.
Mr. Maloney: He is registering nothing.
Mr. MacDonald: That is good.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I know the hon. mem-
ber is registering it. But the complaints of
these men have not come to the senior officials
of The Department of Public Works, and I
am sure if there were any they would come
to us. But I will give assurance to the
hon. member that we certainly have no inten-
tion of firing any of our men for complaints
like that if they do reach us.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I desire to mention to the House a
matter of great public importance. It was
drawn to my attention today that the Univer-
sity of Toronto undergraduate paper, the
Varsity, had published a special edition, and
there seemed to be some consternation, in
university circles, that this issue of the paper
would be offensive to the government and
to myself.
Now I hasten to make plain that such is
not the case. I have the edition here. It is a
very lurid edition of the Varsity, but I may
say that it was written before the budget was
delivered yesterday. It is what is known as a
"gag" edition of the Varsity. It is like another
great newspaper which we have published
around here once a year, called the Gas Jet.
Now, far from being offended, may I say
that I have asked that the editor of this news-
paper who bears the great Irish name of
Michael Cassidy, whom I have never had the
opportunity of meeting, should be invited to
the annual dinner for the press, given by the
government on March 10. I would very much
like to meet Mr. Cassidy, a gentleman who is
so original.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
THE ONTARIO SCHOOL TRUSTEES'
COUNCIL ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 47, An
Act to amend The Ontario School Trustees'
Council Act, 1953.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 47 reported.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 48, An
Act to amend The Department of Education
Act, 1954.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman, the
hon. Minister gave the House very little in-
formation about the way this legislation would
be applied and would work out in detail. I
noticed that, when the bill was in the educa-
tion committee, he discussed it at considerably
greater length than was done in the House
at the time of second reading. Because some
hon. members were not on that committee and
had not the privilege of hearing him, I
wonder if he could not give us the benefit
of the further information that he evidently
gave to the committee, when it was sitting.
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Educa-
tion ) : Mr. Chairman, as I said to the com-
mittee and to the House, this bill provides
the mechanics for operating the student aid
loan fund and, as the hon. members will
have learned from the budget yesterday, the
capital amount set aside for this purpose is
$3 million.
Now it is proposed that these loans be
made by a committee in The Department of
Education, a committee that has been han-
dling the bursaries for many years, and that
the bursaries may probably be used— of course,
the amount for bursaries may be larger, and
likely will be— to assist students in the early
years, the first and second years of a univer-
sity course, or a year in a teachers' college,
or a year at Osgoode Hall, or at the college
of art.
It is proposed that the loans will be used
for the second, third and fourth years, or
in any case for the later years in whatever
college or university these people may attend.
Then there is the matter of interest, which
will have to be very carefully worked out
because there already are loans that are given
to, for example, the junior farmers that bear
an interest of 4 per cent., and that is something
which we wish to discuss, and decide whether
there should be no interest, nominal interest,
or no interest until after the student has
graduated and gone to work, or whatever
may seem to be best. Now if the hon. mem-
ber for Brant has any questions, I will be
glad to do my best to answer them.
Mr. Nixon: I am particularly interested in
this report. From what the hon. Minister
said in the education committee, some per-
son such as a parent or someone outside of
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
425
the family must guarantee repayment. Is
that the policy with respect to these loans?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think we must have
some guarantee. Now, shall we simply say
to a student: "Here is your money, we are
not even asking you to promise to pay it
back?" That is going to undermine the
moral fabric of a nation, is it not? If we
are going to teach young people to borrow
money and make no provision at all for
repayment, I think there is something wrong.
Mr. Nixon: Surely the hon. Minister will
ask the student to pay it back.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: If he is under 21?
Mr. Nixon: He will be over 21 some day,
surely.
Mr. Maloney: A man cannot enter into a
contract if he is under 21.
Mr. Nixon: But, as a parent who has had
some experience in paving the way for
students to go to university, I would object
most strenuously to signing a note that would
be hanging over my head for years to come
without knowing how it is to be paid back.
And I cannot see that this government is
doing anything for the student if it is going
to compel someone to sign a note guarantee-
ing its repayment.
I thought the student, after he graduated
and was in receipt of a good salary, would be
responsible for paying it back.
If I were to sign the note guaranteeing
repayment of $4,000 or $5,000, why the first
thing I would have to do would certainly
be to insure the life of the person whom
I am guaranteeing.
But the province as a whole might accept
this risk, which would not be serious over a
great number, but could be extremely serious
with one individual guaranteeing the payment
of 4 or 5 children who were going through
university.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Does the hon. member
not think we should have some sort of secur-
ity? Something?
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
like the hon. member for Brant, I am certainly
interested in this question, and I do not think
it is at all fair that the parents or anyone else
should guarantee the payment of this amount
by the student. Surely education is not just
for the benefit of the student in this case, it is
of benefit to the whole province and to the
country as a whole. I believe that the prov-
ince in this instance should accept the respon-
sibility.
I daresay that, in 98 per cent, of the cases,
the province will be paid back, but it is a
debt which would be hanging over the father
or whoever the guarantor might be for at
least a period of 4 or 5 years, and will cer-
tainly hold back the borrowings of the father,
or that guarantor, if he is in business or if
owns a farm, or whatever his circumstances
might be.
In other words, if he is a farmer, he is
really mortgaging his farm for that amount
of money, and I do not think it is at all fair.
In regard to the same bill, Mr. Chairman, I
suggest, when the hon. Minister is presenting
this to the House, that he should be able to
tell us what is the amount of interest that
the student is going to have to pay and what
qualifications are required.
Is he going to have to get 60 per cent,
marks to qualify for a loan, how much is the
interest, and when is he going to have to pay
it back? Is he going to have to start paying
back a year after he graduates, or what is
the situation?
I do not feel the hon. Minister has given
the House a very clear indication of just what
this bill is all about.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Mr.
Chairman, it occurs to me that the hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition, in their remarks con-
cerning this bill, are of the opinion that we
should not provide loans for students. Other-
wise, how do they propose that these loans
should be repaid unless people who are
legally capable of guaranteeing the repay-
ment of the loans are made parties to the
loans?
I have spoken to the people in my county,
many of whom are most anxious that their
children should go on to university. They
are not in a position to provide the money
for that educational benefit that their children
desire, but they are certainly most anxious to
guarantee any government loan which will
benefit their children.
It also occurs to me that the hon. members
of the Opposition are also peculiarly bereft
of the knowledge of the law, which provides
that people under 21 years of age cannot enter
into a valid contract. That is something I
am sure the hon. member for Bruce has over-
looked. I would certainly think that, in view
of the great necessity for our children— who
are the greatest asset that our province has—
to go on to higher degrees of learning, that
the hon. members of the Opposition will pro-
vide some alternative way to see that these
loans are repaid, if they are not to be guaran-
teed by older members of the family.
426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, we certainly
have an alternative. We want to have the
loans for these prospective university students,
and we suggest that the province accept the
responsibility and finance these students
through university, and that they form some
kind of a contract. Even though it may not
be legal, at least it will be a moral contract.
I strongly suggest that certainly more than
the average student, I suggest 95 per cent,
or 98 per cent, of the students would be only
too pleased to repay their loans to the prov-
ince of Ontario, at a reasonable rate of
interest. But in this bill the hon. Minister has
not even said what the interest is going to be.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I would
like to clear up a few matters for the hon.
members opposite.
This provision is a subsection which enables
the department to prescribe rules and regula-
tions relative to loans which, yesterday, were
set up in the order of some $3 million to assist
students.
The hon. member for Renfrew South put
his finger on the question. The point is this,
that a child— because that is the way the
law treats a person under 21 years of age— is
not able to enter into a legal contract, and the
difficulty is, of course, to get around the laws
which are very far-reaching in that regard.
I think this will be the way it will be
arranged, that the loan would have to be
made on the guarantee of someone else during
the student's infancy, otherwise it will not be
a valid contract. But when that person be-
comes 21 years of age, then I think at that
time we will arrange that the student, to whom
the loan has been made, will assume the loan
and release the parent. I think that should
meet the situation entirely, and I would say
that it gets around the legal difficulty and
would put the matter where it should be.
The student himself would repay the loan
in the ordinary course.
In regard to the interest, that has not yet
been determined, but I would think that very
probably, during the period of non-earning,
the interest would be negligible or non-
existent, and that interest would apply after
the student's earning days commence. It will
be something of that sort, but it is a matter
which will have to be given some considera-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Chairman, I want to
answer the question asked by the hon. mem-
ber for Bruce, if I may, about the scholastic
standing of the students.
For bursaries, for years, it has been a
requirement that the student show he has an
average of 66 per cent., on the grade 13
examinations, or whatever it may be. And
that has worked out very well.
But I have the idea that there may be times
when a student has not achieved a standing
like 66 per cent.— perhaps he has received 60
per cent, and it may not have been his fault
or her fault. There may be all sorts of reasons
why that better standing was not achieved.
Therefore, I am hoping that, in connection
with these loans, we may be able to provide
for special cases of that kind even if the stand-
ing is not as much as we would like to have it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, the hon. member for Renfrew
South speaks of the younger generation as
being our greatest asset. I wish he and other
hon. members in the government benches
would have a little more confidence in this
great asset, a little bit more faith in them.
Mr. Maloney: What is the hon. member
talking about?
Mr. MacDonald: What I am talking about
is simply this: Now the hon. member for
Renfrew South need not get so touchy and
"blow his top" on the issue.
Some hon. members: No, no!
Mr. MacDonald: What we have emerging
now, Mr. Chairman, is the lawyers attempt-
ing to ring this fund around with regulations
which I hope we can avoid.
Mr. Maloney: Such nonsense. Such non-
sense.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to get
into an argument— as so often happens in this
House when anyone contrasts what happens
in Saskatchewan and what happens here,
but the fact of the matter is that this kind
of a fund has been in existence since 1950
in Saskatchewan, and therefore we have some
guide as to just how it might operate.
Mr. Maloney: That is why they are leav-
ing Saskatchewan.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
Bruce, for example, says he thinks that 98
per cent, of the students would repay, or
perhaps 90 or 95 per cent, of them would
repay. The hon. member would be interested
to know that, of the 4,000 students in Saskat-
chewan who have received this loan in the
last 6 years, not a single one has yet defaulted
on his payments.
Mr. Maloney: Will they here? Will they
here?
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
427
Mr. MacDonald: All right. Let us have
a little faith in them, and not saddle their
parents with a demand that they provide a
note to underwrite the obligation. Now the
hon. Prime Minister has indicated this is in
the hands of a committee which is going to
work out the regulations, and perhaps it is
well that it is still in the formative stage so
we can express our views.
I want to express these views, (a) that in
the light of the kind of experience where
they have had a fund in operation, there
should be no interest rate, except as a penalty
when the student, after getting out and start-
ing to earn is not repaying it, when he has
the earning capacity to do so.
Mr. Macaulay: In other words, when he is
in default.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, when he
is in default, right. What has been the case
for years in Saskatchewan, where the fund
is in operation, is that there is no interest
charged at all while the student is in the
university. Further, there is no interest charge
after he starts to repay, unless and until he
goes into default. This has happened only in
very, very few instances, and then only for
a few months.
Secondly, for reasons I just spelled out, I
do not think it is necessary that we should
have to saddle the parents, or anybody else,
with the legal requirement that, until the
students reach 21 years of age, the loan must
be guaranteed. The experience where this
has been in operation is that this kind of
guarantee is not needed. These students are
the cream of the crop of the younger genera-
tion who are seeking education. Let us have
a bit more confidence in them instead of
seeking to ring the loan with these legalistic
assurances.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Brewin would be very
interested to hear that.
Mr. MacDonald: Certainly he would. And
if he got the hon. member in court he would
likely lick him on it, too.
Mr. Maloney: Well, I do not know-
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there are
two other points that I want to mention
briefly. The government has put $3 million
into this fund. Now I suppose that is neither
here nor there for the moment, because if we
find that all that money is loaned we can
make another appropriation. But again, on the
experience in the province of Saskatchewan
where they have roughly one-fifth of our
population, and where in 5 or 6 years, some
4,000 or 5,000 students have been given loans,
a fund of $1 million appears to be just meet-
ing the needs. The money is now coming
back as quickly as it is going out, so it is
genuinely a revolving fund. Now if, as the
papers indicate— or I think it was the hon.
Prime Minister in his budget speech yester-
day—that he thought 2,000 students might
be seeking this in Ontario, which is roughly
4 or 5 times the number that were getting
it in the province of Saskatchewan, I think
he may find that the $3 million is not
adequate, unless the loans are going to be
much smaller than they were in the case of
Saskatchewan. However, I am not going to
press this point, because if we find there is
not enough money in the fund 2 or 3 years
from now, presumably the government would
consider a further appropriation.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: There is some money
left in the old sock yet.
Mr. Maloney: This government will two or
three years from now, of course we will.
Certainly we will, two or three years from
now.
Mr. MacDonald: The sun comes up like
thunder from Renfrew South.
Mr. Child: At least, it is bright.
Mr. Maloney: It is the thunder that pre-
dicts the future of the CCF party.
Mr. MacDonald: The wind comes from
there too, obviously.
Mr. Chairman, one final point: I spoke to
the hon. Minister about this yesterday, and
conceivably he has not yet had time to find
the answer.
Representatives of the executive of the
physical therapists' organization have drawn
to my attention that this group have not
been able to get money under the bursary
committee, up until now. They wish to know
why.
The hon. Minister was quite as surprised
as I was, because physical therapy is a
3-year course following senior matriculation,
and it is within the university structure, and
therefore I cannot conceive of any reason
why they have not been able to get bursaries
up to now, and if they have been barred,
why they cannot get bursaries in the future.
But in any case, I see no reason why
they should not be able to draw on these
loans and, if this is the case, I hope this
can be clarified, so they will be brought
into the eligible group.
428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, may we have any assurance
from the hon. Minister that loans will not
be denied for any security reasons, that is,
what about a family that is not a good risk?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That will not enter
into it.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Every family is a good
risk.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, no, but the hon.
Minister is talking very technically—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Every family is a good
risk.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In other words, the
student will not be excluded for this reason.
But what about the limitation of the amount
of the loan?
Is there any limitation, or is it going to be
the same as bursaries?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I should think it would
be more, but the problem will be how much
a youngster needs. Perhaps he has some
money, perhaps he has made some during the
summer.
There was one young medical student, when
I was working across the ravine, who went
up to northern Ontario each summer and
ran one of those big machines on railway
construction and came back each summer
with $1,700. Now he did not need any loan.
Perhaps, under certain circumstances there
might be somebody come back with $1,200
and he would only need $300 to carry him
through. Another one, who had been ill in
the summer, might not earn anything at all.
He might need $1,000. We want to provide
for everything.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Have we the hon. Mini-
ster's assurance that a sufficient amount will
be given in the way of a loan to satisfy the
normal demands of a student?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Oh yes, what is needed
will be provided.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It will be the most gen-
erous plan in Canada.
Mr. Maloney: What is needed will be pro-
vided.
Mr. MacDonald: We have a fund of Tory
knowledge here.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, there are two points that seem
to me to stick out in reference to this bill,
and someone has said that it is a vague bill-
it is indeed a skeleton. The filling-in will be
done by the hon. Minister of Education and
his staff. Some day I hope we get around in
this Legislature to spelling out legislation a
little more when a bill is introduced into the
House, rather than leaving altogether too
much in many instances to regulation and to
order-in-council.
Now the two points of course have been
mentioned and I want to emphasize them.
In the first place, it is proposed that a loan
should be guaranteed by the parent or by
someone else. Now I quite definitely disagree
with either the advisability on the one hand
or the necessity on the other. It has been
done, as my hon. friend for York South em-
phasized, in another jurisdiction without a
guarantee. Now, what others can do surely
we do.
The other point that seems to stand out is
this; we are going to lose only by default
on the part of one student or two, or up to
8 or 9 out of 100— a very small percentage.
Yet we are going to ask parents to guarantee
across the board, we are going to say to the
90 or 95 who will pay: "You also have to go
through this formality of having the loan
guaranteed." It seems to me that we are
being just a little bit too fearful of what
might accrue.
I think these students will pay the loans
back. I think the province will be taking
no risk at all, and if it is taking a risk, it
is one they should take and not put onto
the shoulders of the parent or some other
person.
Now the other matter has to do with the
interest rate. We do not know in the House
this afternoon what the interest rate will be.
Now that is one thing that the hon. Minis-
ter should spell out, for the House. He
should be prepared, when this bill is going
through, to say what the interest rate will be.
I can understand that the loans will vary
from student to student, but surely this
House is entitled to know, when we are
discussing this bill, what the interest rate
will be. Is it going to be a 4 per cent,
interest rate? Is there going to be a 3 per
cent, or a 2 per cent rate, or is there not
going to be any?
This province can well afford to under-
write the students of this province, I suggest,
without an interest application on these loans.
I think the hon. Minister, should tell the
House what the interest rate will be, and
I think also we should have an undertaking,
on the part of the government, that we will
not ask parents to guarantee these loans.
Surely we can get away from what I think
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
429
is going back rather than forward to insist any other country for instance, or any other
upon such a provision. province?
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Chair-
man, I just want to say a word in regard
to the matter. I do not think the hon. Min-
ister of Education has to go to Saskatche-
wan to find any precedents. If he will only
go over to the campus of the University of
Toronto, he will see— I believe that the stu-
dent administrative council operates a loan
fund there. At least regardless of—
Mr. MacDonald: It would be a provincial
government loan fund.
Mr. Yaremko: Regardless of whether or
not it is provincial, it is a loan fund which
has operated very successfully. I happened
to have borrowed money from the fund 3
years running, back in the 1930's; I bor-
rowed in May and repaid in September.
I forget now what the rules and regula-
tions of the loan fimd were, but they were
very fair and worked out very well. I think
the hon. Minister can very well look into
that scheme and see how it worked.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I did repay
every dollar that I ever borrowed. As a
matter of fact, I was so much impressed by
this type of thing, and the hon. member
from Brant will appreciate this, that I have
never hesitated, in the past 4 years, to go as
a guarantor on a loan for a student.
It is quite easy to say that we should make
these loans without guarantee, but then on
the other hand it is the money of the people
of the province of Ontario— it is the money of
the little people of the province, and surely
the province should not be called upon to put
confidence in one student if that particular
student cannot get at least one private
citizen to endorse his note for him, regard-
less of whither it be the lather, other parent,
or the guardian of the student.
He must surely, in the course of his life,
at the age of 18, have corns into contact with
at least one person who would have enough
confidence in the student to also go on
record for the benefit of the people of the
province of Ontario.
However, I do suggest that the rules, when
they are made, be as flexible as possible to
meet each and every situation, that is, if
there is an orphan who has no one, he should
not suffer because of this.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): I should like
to ask the hon. Minister a question. Will a
student be able to get the aid if he wants to
further his education out of the province, in
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I should think that he
might very well be able to if he were attend-
ing an educational institution in Canada, but
I would be doubtful about letting him have
it to take a course outside of our own
country.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister another question? Surely
the rule here is that, if the course is not
available—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Every course is avail-
able in Canada.
Mr. MacDonald: There are particular
courses for which people must go to the
United States because such courses are not
available in Canada. Surely the hon. Minis-
ter would not bar them.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: But I say that all courses
are available in Canada. It is the peoples'
money we will be using.
Mr. Wintermeyer: What about post
graduate work?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Post graduate work is
also available in Canada.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Does the
hon. Minister intend the residence rule to
apply too? Is the applicant for a loan to be
in the province of Ontario a certain length
of time, one year, two years, three years—
or what?
Mr. Macaulay: The whole province of
Saskatchewan is moving here anyhow.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I had not thought of
any residence rule. I suppose there would
be— suppose, let us say, a boy came from
the state of New York and wrote examina-
tions here. There would be nothing to pre-
vent him from participating as far as I can
see.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Surely the hon. Minis-
ter must have some thinking on this par-
ticular subject of—
Mr. Macaulay: The hon. member himself
had better start thinking.
Mr. Winteymeyer: —residence and scholar-
ships, at least the requirements to take courses
beyond jurisdiction.
I well remember a year ago we debated
this, I think somebody brought in a motion,
we had it amended two or three times, at
which time the hon. Minister undertook to
investigate the whole problem.
430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the intervening 12 months little or noth-
ing has been done. It seems the government
is under an obligation to demonstrate some
real leadership, I think all of us came to
the conclusion that the government was in-
vestigating this problem in the intervening
12 months, and now today we find that little
or no preparatory work has been done, ex-
cept to arbitrarily set aside $5 million or
$3 million, yes, I had hoped at one time that
it would be in the neighbourhood of $10
million—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Why does he not make
it $15 million?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Did the hon. member
for Waterloo North, a couple of weeks ago,
ask whether this loan fund would be as
much as $400,000?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, Mr. Chairman, I
was talking then about bursaries, and I asked
if it would be more than what is being
allowed for bursaries. Now last year the
bursary expenditure was in the neighbour-
hood of $400,000 and at that time would be
in excess of $400,000. Surely today, Mr.
Minister, the government must come in with
some practical plan other than the mere
skeleton suggestion that it will allot $3
million.
What about interest, what about guaran-
tees, what about residence, what about all
these things? These are things that obviously
have to be settled.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: We have just answered
all except the interest, have we not?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would think my hon.
friends opposite, including my hon. friend
from Waterloo North, are getting themselves
into a state of mental uncertainty and are
very upset about what we intend to do.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, no.
Mr. MacDonald: They are looking in a
mirror.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But I would say that yes-
terday the great sum of $3 million was placed
in the budget. If that is not sufficient, I can
assure hon. members that it will be made
sufficient.
Now, what we propose to do, is to bring
in the university presidents of the 8 universi-
ties of Ontario. A number of them have
funds that they have been administering and
looking after. We propose to bring in the
trustees of the Matthew trust, which is very
well run, up in the great district of Rainy
River, the fund that my hon. friend from
Bellwoods mentioned, and I can assure my
friends opposite that our plan, when it is in
effect, will be one of the most generous and
encompassing plans to be devised out of the
many plans that there are in Ontario.
Mr. Wintermeyer: There is certainly a
great deal of uncertainty in regard to this
bill, and I would say this, that if the hon.
Prime Minister intends to call all those people
in, and they are going to work out what the
different regulations are going to be, what the
interest is going to be, what the amount of
the loans are going to be, then we are going
to be in session for some time. Let him call
those people in and hold this bill over.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member will see
how brief it will be.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, there is no reason
why we cannot, we are not going to be put
out of the House tomorrow, there is no reason
why he could not hold it over. Let it go back
to committee and let the committee discuss
it again, and let us have another look at it.
This is reasonable. I am not voting against
the bill, I am just asking that it be delayed.
Mr. Macaulay: As usual the Opposition
wants to delay.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We are delaying for a
purpose.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, 12 months ago
in this assembly, the hon. member for York
South introduced a motion that was amended,
and the amended motion was acceptable to
the government. Now that was 12 months ago,
surely the government has done something
about it during the 12 months, or have they
done nothing?
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I am the
guarantor for 3 loans for boys who are going
to university. If my hon. friends of the
Opposition would prefer that these young
men and women should not receive the benefit
that is being offered by this bill, I would sug-
gest to the hon. Prime Minister that a vote
should be called upon this bill right now. Let
them rise and be counted.
My hon. friend from Waterloo North has
had the benefit of an undergraduate course at
one of the universities in the United States.
I do not suppose anybody had to guarantee
the loan that might have been necessary for
his course over there, but I say to the hon.
Minister of Education, as I said in my address
when I was speaking on the Throne debate,
that if for no other reason than providing for
these loans that might be made to young men
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
431
and women who want to go on to university,
he will be known as one of the greatest
Ministers of Education this province has ever
known.
Surely these men to my left, surely they
will now rise and say: "Let us get on with
this bill and see to it that these boys and girls
are given the opportunity to have the educa-
tion we want them to have." If they want us
to stay behind the other nations of the
world-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Maloney: The hon. member wants
us to stay still further behind. I say to the
hon. Minister, let him go on with his bill
and we will all be behind him.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member for Renfrew South is suggesting that
I want to delay this, he is absolutely wrong.
We, to his left, certainly are behind the bill,
we are behind loaning, but we want to know
under what interest rate the student is going
to obtain the loan. We want to know the
maximum amount of the loan, and we are
just asking that it be delayed until those
particular points are cleared up. They can
be cleared up before the House prorogues.
There is lots of time, I think, for this bill to
go back to committee so we can have an-
other look at it and bring in the particular
objections we had to it.
Mr. Oliver: The remarks of the hon.
Prime Minister interested me, as they always
do, and they indicate rather clearly that
what investigational work is required is yet
to be done. He has indicated that he is
going to call these bodies in and they are
going to have a conference and are going to
decide on this and that and the other thing.
Now that, I think, was work that should
have been done long ago, and I think it
is proper to suggest that this bill be delayed.
We are not opposed to the bill in the way
that my hon. friend from Renfrew South
suggests. All we want are fuller opportunities
for the students of this province, and we
want to know that this government is not
going to put an interest rate on the loans
that will be oppressive. We want to know
that they are not going to ask guarantees
that will be binding and will tie people down
for years and years.
I suggest honestly to this House this after-
noon, and to the hon. Prime Minister— and
I think he will perhaps agree somewhat with
it— that this is the kind of legislation that
certainly should be made more clear to us.
At least we should know what the interest
rate is going to be.
There is no rhyme nor reason why the hon.
Minister of Education should expect us to
pass legislation dealing with the granting of
loans in which the interest rate is not set out
in the bill. Why not? He must surely know
what it is going to be by now, and the legis-
lators are entitled to know what it is going
to be.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
leader of the Opposition that if he has any
doubts about the generosity of this govern-
ment in dealing with people, let him just
look at the way our people have dealt with
old age pensioners as compared with his.
That is all he needs to do.
Mr. MacDonald: Superannuated teachers,
that came in yesterday.
Mr. Nixon: If you cannot argue, then you
are through.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Chair-
man, I have listened with a great deal of
interest to the protests from my right. I think
possibly the main thing about this bill is
that there is $3 million set aside for a purpose
which is necessary and real. I think this talk
of free money, this talk of nobody backing
the student is all a lot of nonsense. There
is no hon. member in this House who did
not have to have backing at one time, and
I do not think many of us reneged on pay-
ment or we would not be in the position
that we are today as far as education is
concerned.
It has always been said that if young
people want an education badly enough they
can get it. That has been proved, and I
think our hon. friends are very unfair in
their judgment of our hon. Minister of Edu-
cation and his department, when it comes to
dealing with these loans.
After all, it is public money. There is
interest charged on junior farmer loans, and
there is every right that there should be a
nominal interest, and that the money should
be repaid.
There should be some guarantee that, when
this education is received, the benefit of that
education is expended in Canada and not in
other places. Those are things of broader
vision which I think we should keep in mind,
and I am highly in accord with the bill, and
I think that if we take an honest look at
this thing, some of the things that have been
said might better have been left unsaid.
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River): I have
wondered why there should be so much con-
troversy over the details of a bill, when
432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
throughout this province we have educational
funds, set up by individuals, that have been
in operation for the last 10 years. These
have given the opportunity for higher educa-
tion to our boys and girls, in my own riding,
at an interest rate of 1 per cent., and I can
assure the hon. members that there is a
security element to it, guaranteed by the
parents.
I want to tell hon. members that, during
the time of operation, there has not been
$1 that has not been paid back by the
students. I feel that the controversy which
has existed today is unnecessary, because
the $3 million is before us and it is there
to be used, and I know that any plan that
is set up will be worth it.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 48 reported.
THE ANATOMY ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 50, An
Act to amend The Anatomy Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 50 reported.
THE BEACHES AND RIVER BEDS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 51, An
Act to repeal The Beaches and River Beds
Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 51 reported.
THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 52, An
Act to amend The Conditional Sales Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 52 reported.
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 53, An
Act to amend Ths County Courts Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 53 reported.
THE GENERAL SESSIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 54, An Act
to amend The General Sessions Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 54 reported.
THE DESERTED WIVES' AND
CHILDREN'S MAINTENANCE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 55, An Act
to amend The Deserted Wives' and Children's
Maintenance Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 55 reported.
THE INTERPRETATION ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 56, An Act
to amend The Interpretation Act.
Sections 1 to 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 56 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
rise and report certain bills without amend-
ment.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and begs leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF LINDSAY
Mr. A. H. Cowling moves second reading
of Bill No. 2, "An Act respecting the separate
school board of the town of Lindsay."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
HURON COLLEGE
Mr. W. A. Stewart (Middlesex North)
moves second reading of Bill No. 4, "An Act
respecting Huron College."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF GRANTHAM
Mr. D. M. Kerr moves second reading of
Bill No. 6, "An Act respecting the township
of Grantham."
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
TOWNSHIP OF LONDON
Mr. W. A. Stewart moves second reading of
Bill No. 8, "An Act respecting the township
of London."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
433
TOWNSHIP OF CHINGUACOUSY
Mr. W. J. Stewart (Parkdale) moves second
reading of Bill No. 14, "An Act respecting the
township of Chinguacousy."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF BELLEVILLE
Mr. W. Sandercock moves second reading
of Bill No. 31, "An Act respecting the city
of Belleville."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY
Mr. Cowling moves second reading of Bill
No. 15, "An Act respecting the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
STRATFORD SHAKESPEAREAN
FESTIVAL FOUNDATION
OF CANADA
Mr. J. F. Edwards moves second reading
of Bill No. 5, "An Act respecting the Shake-
spearean Festival Foundation of Canada."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SUDBURY YOUNG WOMEN'S
CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
Mr. G. J. Monaghan moves second reading
of Bill No. 10, "An Act to incorporate Sud-
bury Young Women's Christian Association."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AT KINGSTON
Mr. W. J. Stewart moves second reading of
bill No. 17, "An Act respecting Queen's Uni-
versity at Kingston."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ONTARIO DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. H. L. Rowntree moves second reading
of Bill No. 20, "An Act respecting the On-
tario Dietetic Association."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF TECK
Mr. A. R. Herbert moves second reading of
Bill No. 21, "An Act respecting the town-
ship of Teck."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. E. Sutton (York-Scarborough): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in the Throne
debate, I too wish to congratulate you on
the fair and impartial manner in which you
conduct the business of this House.
I wish also to congratulate the hon. num-
ber for Peel ( Mr. Kennedy ) for his most
excellent speech. After his 50 years in public
life, it was a rare privilege indeed to hear
him reminisce. We all share his pride in his
6 wonderful grandsons who were in the gal-
lery on that particular day. Many of us have
grandchildren, I have 6 myself, and we are
much more indulgent grandparents than we
were parents.
May I also say of the hon. mover's address
that we all share his great love for Her
Gracious Majesty, Our Queen.
I wish also to congratulate my seat mate,
the hon. member for Glengarry ( Mr. Guin-
don) on the excellent job he did on second-
ing the address. He hardly had time to get
his feet under his desk when he was handed
that important assignment. We shall hear a
great deal more from him in the future.
We have heard much during this session,
Mr. Speaker, about money and credit, and I
would like to take a few moments to speak
about our central bank.
The Bank of Canada is patterned alter the
Bank of England, the central bank that has
stood the test of time. All of the stock of
the Bank of Canada is owned by the
Dominion of Canada, and the directors of the
bank are elected by the government of the
day.
There must not be any political interfer-
ence with the day-to-day operation of the
central bank, but of necessity the broad over-
all policies of the bank would have to be set
by the government in power. They are the
elected representatives of the psople, and
would have to take the full responsibility for
the action of the Bank of Canada.
We had a Liberal government at Ottawa
when money was made tight and interest rates
increased. Tight money was applied indiscrim-
inately across the whole of Canada and caused
the present recession. What we have today
434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is recognized as a "Grit depression." They
made money tight to check expansion, and
they certainly have succeeded.
There are 5 ways in which the Bank of
Canada controls money and credit: First, they
do this by raising or lowering the primary
bank reserve requirements, which are Bank
of Canada notes or cash. These are currently
8 per cent, of the deposit liabilities, and were
raised from 5 per cent.
Secondly, by raising or lowering the secon-
dary reserve set at 7 per cent, of the deposit
liabilities and consisting of treasury bills and
day-to-day loans.
Thirdly, by increasing or decreasing the re-
discount rate currently based on the treasury
bill average rate plus .25 per cent.
Each week on Thursday, the Bank of
Canada auctions 100, 115 or 125 millions
of 91-day discount treasury bills, when a high,
low and average price is reported. If we take
the average bill rate and add .25 per cent.,
we have the rediscount rate for the next week.
The rediscount rate is the rate paid by the
chartered banks when they borrow from the
central bank.
Since June 10, this rate has fluctuated from
a high of 4.06 per cent, last August, to last
week's rate of 3.28 per cent. So we can see
that hon. Donald Fleming (Minister of Fin-
ance and Receiver-General) has reduced inter-
est rates by .75 per cent.
The rediscount rate more or less sets the
other interest charges applying and the prim-
ary. Because of this drop in the rediscount
rates, the primary has come down from 6
per cent, to 5.25 per cent., and insurance
companies have dropped their mortgage rates
from about 7 per cent, to 6.25 per cent.
Fourthly, by the open market operation
of the Bank of Canada. The central bank
can sell Dominion of Canada bonds, deliver
the bonds, and take cash away from the com-
mercial banks making credit tighter, or it
can buy bonds in the open market, taking
bonds out of the commercial banking system,
giving cash in return and loosening credit.
Fifthly, moral suasion, and this in my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, is probably more im-
portant than the other 4 methods.
The officers of the chartered banks are
called down to Ottawa by the Bank of Can-
ada officials and told of a major change in
policy— for example, they were told under
the Liberal regime that a runaway inflationary
boom was more to be feared than any pos-
sible depression, and that money would have
to be made tighter and interest rates would
have to be increased.
They were told to go back home and call
in all their branch managers, and to instruct
them to call in as many of their outstanding
loans as possible, and not to make any new
loans unless of the most urgent kind.
So hon. members and I go to our branch
manager, whom we have known for many
years and with whom we have been on very
friendly terms, and we try to borrow $10,000,
let us say, for some sound project.
But, even with our note and 100 per
cent, government bonds as collateral, we are
told that this is just the type of loan his
head office is trying to discourage. I might
say any type of loan would have received
the same treatment just prior to June 10
of last year.
Let us get very academic for a moment,
and examine what does take place when the
chartered bank makes us a loan— that loan
I just referred to, of $10,000. A credit of
$10,000 out of the present deposits of the
bank is placed in our account and let us say
10 per cent, instead of 15 per cent., to
simplify it, is placed in the reserve.
Therefore, $1,000 is placed in the reserve
of the Bank of Canada, leaving $9,000 to loan
to the next borrower.
Of this amount, $900 more is added to the
reserve, leaving $8,100 to loan to someone
else, when $810 would be set aside as re-
serve on the next loan. And so on and on.
The credit is created, and interest is
earned by the bank, on all these new credits
set up for their customers.
In actual practice, probably this does not
happen with our chartered banks, because
even our chartered banks are conservative and
loans are kept to approximately 65 per cent,
of deposits.
Back in 1934, a Mr. C. H. Douglas in Lon-
don, England, an economic dreamer, came up
with a few new theories about banking, credits
and money— and this creation of new credit
fascinated him.
All the old-time economists like Adam
Smith had only 3 factors of production— land,
labour and capital— and to these he added 2
of his own, cultural heritage or social dividend
and social credit.
Mr. Douglas's thinking was that, in this
machine age, there was abundance for all, and
that after the cost of the machine was paid
off, there was left a surplus or a dividend for
society generally.
The province of Alberta offered itself in
1935 as a subject for the Douglas economic
experiment. William Aberhart accepted
office as Premier, and his party won 56 of the
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
435
63 seats in the Legislature. Every member of
the Aberhart Cabinet and of the victorious
party was a newcomer to the Legislature.
The programme of the party included the
issue of at least $25 of "social dividend" every
month to every natural-born inhabitant. The
essence of the social credit scheme in the
province was a steady and permanent flow of
newly-created money into consumers' purses.
The money was printed and started into cir-
culation.
This step was ultra vires of the province of
Alberta, since only the federal government
has control of issuance of money and credit,
but despite this the money went into circula-
tion. Mr. Aberhart defaulted on outstanding
bonds of the province of Alberta, and the new
currency did not stay in circulation very long.
Mr. Speaker, you have probably seen the
social credit "funny money"— on the back of
the $1 bill were 52 squares where a two-cent
stamp was to be affixed each week. In 52
weeks, the bill was therefore self -liquidated.
Let us say that each Tuesday was the day
set to put on the stamps, and say pay day
was each Friday.
Look what happened. The workman
received his pay envelope and would run off
to pay his landlord first, then tear across the
street to pay his butcher, and then "scad-
addle" over to pay his grocer. The butcher
would run to pay his meat packer, the grocer,
his wholesaler, and from there to the pro-
cessor to the manufacturer the bills would
pass, in a mad rush to get rid of them before
Tuesday when the stamps would have to be
affixed.
The money was rightly called "velocity
dollars," and everybody had his running
shoes on to get rid of the money before the
time came to apply the stamps.
Pretty soon, on Monday night, people
would say: "Do not pay me now, wait until
Wednesday, and you put on the stamps this
week." Then the workman soon refused to
take the money in his pay envelope, saying
that his creditors would not accept the money
in payment of his debts. The social credit
money went phut— p hut.
Then came discoveries of oil and gas in
the province of Alberta. Before that, capital
had been moving out of the province after
the bond default. The oil industry offered to
put up large sums of money in the develop-
ment of oil and gas, provided that the Aber-
hart government would fix up their bond
default, pay all back interest, and interest on
interest, as well as guarantee the safety of
the oil industries' investment. This was done,
and the social credit government in Alberta
became one of the most conservative govern-
ments in Canada. But mark you, it was no
longer social credit. The theory on which this
party was formed was tried out in actual
practice, and the scheme proved impractical.
Therefore, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that
there is no reason whatever that the Social
Credit party should be contesting seats in
this national election. We should return to
the two-party system, the Tories versus Grits.
Now, let us look at the CCF party for a
moment. The Co-operative Commonwealth
Federation was a new political organization
which was brought into existence 3 years
prior to the Aberhart experiment, on August
1, 1932, at Regina, Saskatchewan.
Mr. MacDonald: Calgary, Alberta. The
hon. member is just a little bit inaccurate,
I have to watch this carefully to see how
far we go astray.
Mr. Sutton: I looked it up twice and
there was a little difficulty in getting this
information. I had Calgary, Alberta, and I
was told to change it to Regina, Saskatche-
wan. I had a call made to the hon. mem-
ber's office in Toronto.
Mr. MacDonald: Calgary, 1932, Regina
1932, we agree.
Mr. Sutton: Farm and labour organiza-
tions in the 4 western provinces and Ontario
met to form a Dominion-wide socialist party.
I might say that the United Farmers of On-
tario affiliated themselves with the move-
ment, but saw the light of day and with-
drew after one year's membership. Among
the many ordinary planks in their platform
were the following extraordinary features:
Socialization of the banking, credit and
financial system of the country, together with
the social ownership, development, opera-
tion and control of all utilities and natural
resources. The new party believed in state
ownership and operation of industry and
farms. I had some difficulty here in getting
my facts too.
For some time there was very little pro-
gress made politically. It seems in 1935 the
party was able to get 7 members elected to
the federal government, but the CCF govern-
ment did not come into power in Saskatche-
wan until 1944.
In Saskatchewan they put their scheme into
effect with state-owned industries in boot and
shoe factory, cement factory, lumbering,
woodworking, canning and 4 or 5 others,
all of which have since gone phut, spelt
phut, and folded up.
436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Here again is a political party formed in
the days of the "dirty thirties," when pana-
ceas were being suggested everywhere, the
whole basis of which is not practical, for
Canada.
I submit that the CCF has no right to be
in the federal general election today. The 3
intelligent and brilliant hon. gentlemen sit-
ting opposite should stop wasting their time
battling for a lost cause. They should line up
with one or other of the two major parties,
Grits or Tories, preferably Grits, whose
national leader, hon. Lester Pearson, was
recently given an honorary Indian title,
which translated means "King of the Birds."
I now wish to say a few words about
unemployment. Because of the upheaval of
two world wars, and the Korean war, there
has been, I submit, a delay in the old-
fashioned orthodox economic cycle that used
to recur every 7 years; 3 years up and 3
years down. We have had in Canada, for the
past 12 years, a terrific expansion in capital
expenditures on the part of industry for new
plants, machinery and equipment, so that
now many industries have excess productive
capacity and their products have outstripped
demand.
This is true in the pulp and paper indus-
try, the largest manufacturing industry in
Canada. It is also true of textiles, chemicals,
automobiles, some lines of household appli-
ances, nickel, aluminum and the base metals
of copper, lead and zinc.
Looking back now at the stock market
action, which has the faculty of discounting
future events, one can see that two years ago
in April, 1956, farm implement stocks, news-
print and liquor stocks all topped off, so
having in mind the 3 years to run its course,
it may be easy to predict that industry may
take another 6 months before there is any
great upturn.
But it is not industry alone today that
makes for a boom or recession. In 1957 we
had a great downturn in business the last 6
months, and yet the gross national product
reached a new high.
Governments— federal, provincial and muni-
cipal—made, and will make, tremendous
capital expenditures. The gross national pro-
duct for 1958 is expected to be down by not
much more than 10 per cent, over 1957.
Any slack on the part of industrial capital
expenditure will be taken up by the different
levels of government. For Ontario alone, we
have heard the figures quoted many times.
Over the next 20 years Hydro will spend
for capital account some $3 billion, or $175
million a year.
Education— primary, secondary, and the uni-
versities—over 20 years will need $1.5 billion.
Highways have a 20-year programme of
$3 billion, water resources $2.4 billion. Hos-
pitals, other public buildings and conservation
works will require another $1.25 billion for
Ontario alone.
Such spending will reach some $11.25 bil-
lion in all. Add to this, federal and municipal
capital expenditures, and one cannot become
too pessimistic. We have such a fabulous
future here in Ontario and Canada as a whole
that, over the longer term, things look very
bright indeed.
I wish now to speak very briefly about
the Malvern land assembly in my own riding
of York-Scarborough. Ordinarily, one could
not be opposed to a low-cost housing scheme,
and yet most of the ratepayers of Scarborough
are bitterly opposed, first to the methods used
in acquiring the land, and secondly to the
whole principle of the plan of locating in this
municipality.
Our assessment now is seriously out of
balance, being only 27 per cent, industrial as
against 73 per cent, residential assessment.
The safe percentages, as hon. members all
know, are 40 per cent industrial and 60 per
cent, residential.
Another city of 36,000 people, the size of
Peterborough, in Scarborough at this time is
unthinkable. Unless the federal and provincial
governments put in all the services— the roads,
water, sewers, sidewalks, curbs, lighting and,
most important of all, build all the schools—
our taxes in Scarborough would go sky-high.
If this were done, however, this project
could be considered now in the light of creat-
ing employment immediately.
I would suggest that this government place
this project high on its priority list, that they
build the roads, and put in the services over
the next 2 or 3 years. Before anything on
the housing development is started, let them
give us in Scarborough the time to persuade a
few more industries to locate in our wonderful
township.
Hon. C. Daley (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, as is the custom in participating in
this Throne address, I would like to pay you
my respects, and concur in all the nice things
that have been said about you and about
the way you have conducted the business of
this House. The only thing I am beginning
to get fearful of is that, if these kind of
remarks are continued, unless you are a very
solid citizen, we are liable to have to buy
you a new hat.
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
437
I would also like to pay my compliments
to the hon. mover (Mr. Kennedy) and hon.
seconder of the address (Mr. Guindon). I
enjoyed them very much, especially my old
friend from Peel (Mr. Kennedy). I always
felt very kindly toward the hon. member for
Peel. He was one of the first who welcomed
me when I first came into the portfolio as
Minister of Labour, and with his vast experi-
ence and kindliness he certainly was of great
assistance.
In thinking about him, I began to rem-
inisce a little bit, and I got the idea that the
political situation as it exists today in the
federal field was pretty much the situation
that existed in 1943 in the provincial field.
Hon. members will recall that, at the dis-
solution of the Legislature in 1943, there
were 59 Liberals, 19 Conservatives, and 2
Labour-Progressives. Then came the 1943
election.
The Liberal party of that day, holding
the balance of power in the province, were
very similar to the Liberals prior to the
last June election in the federal field. They
felt they were pretty secure.
A man by the name of Mr. Drew, well
known and well respected, a fine political
man, had different ideas. Realizing that there
was so much that had been left undone over
the years by the Liberals in power in the
province, he came before the people with
the famous 22 points.
I do not think that any question ever re-
ceived the consideration and the discussion
in this House, year after year, as has the
22 points. The Opposition claimed that Mr.
Drew fulfilled very few of them. The Con-
servatives claimed he fulfilled them all.
However, in the 1943 election, to give him
a chance to fulfil them, the Conservatives
were elected by 38 members. The CCF with
34 members gave us quite a scare at that
time, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals returned
15, Labour-Progressive 2 and Independent
Labour 1.
That indicated that the public had the
confidence in Mr. Drew at that time, that
he would fulfil the promises he was making,
and they said so in no uncertain terms at
the polls.
Then I never will forget, and I do not
think anybody who is here will— and I know
you were, Mr. Speaker-the big scene on
the day the government was defeated in this
House.
Hon. Mr. Drew skilfully enginered the
government defeat, because like Rt. hon.
Mr. Diefenbaker at the present time, he
wanted a clear mandate from the people.
If hon. members will recall, the leader of
the CCF party at that time (Mr. Jolliffe),
jumped to his feet and thought that he was
immediately the new Prime Minister of On-
tario, because Ins party was the next in num-
ber. His suggestion received about the same
treatment as that of hon. "Mike" Pearson
recently in the federal House. The CCF
leader demanded that the Progressive-Con-
servative party resign and let them take over
without an election.
Then came the 1945 election, and the Pro-
gressive-Conservatives, having fulfilled these
promises— having gained the confidence of
the people— were returned with 67 members
and the Liberals 11 and the CCF were down
to 8, Liberal-Labour 3 and Labour-Progres-
sive 2. The mighty had certainly fallen at
that time.
Now we come up to 1948. There were
Progressive-Conservatives 53, CCF 21, Lib-
erals 13, Labour-Progressive 2 and Liberal-
Labour 1.
Now, in 1951 we had a new hon. leader
(Mr. Frost) and the public had become
accustomed to the Progressive-Conservative
party fulfilling its promises, increasing them,
and improving the conditions in the country.
Therefore the hon. leader at that time, our
present Prime Minister, did not have to make
a lot of promises. It was not necessary
because he had the faculty, and he has
retained that faculty, in sensing the needs
of the people, what their hopes and their
aspirations are— human betterment, he has
called it.
Actually it is progress, meeting and fore-
seeing the needs of the people in such great
things as education, labour relations, elimina-
tion of discriminatory practices, municipal
assistance, hydro development, security of the
civil servants. So it has never been neces-
sary for our present leader to make promises
at election time.
He might tell somebody that he might
build him a road some place, but he does
not go out and make a lot of promises. He
has never had to.
So, in the 1951 election, the Conservatives
were returned with 79 and the Liberals 7—
still going down— the CCF 2, the Liberal-
Labour 1, and Labour-Progressive 1.
In 1955, there were elected 84 Conserva-
tives, 11 Liberals, and 3 CCF.
It reminds me of that old nursery rhyme:
"Oh where, oh where, have the CCF gone?"
Now, Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker was
confronted with very much the same condi-
438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tions in the federal house as hon. Mr. Drew
was in 1943.
Having sat in there for a great many years,
and having taken a prominent part in the
debate and discussions taking place in the
House, he knew what the conditions were,
and he knew that it would be difficult to
oust the Liberal government that had long
been in power.
But it was obvious to him that there was
much to be done, because this country had,
for 22 years, a government that— I would not
endeavour to say that they had never brought
down good legislation— but they had gradu-
ally become dictatorial, arrogant and if ever
there was a government in this country which
was dictatorial and arrogant, it was that gov-
ernment in the last few years of the Liberal
regime. The needs of the people were entirely
overlooked.
In fact, that government thought it was so
secure that, in answering a question— I do not
have the actual statement, but it credited Rt.
hon. Mr. Howe with saying: "Ah, who is
going to put us out?"
That was the feeling of that government.
They did not think it was possible that they
could be removed from office.
Now Mr. Diefenbaker knew there were
pressing needs. He knew of the desperate
need for assistance in the Maritimes, that the
old age pension that had been increased by a
very small amount by the Liberal party was
insufficient in these times. Why, at that time
I was negotiating an agreement, Mr. Speaker,
with an employer and his employees, and the
original request that I had to meet was for
85 cents an hour, which is $6.80 a day for an
increase, and here the Liberal government
offered these fine old senior citizens of ours
an increase of $6 a month.
Increased money for the provinces was
needed. Mr. Diefenbaker knew that. That is
why he said he would call the federal-provin-
cial conference, and he knew that there would
be changes made. He had to make promises
and he made them, and he was elected.
I will, without going into any further detail
on this score, just paraphrase a saying that
has been used over and over again, that in
the short time that the Conservative govern-
ment was in power in Ottawa, that never
before had a government done so much for
so many people in such a little time.
And I believe the people of Canada of all
political beliefs, today— Liberal, Conservative,
Social Credit, CCF or whatever they are— I
believe the general thinking will be to give
this man, who made such a wonderful start
in such a short time, an opportunity to carry
on. I really believe that. I gather that from
talking with my own constituents, who are
by no means all Conservative.
I have a couple of things that I would like
to draw to the attention of the House for
information, namely, The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act and The Niagara Parks Com-
mission Act.
I introduce these things at this time because
the status of both have changed. The Niagara
parks commission has changed from the posi-
tion of trying to pay its way and retire a
huge debt of many years' standing, to the
position of a revenue producer, while
the compensation board can now be described,
because of its great rehabilitation clinics, as
a money-saver.
The board will certainly not contribute
money to the consolidated revenue fund or
any other government fund, but it is saving
money now for the government because of
these great clinics which house about 500
people, and therefore make it unnecessary
for the government to provide accommoda-
tion for them in public hospitals and so forth.
So I think, while neither of these projects
have ever received a cent from the fund, it
is noteworthy that today the Niagara parks
commission is making contributions to serv-
ices other than its own, and the workmen's
compensation board is saving a great deal of
money for this province.
Concerning the Niagara parks commission,
I want to give you this, Mr. Speaker, just
in the form of information.
I felt the hon. members of this House, a
great many new hon. members, who were
not here in days when many of these things
had probably been brought to the attention
of this House, would be interested.
The Niagara parks commission was estab-
lished in 1885, 73 years ago; there were 3
members on the commission at that time.
Membership increased to 5, then to 8 and
in later years to 11.
The original object was to preserve the
lands in the immediate Falls area for public
use, free and unrestricted. Niagara Park was
the first provincial park in the province.
Now, as to the extent of the park. The
original land acquired was a mere 154 acres,
comprising Queen Victoria Park as we know
it today. Very shortly, the commission was
granted all of the water frontage, the chain
reserve extending from Lake Erie to Lake
Ontario. The park area has been increased
year by year, until we now have approxi-
mately 3,600 acres of land vested in the com-
mission or under lease.
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
439
The parks system consists, in general out-
line, of a comparatively narrow strip along
the river, bulging out here and there into
substantial acreages. Now the main areas
are old Fort Erie Park, Queen Victoria Park
and Oakes Garden Theatre, the golf course,
Niagara Glen, School of Gardening, Queenston
Heights Park area, Paradise Grove area, Fort
George and Navy Hall area. There are 37
miles of main park roadway, 3 miles of
secondary or service roads and, of course,
numerous paths.
Recently, the policy of the parks commission
has been to acquire land to increase its acre-
age where the land was available and it was
deemed desirable to so do. It has acquired
the Speaker property at the shipyards— 50
acres to widen the parks system there— the
Millers Pond at Millers Creek, 115 acres, and
the former hydro property around the new
reservoir, 110 acres.
Now, the 3 major historical restorations in-
clude old Fort Erie, Fort George and Navy
Hall. These restorations are substantial and
are in fact museums. They have the largest
museum displays, next to the Royal Ontario
Museum in Toronto.
Regarding commemorative monuments,
there is the General Brock monument, the
Laura Secord monument, the Governor Sim-
coe monument, and we are at present having
constructed a monument to commemorate the
memory of the late King George VI.
In addition, the commission maintains 35
historical sites on the Niagara frontier, which
have historical markers.
The paid admissions are one of the reasons
why the park has been able to carry itself,
and one reason why, I think, the integration
of the provincial parks of this province will
eventually lead to a situation where these
parks will at least be self-supporting if prop-
erly administered. Admissions paid at Old
Fort Erie, 40,000; Fort George, 66,000; Navy
Hall, 19,000; Brock's Monument, 64,000.
Now, for the scenic tunnels under the Falls.
Some 210,000 people went down below the
Falls where they could view the Falls from
the river level rather than looking down on
it.
I have always thought the unfortunate
part of Niagara Falls was that the visitors
stood above the Falls looking down, but if
they go down in the tunnels and look up at
the water cascading over the precipice, it is
a different view entirely.
We have a greenhouse establishment there,
overlooking the Queen Victoria Park. It con-
tains 14,000 sq. ft. of glass, 2,000 sq. ft. of
cold frames, and we produce for our own use
107,000 bedding plants; 80,000 tulips and
daffodils for the park, and 19,000 for cut
flowers.
The greenhouses are heavily visited. It
is estimated there were 100,000 visitors a year
ago to view the wonderful floral displays in
the greenhouses We also have an exhibit in
the Royal Winter Fair which has always at-
tracted a great deal of attention.
We have 24 students in the school of
gardening: 8 in each year are graduated, tak-
ing a 3-year course in practical gardening
and horticulture. Qualifications for entry are
that the student must be 18 to 23 years of
age and have junior matriculation.
Now, this is a very fine school. It is a
charge against the commission, but we think
that it is a donation to the well-being of
Canada, because we do not limit these boys
just to this province. Most of these students,
after graduating, have secured very worth-
while jobs.
I would suggest to the hon. members of
this Legislature that if an hon. member
knows of a boy in his own riding— remember-
ing that we can accommodate only 8 each
year— but if he has a good boy who would
be interested in gardening, we would be
interested. It is a very worthwhile career.
I would like to go into detail about what
these boys have done after graduation. The
landscape people, on railways, big industries,
are going in for landscaping in a great way.
There are very worthwhile jobs available to
them. I wish the hon. members would recom-
mend this school— and I say that to the hon.
members of the Legislature, not just to those
in the Progressive-Conservative party. We do
not eliminate a boy because of any political
affiliation nor do we eliminate him if he
comes from any other province. As a matter
of fact, we welcome boys from other prov-
inces.
Now, our merchandising operations are
unique among park organizations on this con-
tinent. Last year, we reached a gross net
profit close to $2 million, after providing for
depreciation $556,704. This is a high net
profit helped out by the 70 per cent, net
profit in our scenic tunnels.
All they sell at the scenic tunnels is the
view, and the ride down in the elevator.
And it is a very profitable organization.
But all this points up to efficiency of gov-
ernment operation of these places. There are
the Maid of the Mist, the Niagara Conces-
sions Limited, and the Niagara Spanish car,
which are not owned by the parks commis-
sion but are leased to these operators, who
l ML
440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pay a rent, and also make a payment after
a certain percentage of profit is achieved.
We have a golf course over there that is
really developing into a very fine course. It
has actually reached a state of maintenance
now equal to any on the continent. Some
36,000 players last year played on this golf
course.
We have had a very low green fee because
we have always felt that this course is like
a municipally-owned course, and I and my
commission want to keep it within the pos-
sibility of the ordinary fellow working in
the factory affording to play golf. Golf is
getting to be a pretty expensive game if
one has to belong to a club to play, and we
have kept our rates very low and we served
36,000 players last year.
We now have a large permanent staff of
about 250, and it reaches 650 at the peak
of the summer season. We have our own
staff of tradespeople— carpenters, plumbers,
stone masons, painters, mechanics and iron
workers— and I will say that it has been
our policy over the years to keep our wages,
our hours of work, and conditions of employ-
ment always in keeping with the wages existing
in the area. Our people are civil servants
now, and enjoy all the privileges and bene-
fits that civil servants enjoy.
Our policy on all buildings is to use cut
stone, and we have a very high standard of
buildings. We fight at all times to maintain
the dignity of the area. There is no carnival
system over there, it is a dignified, restful,
beautiful place for people to go.
Two main sources of our revenue are the
water rentals and the net profit of merchan-
dising operations. Because of these we have
been able to eliminate, within the last 10
years, a $3.5 million debt. This park, without
ever having cost the province one cent, is
now debt-free and as I said at the opening
of these remarks, it is able now to contribute
towards the development and maintenance
of other park systems in this province.
Capital expenditures include not only major
construction items, but small improvements
of all kinds. There are some unpredictable
repairs. We had this last year to really re-
build the very heavy Clifton Memorial Arch
at a great cost. The masonry was disin-
tegrating.
That is one thing I cannot understand in
this country. We had that happen to us, big
stones started to move. I read in the paper
that, at the entrance to the Canadian Na-
tional Exhibition, the stonework there has
to be repaired at great cost.
I often wonder how these masons of hun-
dreds of years ago built such substantial
work in the old country. Buildings there,
hundreds of years old, seem to be as solid
as they were the day they were put up.
I wonder what is wrong with our construc-
tion? A great solid arch, built of blocks of
stone weighing 1.5 or 2 tons, has to be
repaired after the few years it has been up.
Mr. Stewart (Parkdale): The fact of the
two-party system just now.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Well, I do not know,
but this kind of thing, once built, should be
there for at least 100 years without giving
it any further consideration.
And another thing we have to be con-
tinuously on watch for is the disintegrating,
the deteriorating, of the wall of the rivers.
Because of the nature of the stone it does
deteriorate, so we keep a very careful watch
on that and move paths, or whatever is neces-
sary, to assure visitors that there will be no
rock falls in that area.
They have had quite a few rock falls,
unfortunately for them, but fortunately for
us they have all been on the other side of
the river in the United States. However,
that is something for which the commission
is continuously watching.
Now we have an illumination board. Hon.
members have seen the lights which illum-
inate the Falls, and those lights are operated
by an international board; the Niagara parks
commission; the city of Niagara Falls, New
York; the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario; and
the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario. The annual operation costs of those
lights are about $20,000.
We have had an old battery of lamps that
have been there since 1925 and this board
has decided to replace them, by the instal-
lation of some 20 lamps estimated to flood
the illumination. These lamps are being
made in England at the present time and
will cost $154,000.
This cost is shared by those people— the
cities of Niagara Falls, Ontario and New
York, the parks commission, and the Hydro,
as its contribution supplies the power. We
have great hopes for this illumination.
It is really marvellous. When they leave
the lights out for a half an hour, the
crowd disappears. They put those lights on
and they are there by the thousands. The
illumination is really one of the features of
Niagara Falls. And these new lights that
we are installing some time this summer
will certainly add greatly to the beauty of
the Falls at night.
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
441
One of our main efforts is provision of
picnic areas and facilities throughout the
parks and reservations for Queenston Heights
and Queen Victoria Park. Use of parks for
this purpose has increased year after year.
To hon. members who have not been over
there recently, I say it is unbelievable the
thousands of people who gather along this
whole 35 miles now, because we have done
a great deal in establishing picnic areas,
outside fireplaces and running water facilities,
and these are used by people from great
distances, during the week ends particularly.
Our policy is the free and unrestricted use
of the parks within the regulations. Our
policy has been set out, Mr. Speaker, as an
over-riding parks policy, to provide an op-
portunity for visitors to view the Falls, the
river and the gorge, to picnic as they choose
under as pleasant circumstances as are pos-
sible.
I thought it would be interesting at this
time to draw this to the attention of the
House.
I have a few remarks to make, and I will
be as brief as possible, about the workmen's
compensation board. The present board con-
siders it a vital principle of administering
an Act, such as The Workmen's Compensa-
tion Act, to have the provisions of the Act
as well as the board's administrative prac-
tices known and understood by those receiv-
ing the benefits.
One method of putting this principle into
practice is the use of information seminars,
carried out by members of the board staff,
both management and labour. These courses
are directed to officials of both management
and labour, who may carry the message to
those who are under them. Approximately
500 management people and 2,000 labour
officials received this course during the past
year.
Additionally, the commissioners make many
public appearances, and it is estimated that
approximately 25,000 people heard the com-
missioners speak last year. We think that
is a great public relations.
Under the same heading, the board also
has several publications of informational
character. The News Bulletin has the widest
circulation, being 16,000 per issue. It is
noteworthy that this particular publication
has been copied by two other jurisdictions,
one in the United States and one in Canada.
As hon. members know, the largest single
group of employers to be brought under the
Act by amendment were those having to do
with the retailing of goods, on January 1,
1957. To date, there are 15,455 retailers
registered with the board. The natural
increase through growth and through minor
amendments and changes has added another
1,521 employers.
We would estimate that this adds the
coverage of the Act to an additional 200,000
working people.
In total, we consider that there are approxi-
mately 1.75 million working people of
Ontario covered by the provisions of The
Workmen's Compensation Act at the present
time.
To administer this Act properly, the board
believes that service to the workmen, the
employer and those receiving treatment must
be the keynote. To accomplish this, the board
employs the latest in machine accounting and
data processing methods. Newer and better
methods of rendering service to those covered
by the Act are always being sought. A static
position is never allowed to exist in the
board's administrative machinery. When a
man receives an injury, the board immedi-
ately assumes responsibility as his paymaster
and medical adviser, and provides other serv-
ices, and by prompt attention keeps his
morale high.
Now the term "rehabilitation" has, in the
last few years, had many definitions in many
places, and so far as The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act is concerned, rehabilitation
does not mean simply job placement, but
it does mean to the staff of the board the
total rehabilitation of the injured worker.
This involves speedy payment of compen-
sation to keep his mind at rest in respect to
possible financial worries, the use of the best
medical services that can be obtained in
the province of Ontario, the application of
physical medicine and occupational therapy,
and a physiological approach to the individual
workman which will provide him with a
motivation to return to work at the earliest
possible moment.
The accomplishment of this co-ordinated
effort has been an evolutionary process over
a number of years.
For some time, difficulties have been traced
relative to the hospital rehabilitation centre
in the old buildings at Malton. With the com-
pletion of the new hospital and rehabilitation
centre on highway No. 400, the best efforts
may be made to bring the rehabilitation of
the injured workman to a high point of effici-
ency.
It must be remembered, however, that the
hospitals and rehabilitation centres confine
themselves to the more serious cases, and
accommodation has not been arranged for
442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
patients in excess of the present patient load
of approximately 510. Those are the 510
people, Mr. Speaker, to whom I had refer-
ence when I said the board saves the province
money. These men would all be in our public
hospitals were it not for this rehabilitation
centre. They would have to be, so in this
way the board is a money saver for the
province.
It is the board's policy to encourage the
use of local physiotherapy and occupational
therapy, and therefore to stimulate the uses
of these local services. Enlargement of the
patient load in the board's own hospital and
rehabilitation centre has been restricted. We
have tried to give the men the treatment that
they require in their own areas to the extent
that it is possible.
Now, a word of commendation must be
given to the medical profession for the co-
operation which the profession at large in the
province of Ontario has given to the board
in administering the Act through its control
of treatment under the provisions of the Act.
The acknowledgment of the position of the
board by the medical profession and the
realization by the profession that the board
is ready and anxious to render any and every
service to the profession at all times, when
dealing with the treatment of workmen com-
ing under the jurisdiction of the board, are
most gratifying.
The board has made it a policy to main-
tain good professional relations with the
medical profession, through the attendance
of members of the board's medical staff at
district meetings of the medical profession,
to provide the profession with the assistance
that the board's staff may render when the
profession itself faces problems in relation to
the handling of the workmen coming under
the board's jurisdiction.
I think it most important, Mr. Speaker,
that this spirit of co-operation between the
great workmen's compensation board and the
medical profession has been so outstanding.
It is first possible for an injured workman,
because of this co-operation, to receive abso-
lutely free the most skilful medical attention
that it is possible to render. Certainly the
greatest number of them, being injured work-
men, would never be able, on their own, to
have the services of these very highly skilled
professional medical people.
The board's programme of rehabilitation
had a most modest conception in 1932, by the
establishment of a small physiotherapy unit
in the board's offices in the Canada Life
Building. It started in a very small way. This
gradually expanded to a point where larger
quarters on Richmond Street were obtained.
The larger quarters seemed to meet the
situation until the postwar industrial expan-
sion. With this expansion came overcrowding
and a realization that some new quarters must
be found where the claimants could be housed
under one roof.
With much searching of possible sites, it
was found that the RCAF terminal at Malton
could be obtained. The project of housing
and treating at the same location was an
experiment, trial-and-error. Industry co-oper-
ated to the fullest extent with the board in
establishing this clinic.
It has proved so successful that it became
necessary to move again, for the reason that
the buildings in which the present clinic is
housed were temporary buidings, and main-
tenance cost were becoming pretty high. We
also had to have greater facilities, and we
now have the new clinic on highway No. 400,
with its 15 acres of buildings on a 65-acre
plot of ground, and it will represent the most
modern rehabilitation centre in this country
or, I would venture to say, in any other
country.
If they have an opportunity, I would sug-
gest to the hon. members that any time that
they are driving along highway No. 400,
that they stop and have a look at this great
enterprise. It was built and designed only
to rehabilitate the injured workmen of this
province.
As I said before, the board is anxious to
encourage communities to establish their own
centres, which the board will purchase, on
a fee for service basis in the use of these
facilities in the treatment of board cases.
Such centres are now in existence in Wind-
sor, and the Lakehead, and other parts of
the province.
Workmen's compensation coverage is not
compulsory for the farmer, but the farmer
may make application to have his employees
covered under The Workmen's Compensa-
tion Act. Even now discussions are being held
between the hon. Minister of Agriculture ( Mr.
Goodfellow) and the board in relation to the
coverage for farmers. One of the great difficul-
ties to establish is a definition for "farmer"— is
he one who owns one acre or two acres, or
what would cover the term "farmer"? To
make it compulsory that farmers be covered
would make it very difficult, but a great
many farmers do take advantage of services
offered and have come in voluntarily to pro-
tect their workers under the Act.
I want to stress particularly the cost of
administration. In our system under The
FEBRUARY 27, 1958
443
Workmen's Compensation Act of Ontario, the
workman receives back, in aid and benefits,
88.6 per cent, of the dollar paid in by industry
who pay nearly all of it. The pure adminis-
tration costs 8.6 per cent. The safety asso-
ciations to which we contribute— all these
safety associations which hon. members have
heard discussed in this House on many occa-
sions function under the authority of the
board and the expenses they incur are paid
by the board— require 2.8 per cent, from the
dollar paid by industry.
So it is readily discernible that almost 89
cents of every dollar contributed to the acci-
dent fund by the employers of Ontario is
returned to their workmen, when injured
either directly to themselves or to those who
render the treatment service at the time of
the accident.
Now, contrast this, Mr. Speaker, with
the set-up of our nearest neighbour to the
south, wherein only 36 to 40 cents of each
dollar, paid out by the employer for com-
pensation, are returned to the workmen or
those rendering treatment service. That is
why I have said, Mr. Speaker, on former
occasions that The Workmen's Compensation
Act here is the best in the world. It is ad-
ministered cheaper, it pays greater benefits,
and is more humanely administered than any
other Act of its land in the world. We know
that, because so many people come from all
parts of the world to investigate the system,
and tell us.
In addition to the collective liability pro-
visions in The Workmen's Compensation Act,
compulsory coverage under the Act is ex-
tended to employers such as those operating
railways, steamships, municipalities, and so
on. These employees are in schedule 2 of the
Act, and while it is a system of compulsory
workmen's compensation, yet it is a system
of self-payment.
In other words, such employers must re-
port accidents to the workmen's compensa-
tion board for judication, and must pay the
full cost of such claims together with the cost
of administration to the board. They are
not assessed on a certain assessment per $100
of payroll, but they do have to pay in
full all the costs that would be provided
were they under schedule 1 of The Work-
men's Compensation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I was glad to have the op-
portunity to put these two items on record,
and I think that for all the hon. members
there is some very useful information.
Mr. H. L. Rowntree (York West): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate,
and as a relatively new member of this
assembly, I of course like to add my good
wishes to those of the other hon. members,
and I might say that I think the best recom-
mendation anyone can give to another per-
son is from his own experience. I might
say that, in all of my dealings with you in
this House, Mr. Speaker, ever since I was
elected, I have been treated very, very well.
One of the events of the past few weeks,
which was of great significance was the ap-
pointment of a new Lieutenant-Governor and
as the hon. member for York West I wish
to record with you the feelings of the people
of York West on the appointment of the
present incumbent in office. The Honourable
the Lieutenant-Governor (Mr. Mackay) is a
very much loved man, he has been for many
years a distinguished citizen of York West,
and we are very proud that one of our citi-
zens should occupy that high office.
I would of course, in my capacity as a
relatively new member, extend my good
wishes to those recently elected hon. mem-
bers who have joined us in this House. If
they enjoy their term as I have to date,
they will be very happy men indeed.
The experiences which one has, as an
hon. member, depends a great deal upon
a large body of people with whom we come
in daily contact and indeed, on whom we
rely for great assistance. I refer of course to
the civil servants, and it occurred to me that
this might be an opportune time to record
with you the names of two of those indivi-
duals.
Not that I am selecting them against some-
one else, but I refer in particular to the Deputy
Minister of Public Works, that distinguished
man, Mr. George Williams, who is the most
senior Deputy Minister, I understand, and at
the other extreme to the most junior Deputy
Minister, Mr. Collins.
Now if they typify the rest of the civil
service, I must say that it is a wonderful
omen.
Now, sir, in addressing you, I should like
to deal with 2 or 3 subjects as follows: I
would like to review some of the problems
which we face in York West. I would like to
refer to our unsatisfied judgment fund, and to
the question of compulsory insurance, and
lastly to make some reference to the welfare
of retarded children.
As you know, York West is one of the
largest ridings in this province. It is composed
of 3 municipalities: Long Branch, New To-
ronto, and the township of Etobicoke. It com-
mences at Lake Ontario, where we find heavy
.
444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
industry and a strong supporting labour force,
and proceeds northerly through a fine residen-
tial area, and at the northerly limits of our
riding we still have some thousands of acres of
land left, which probably qualifies our riding
as a rural riding.
However, it is this great growth and ex-
pansion which creates the problems which
beset my riding. It is of some interest to note
that, in the entire growth of York West,
certain districts have retained their individual
names, and I refer in particular to areas such
as the Queensway, Bloordale Gardens, Hum-
ber Valley, Westway Village, Rexdale, Alder-
wood and, of course, Islington.
Now these areas, with the type of devel-
opment we have had, are almost self-sufficient
areas. York West is probably one of the few
areas where the local newspaper in the metro-
politan area, apart from our great dailies,
occupies an important place in our community
life.
In this expanding community, we have all
of those problems pertaining to services,
sewers, water, roads and so on. Now we know
that these matters can be resolved only if we
have co-operation and proceed on a sound
financial basis. We have those problems of
land development, we have those other social
problems of providing for recreation, shop-
ping, industry and housing.
Now it is out of all of these problems, Mr.
Speaker, that York West, as a component part
of the metropolitan corporation, is very much
interested in what the metropolitan corpora-
tion does in its long range planning. We are
very much interested in Metro.
And, of course, the most important question
before the Metro authorities at the moment
has to do with the subway, and I say this" to
you, Mr. Speaker, that my people in York
West are very much concerned about this
matter. They are concerned as to what the
future is going to hold for them, bearing in
mind our geographical location and observing
that the proposed east-west route would end
at the easterly side of High Park.
That is still some miles from our riding of
York West, and I ask through you, Mr.
Speaker, of the metropolitan corporation,
what are the future plans?
What we require is a high speed transit
system which will reach the outlying areas,
whether it be subway or a surface line. With
the proper planning and foresight which must
be developed at this moment, we probably
would have a fast transit system which, in the
years to come, would be the equivalent of a
commuter service which has gained so much
attention in the debates in recent years in
this House.
I record with you, Mr. Speaker, that the
population of central Toronto is moving to
these suburbs and that we must provide for
them. I would hope that The Department of
Planning and Development, and probably
The Department of Transport, would take an
interest in this problem of commuter serv-
ices as an essential ingredient of our trans-
portation problem.
York West has grown at a very rapid rate.
It was one of the first areas in Ontario, one
of the pioneers, to file a master plan for the
development of the township. That is Etobi-
coke, and I think it would be less than fair
if I did not say to you, sir, that one of the
hon. members of this House, who was the
reeve of Etobicoke at that time, the hon mem-
ber for York-Humber (Mr. Lewis) was respon-
sible for that original plan in Etobicoke which
has been a guide to our development, and
in that respect, a good deal of credit is due
him.
Now, sir, some of these figures, and I will
endeavour to give them quickly, will be of
interest. In Etobicoke alone, since January 1,
1957, there have been 115 new industries
located in the township, and every last one
of them have built new buildings. These
businesses and industries range in size all the
way from those employing about 10 persons
to those employing some 250 people.
Many are new industries, just starting out,
but it is important to note this, that every
one of these companies and these industries,
in locating in Etobicoke, have acquired addi-
tional areas to provide for future expansion of
facilities in their present location.
With respect to assessment, the ratio of
commercial to residential assessment in
Etobicoke is on a 35 to 65 basis. With the
present opportunities which exist, and the
negotiations which are pending for bringing
in further industries, it is expected that by
the end of 1958, the ratio of commercial or
industrial to residential assessment will be
50-50.
New Toronto and Long Branch occupy
a somewhat different situation than Etobi-
coke. Those areas were built up on the Lake-
shore road some years ago, and most of their
available land has been disposed of and is
presently occupied. But, as some hon. mem-
bers know, some of the leading industries of
this province are located in New Toronto and
Long Branch. These include such firms as the
Anaconda Brass Company, the Campbell Soup
Company, the Goodyear Tire Company, and
many others. The importance of this is the
. FEBRUARY. 27V 1958
445
fact that they provide employment for our
people.
Now sir, one of the interesting things to
me about this great residential expansion, and
I think it is a significant factor, is that this
growth has been accompanied in all of the
residential areas by a parallel development
of new churches. In Etobicoke, there are
some 40 Protestant churches including 5 new
ones which have been opened within the
past 12 or 15 months. Each of these churches
serves about 600 families, the larger ones
up to 1,400 families.
There are approximately 5 Roman Catholic
churches in Etobicoke and 1 each in Long
Branch, New Toronto, and Mimico. Of these,
3 have been built in the last year and, an-
other new church, St. Gregory's, is now estab-
lished in the community, but is only now
about to proceed with its building. There
are at least one or two new Catholic churches
planned for the area in the near future. Each
of these churches serves some 800 to 900
families.
It is apparent, therefore, that our religious
instruction attracts an increasing number
of people, and it is only on such an adherence
to the church that a sound community can
be built.
Now, sir, we have heard in the last couple
of days a good deal about education, and I
think that it is important for me to men-
tion our educational problems in York West,
because I think that some of the hon. mem-
bers do not realize the problems that we
have with a large population. Many people
think that we are just a small community.
In Etobicoke alone, we have 43 schools.
I might say that all told in the entire York
West riding there are 52 schools, with a total
of 772 classrooms. At present, we have some
28,000 students in the primary and secondary
categories. It is my hope, therefore, that
hon. members will understand how much
we are interested in what the hon. Minister
of Education (Mr. Dunlop) has to say when
he discusses further his budget for that de-
partment.
In York West we have many people, young
men and women who are growing up and
who plan on becoming teachers and adopting
that as their profession. It is my hope that
the hon. Minister of Education and the hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger)
might very well take this matter up, and I
am suggesting, and I had hoped, that some
institution might be allocated to York West,
and I urge this most sincerely. I think that
the question of decentralizing our buildings
and schools and colleges might very well be
accomplished by the location of a major
building ; ]in York West. >
When we consider the position which York
West occupies in relation to the westerly
end of Toronto proper, and the part of the
province lying immediately to the west, we
will understand that the traffic problem is
one of great importance to us. It is one of
importance to us locally, for us to get to work,
but on the other hand, it is through our
riding that all the people from the west have
to travel when they are coming to Toronto.
And, again, I would be more than remiss
in my duty if I did not say to the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan) that the
people of York West are very pleased at
what his department has done in trying to
solve this terrible traffic tangle.
We have recently completed the first tri-
level superstructure, in York West, to be con-
structed in Ontario, and on that project a total
of some $4.5 million was expended. There
is a second subway under construction on
Bloor Street, and plans are moving ahead
rapidly for the widening of highway No. 27
south of the Queen Elizabeth way to the
Lakeshore road.
When all of these are completed, no doubt
our population will have grown again, and
I am sorry, but I probably will have to take
the matter up with the hon. Minister at that
time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I, as
a lawyer, am interested in has to do with
the question of the enforcement of law and
the uniformity ox sentences. A number of
my people have discussed this with me, and I
raise the question in order that the hon.
Attorney-General ( Mr. Roberts ) might give
the subject his consideration.
I realize that the problem of uniformity of
sentences or of punishment which one judge
metes out, as against what another judge or
magistrate metes out, is a very difficult
matter. I, frankly, do not know what the
answer is, but it is something that goes to
the very root of our judicial system. I think
I would have made my point if I simply left
it at that, with the earnest request to the
hon. Attorney-General that he take the matter
under advisement.
The other aspect of law enforcement is one
which I raised in committee last year, and I
am going to illustrate my case by this
example.
The courts today are overcrowded. The
magistrates' courts do a tremendous and large
volume of business. It must be tedious work
446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for the Crown attorneys, and it must be tedi-
ous for those other officers engaged there.
However, I cite a situation which has been
brought to my attention, and I would hope
that this would be an isolated situation.
There was a case before a certain magis-
trate in Ontario where the proof of the
prosecutor's case involved proving one essen-
tial point of fact. That was not done. When
it was drawn to the magistrate's attention
that there was no case against the accused,
for the reasons stated in the terms I have
cited, the court replied: "Well, I'm sorry, but
if I insisted on that point of proof in all the
cases which I have before me, I wouldn't be
able to handle or do the business this court
is faced with." And that was the end of it.
Now I want to be scrupulously fair about
the point I raised there, because I know that
the person in that instance was guilty. I also
know that the proof of that point could have
been made, but the omission of that proof is
rather an important element in our system of
law, and I say this, that if that proof is not
to be made, then The Traffic Act, or whatever
the pertinent legislation is, should be changed
so that the proof is not required any longer,
rather than permit the magistrates to go on
the basis that "we are not going to require
that proof and I will establish my own
judicial procedure."
May I make a brief reference to a news
release which came over the radio this morning
which referred to a prosecution under The
Food and Drug Act. The news reporter re-
ferred to the fact that the investigation had
been made in January of 1957 but the
charges had not been pressed by the hon.
Attorney-General until January of 1958, one
year later. I say this because I have some
knowledge of these present charges being
preferred against many of our citizens, and
the fact is that the hon. Attorney-General of
Ontario does not have anything to do with
it. It is a question of the federal Department
of Health and the law officers of the federal
government. But I think it is a good ex-
ample, further to the point I am trying
to make, that this is not the kind of prose-
cution which our citizens are entitled to
have— to have a case investigated in one
year, and have the charges laid 12 months
less 3 days later.
Noting the clock and the hour, at this
point may I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment
of the House, I would say that tomorrow we
will proceed with the calling of some bills
for second reading, and probably the House
will go into committee of the whole House
to deal with some bills, and then we shall
have the adjourned debate on the speech
from the Throne.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 20
ONTARIO
Hegtsflature of (Ontario
Befcates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, February 28, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 28, 1958
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 450
Jails Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 450
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 451
Judicature Act, bill to amend, reported 451
Magistrates Act, 1952, bill to amend, reported 451
County Judges Act, bill to amend, reported 452
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 452
Public Trustee Act, bill to amend, reported 452
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, reported 452
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Connell 452
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. A. G. Frost, agreed to 470
Surveys Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Mapledoram, second reading 470
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 470
449
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, February 28, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I want to ask the hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Allan) a question arising out of
statements he made in the House yesterday
and, more particularly, from an article from
this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail. The
headline reads: Ontario- Wide Check Is
Ordered of Racket in Driving Licences.
Now, I just want to say, in prefacing my
question-and I will be only a moment-that
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that one of the deter-
rents, and not the smallest one at that, to
the success of the hon. Attorney-General's
drive for lowering the accident rate in this
province, and decreasing the number of
people who die and are injured in and from
motor accidents, has been at the examiner
level.
The question I want to ask the hon. Mini-
ster of Highways, and ask him seriously, is
this: Does he feel it is now time to examine
the examiners as to their fitness for the task
assigned to them, and particularly, does he
feel that he should require greater qualifica-
tions from holders of these jobs than that they
are good party followers and good supporters
of the government?
Now, it may be, Mr. Speaker, that in the
past this has been the practice, but we are
dealing, as the hon. Minister knows, with a
very serious problem here. This one aspect
of appointees, it seems to me, should be lifted
out of the realm of politics and based on
ability and qualification. So I ask the hon.
Minister: Does he follow that line and does
he agree with what I have suggested to him?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, may I say, in replying to the
question of the hon. leader of the Opposition,
that his question reminds me of the magistrate
who asked the man charged, if he had stopped
beating his wife. I say this because we do
examine the examiners, that is a regular matter
of routine. We are most particular in the
selection of these examiners. The hon. leader
of the Opposition asks if I think that it is
time that a different system be instituted. In
reply I may say that as quickly as possible,
with due care, and with the thought of gain-
ing experience as we proceed, we are develop-
ing a system of examining by full-time civil
servants.
I would be very happy if the hon. leader
of the Opposition would come over to Hamil-
ton this afternoon, when we open a new
centre in Hamilton which will be manned by
civil servants. We opened one in London just
a short time ago. In the Metropolitan Toronto
area, we have two such examining centres
now, and another one almost ready to be
opened at Port Credit.
Now, concerning the difficulties that have
arisen in connection with the statement
yesterday, I may say that the present situation
which has developed in the Lakeview area
does not concern the examiner's qualification
to examine, but rather that a charge resulted
from an alleged failure to examine as required
under The Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. H. A. Levi, the examiner in question,
was a properly qualified person to conduct
an examination, but was alleged to have
failed to carry out the instructions contained
in the manual for examiners.
This manual stresses the importance of a
complete check of the applicant's ability to
drive and his knowledge of the law, so that
in reality, the difficulty in this instance was
not whether or not the applicant was properly
examined. The alleged charge was that the
applicant was not examined. Therefore I
find very little difference in the thinking of
the hon. leader of the Opposition and our
department, in this respect. We recognize
fully the advantage of proper examination of
those persons who will drive automobiles. We
are steadily progressing— I am sure that this
is true— in greater care concerning the exam-
ination of the applicant for a driver's licence,
but also in checking the record of that per-
son's driving.
450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Legislation will be introduced in this House
in the next few days which, I am sure, will
be considered by everyone to be a very for-
ward step in licencing control of automobile
drivers. This manual is the guide concern-
ing the instruction of driver examiners, that
is those who operate on a fee basis, which
practice will be gradually discontinued in
the province as we are able to set up the
system which is now being inaugurated—
that is, of examination by full-time civil
servants.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Minister permit
a supplementary question? What about the
licencees who have been licenced without an
examination? Will they be required to take
additional tests before they are again
licenced?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I may say
we hope that, through the co-operation of
Mr. Levi, we will be able to establish all
those persons who were not examined, and
will of course require that they be examined,
or that their privilege to drive be withdrawn.
Mr. Wintermeyer: What about the money
that has been paid? Will it be refunded to
these people?
Hon. Mr. Allan: We did not receive the
money.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, the department's
agents certainly did.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That statement would
appear to be incorrect.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. Minister
going to refuse restitution to these licencees?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, how can we refund
something that we have never had?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, the agent has it.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The whole matter is in
the courts.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, just a moment. It
is not in the courts at all. It is in the criminal
court. I am talking about a civil right that
these people have to restitution.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, Mr. Speaker, with
all due respect, I think the hon. member for
Waterloo North is probably not in possession
of all the facts. Money is alleged to have
been received by persons who have nothing
whatever to do with our department.
Mr. Oliver: May I say to the hon. Minister
that the figure of 150 is used in the Globe
and Mail story of this morning. Is that an
accurate figure insofar as his investigation has
gone?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. members will recognize the fact that the
investigation is being carried out by the police.
I have no knowledge of any such amount hav-
ing been paid. I suspect that I do not have
the full information that is in the hands of
the police, and I would gather that that figure
had been obtained from the police. It was
not obtained from any member of our depart-
ment, and I am not aware of the amount of
money which was paid by these persons, so
I am really not in—
Mr. Oliver: I do not want to press this,
but my hon. friend misconstrued what I said
in some way. The number of people who
were given licences, who should not have re-
ceived them, was said to be 150. Is that an
accurate figure, or is there more than that
or less?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I understand
indirectly, because I have not spoken to the
police, that in a statement which has been
made, some such number has been indicated
by Mr. Levi. But the investigation is continu-
ing and I suspect that no one knows definitely,
at this time, how many there were.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Annual report of the teachers' super-
annuation commission for the year ended
October 31, 1957.
2. Third annual report of the telephone
corporation of the province of Ontario for
the year ended December 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE JAILS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 99, "An Act to amend The Jails
Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this was rather fully
explained when the bill was introduced. To
recapitulate, may I say the provisions of the
amendments are to alter the name of the chief
official in The Department of Reform Institu-
tions. In the old Act, it was Inspector, it is
now Deputy Minister, so that the word 'In-
spector" is changed throughout to the now
applicable term "Deputy Minister."
Secondly the amendment takes away, from
the county and district sheriffs, all control of
administration of the jail. This was one of
the recommendations put forward by the
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
451
select committee in 1953-1954, and is now
being implemented. It has also been asked for
repeatedly by the sheriffs' association; they put
forth good reasons why this should be done.
The move is also concurred in by The
Department of the Attorney-General and The
Department of Municipal Affairs.
The further amendment is to relieve the
municipalities of paying for the transport of
prisoners from the county and district jails to
our institutions. This cost has been greatly
reduced by new methods of transportation
introduced by the department. The total
amount recovered by the provincial treasury
in the past year was something of the order
of $30,000, and its collection has become more
or less a nuisance to the municipalities now.
This move is concurred in also by The
Provincial Treasurer's Department, The De-
partment of the Attorney-General, and The
Department of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): May I
ask the hon. Minister a question? Has the
present Deputy Minister not been called
Deputy Minister, or has it been just in name
only?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I did not
get the question.
Mr. Worton: Is there any change in the
present Deputy Minister's position now, as the
present head of that department?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, not at all, Mr.
Speaker. The Act has never been changed
since the department came into being as a
separate department of government. The term
"Chief Inspector" was used while the depart-
ment was under the control of The Provincial
Secretary's Department and The Department
of Public Welfare. The Act should have been
brought into line some time ago.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, and
it is a strange group of words to fall from
my lips, but I think this is good legislation,
and it emanates, as the hon. Minister has
said, from the report of the committee which
examined into these matters a number of
years ago.
While it does not carry into legislation all
the committee's reports, these changes were
very basic in the committee's report, and I
congratulate the hon. Minister for bringing
them in at this time.
I hope that in the ensuing years, if he is
in his present position, that he moves forward
the implementation of still other recom-
mendations of the committee's report.
Motion agreed to: second reading of the
bill.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 96, "An Act to amend The Divi-
sion Courts Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have not much to
add to what I said on the first reading. The
amendments embodied in this bill are quite
clear, I think.
One of them is to make it so that the
plaintiff does not have to appear personally
on the entering on a default judgment of
division court where the service of the sum-
mons takes place in some jurisdiction other
than where the plaintiff resides.
Section 129 (4) is a new provision to insure
that a judgment given by a division court
against a garnishee is limited to the normal
jurisdiction of the division court.
If any hon. member wants this to go to the
committee on legal bills I will be glad to
send it there, and it is pretty procedural, I
think.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now
leave the chair and the House resolve itself
into the committee of the whole.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 57, An
Act to amend The Judicature Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 57 reported.
THE MAGISTRATES ACT, 1952
House in committee on Bill No. 58, An
Act to amend The Magistrates Act, 1952.
On section 1:
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, would
the hon. Attorney-General inform the hon.
members why no limitation is included in
that particular section? To be more specific,
the section itself would permit magistrates
to make their own determination as to when
books, documents and other valuable papers
in their possession can be destroyed.
Now, obviously, it is necessary that they
be destroyed some time. I am just wondering
whether or not this would invite some magis-
trate, I hope it would not but it might con-
ceivably happen, that somebody would de-
stroy documents before they had been kept
on file for a reasonable length of time.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, the
practice, I understand from the inspector of
452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
legal offices, has been for documents to be
destroyed depending on the space require-
ments of the respective magistrates, after
retaining them for a number of years. The
reports of the magistrates are kept on file
in the office of the legal inspector more or
less indefinitely, and they can be referred
to by the inspector of legal offices for gen-
eral content long after they might have been
destroyed in the office of the magistrate.
However, with this amendment, it is con-
templated that a regulation will be prepared
after discussion, and probably a 10-year
period would be sufficient.
I would draw my hon. friend's attention
to the 1952 Statutes of Ontario, section 21,
dealing with regulations, and I think that
the regulations will probably put on a 10-
year limit.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, a 10-
year period would seem reasonable. Does
not the hon. Attorney-General feel that this
type of provision should be incorporated in
the bill itself? Is not there a tendency to
rely too much on regulations which can be
effected after the bill has been passed?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member
feels it is necessary we might do so. Section
21 of The Magistrates Act now reads that
the Lieutenant-Go vernor-in-council may make
regulations fixing the period and manner in
which monies may come into the hands of
magistrates, specifying the returns to be made,
providing the safe keeping and inspection
of documents, and so forth. I think that is
under that section already in the Act.
I can assure the hon. member that we
will in all probability put in a period of
about 10 years. I shall undertake to let
him know what we are thinking of doing,
if there is any change from that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Can the hon. Attorney-
General give us that undertaking, that it
would be 10 years?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I will give the under-
taking subject to this: If, in the discussion
about it, something turns up to show that
this would not be practical, the period may
be varied.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 58 reported.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 59, An
Act to amend The County Judges Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 59 reported.
THE SURROGATE COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 60, An
Act to amend The Surrogate Courts Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 60, reported.
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 62, An Act
to amend The Public Trustee Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 62 reported.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 63, An
Act to amend The Summary Convictions Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 63 reported.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the commit-
tee rise and report certain bills without
amendment.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and begs leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. H. L. Rowntree (York West): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday it was my privilege to
move the adjournment of the debate on this
very important matter, and matters which are
presently before the House. It is also my
privilege to continue and open the debate
today, and for the benefit of the hon. mem-
bers who were not in their seats yesterday I
will give them a short but quick summary
of what I said.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I said was this,
that York West is probably the most progres-
sive riding in this whole province. The fact
that it is progressive, and occupying and
enjoying such an experience of expansion and
continuing growth of our province, makes it
that we in York West are very much inter-
ested not only in what goes on in this House,
but in what the Toronto metropolitan cor-
poration does.
Therefore, I want to repeat this one point
in particular, that is, when we talk about
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
453
subways, I am not content, as the member
for York West, to discuss a subway ending
part way to the suburbs. I must remind every-
one who is concerned that it is a very
important aspect of the problem for the
metropolitan corporation to lay before us
now, just what they have in mind for the next
5, 10, 15, or 20 years.
It is going to be only a matter of 5 years
before we have such a great growth, and such
a large population, in York West that this fast
transit system will be of paramount import-
ance.
It already is today, but it will be more so
in the future, and I repeat what was said
yesterday, that this fast transit system prob-
ably will become the basis of a fast commuter
system which will be a requisite and a neces-
sity to the well-being of this metropolitan
area.
I informed the House yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, of a little about the background of
York West.
Firstly, I dealt with the problems we have
out there.
Secondly, I reminded the House that the
problems of York West are really the prob-
lems of this entire province. The reason I say
that is this, it has only been a few years
since York West was a rural riding, and on
many occasions when I have spoken in
public, and many times in company with
some of the hon. members of this House,
they have taken some degree of amusement
from my remarks that York West is really a
rural riding.
I still say it is a rural riding, perhaps with
slight city tendencies, Mr. Speaker, but the
problems which we are enduring out there
just are not to be set aside and regarded as
problems of a metropolitan area. I say this
because the rest of the hon. members of this
House, who live in towns and villages, are
going to endure these very same problems
which arise from this tremendous growth of
our province.
I am issuing an invitation to every hon.
member of this House to come and see
York West, have a look at the problems we
have had to face, and have a look at how
we are facing them.
Mr. W. J. Stewart (Parkdale): What about
Farkdale?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): There
is a little doubt in there.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I would just like to ask the hon. member a
question about the problem of York West.
Has he thought about west Ottawa? It is the
problem of the whole Dominion of Canada
now.
Mr. Rowntree: Far be it from me to get
into a discussion with the hon. Provincial Sec-
retary, but I will admit that he has had some
problems, and I hope he solves them as well
as we are solving them in York West.
Of course, I do not think that anybody
here would deny the importance of women in
the community today and I say this, Mr.
Speaker, that I just defy any hon. member
of this House to take issue with the question
whether or not there is a place for women in
the community.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Provincial Sec-
retary has a big feminine problem down there
anyway. He has a problem named "Charlotte."
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I would not go home
if there was not a place for women.
Mr. Rowntree: I am glad to see that the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips) is here
today, because one of the great problems
that has been brought to my attention as
recently as noon hour, today, is one I think
I should mention to you, Mr. Speaker. I was
invited to a private luncheon today. There
were to be 6 of us there, and when I got
to that luncheon, there were only 2. The
reason the other 4 were not there was be-
cause they had colds and I have been asked
to bring this question of the common cold
before the House and ask the hon. Minister
of Health what is being done about it.
An hon. member: Why not ask the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Dymond)?
Another hon. member: Ask him to cough up
that information.
Mr. MacDonald: How about that fiery hon.
member for Lanark (Mr. McCue)?
Mr. Rowntree: Now, in spite of any of these
rude, or improper remarks which are being
made, I think I would be on safe ground
if I said this, that having raised the point, I
am perfectly certain that the hon. Minister of
Health or the hon. Minister of Reform In-
stitutions will do something about it.
At close to the closing hour last evening,
I made reference to certain prosecutions under
The Food and Drug Act, and the reason I did
so was not to direct any criticism to any per-
son in particular, but it was to draw the atten-
tion of this House to the importance of our
British system of justice.
454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I say this to you, sir, that where charges
of a quasi criminal nature are laid, or even
charges involving statutory offences, there is
no room in our system of justice for a delay
in laying a charge one year after the in-
vestigation has been made and the facts
gathered together. It is not fair to the public
if an offence has been committed. The public
must be protected, and whatever wrongdoing
has gone on must be stopped.
On the other hand, if an offence has been
committed, the accused is entitled to be in-
formed of it so that he can make his defence
in accordance with the long established prin-
ciple of our judicial system.
One of the matters which I raised before
one of the committees last session had to do
with what I call the uniformity of law
enforcement— the uniformity as it exists with
particular respect to the local municipalities.
What I am getting at is this, that there are
some areas which are responsible for a policy
of law enforcement, which of course, deter-
mine that policy themselves, either through
a chief of police or through a police com-
mission. My people in York West are very
much concerned with this, not because of
the system which we enjoy and are proud of
in York West, but because of the experiences
which its citizens encounter in some other
parts of the province.
I give the example of traffic being moved
quickly in the public interest. Now, I think
we all agree that traffic must be moved in the
public interest, and we also know that scien-
tific investigation has proved and established
that speed of course is not necessarily a con-
tributing factor to accidents. What I am say-
ing is this, that I think it is a crying shame
that in any area, the police officers, acting
under instructions from their police chief or
police commission, should be parties to a
situation where at one hour of the day, they
are helping move traffic through that area
regardless of speed, provided however, that
the safety factor exists, and having moved
those thousands of vehicles during any one
period, should two hours later, or at some
later period in the same day, at the same
location, instruct the same police officers or
their replacements to stand there and operate
traps.
I say that that is not only immoral, it is
amoral. I say this, that if this is a money-
raising device, then it is wrong and it must
be stopped. Charges, offences under any
statute and the penalties provided therefore,
those things are provided and exist as a
deterrent to law breaking. They are not to be
used as revenue-producing factors, and I say
this, Mr. Speaker, that if there are any muni-
cipalities which even budget for revenue
from such a source, they are on a wrong
moral and legal principle.
What we want in this province is a uni-
form policy in all municipalities, which is
consistent with safety and in the public
interest, a policy which includes respect for
civil liberties as well as a uniform policy of
enforcement.
Now, I was sorry that I did not finish
my address yesterday afternoon, because I
did not get to the part that I wanted to lay
the emphasis on, and so hon. members will be
appraised of the situation, I am now coming
to that part. I just want hon. members to
be alert over there on the other side of the
House.
The subject is one I want to deal with
in some detail, and I do not think it will
be boring detail. I think it will be detail
that will interest and possibly intrigue most
of the hon. members here today. It has to
do with a very popular, certainly the pres-
ently popular subject, of compulsory insurance
as an alternative to our existing system.
Of course, sir, my attention must be
directed to you as the Speaker of the House,
but out of the corner of my eye I can see
them sitting up already on the far side of
the House.
Mr. Oliver: To be forewarned is to be
forearmed.
Mr. Rowntree: I just want the hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition to be.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We are, we are.
Mr. Thomas: We are not going to listen,
we are not interested.
Mr. Rowntree: I think I should say, for
the benefit of my hon. friends over there
that I am talking without regard to any
articles which have appeared in the Toronto
press during this past week, because what I
have to say is my own.
Mr. MacDonald: The article says that
Queen's Park is considering it now.
Mr. Rowntree: Well, now, Mr. Speaker,
I am speaking as the hon. member for York
West-
Mr. MacDonald: That surprises me.
Mr. Rowntree: I think that if the hon.
members on the other side will just wait to
hear what I have to say, they will be more
intelligently informed.
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
455
Now, what is the problem that we have to
face in this situation of automobile accidents?
Well, the problem is this, that we have to
find a way whereby an innocent victim of
an accident may find restitution for a part,
at least, of the damages he has suffered.
Under the present situation, of course, that
minimum provides a gross fund of $20,000
for personal injury or a maximum of $10,000
for any one person. On the property damage
side we have a maximum limit of $2,000.
There is a difference between the amount
of $2,000 which the unsatisfied judgment
fund provides for property damage— a differ-
ence from the minimum property damage
limit under The Insurance Act for the stan-
dard automobile policy which is $5,000. And
while I had no part of writing that legisla-
tion, nor of the regulations it is under, I
would think that the reason that the unsatis-
fied judgment fund has a $2,000 limit for
property damage, as against the $5,000 under
the minimum policy, is that our prime con-
cern is toward the personal injury factor as
the most important item which requires pro-
tection in the public interest.
Before going on, Mr. Speaker, with my
remarks, you are aware that the unsatisfied
judgment fund operates under The Depart-
ment of Transport.
That is one of the things with which that
hon. Minister (Mr. Allan) is charged.
The details, however, of some of the
procedures rest with the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts), and before going on I
should say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that this
is a subject in which I am interested, and
that I am satisfied there is a good deal of mis-
understanding about it.
At the outset of my considerations I went
to the hon. Minister of Highways and told
him that I would like to deal with this
subject, and that I wanted to secure some
information. I also went to the hon. Attorney-
General and I told him the same thing,
and it would not be fair to either of those
hon. Ministers of the Crown if I did not
say that I received an unlimited instruction
to make whatever investigation I cared to
within either The Department of Transport
or The Department of the hon. Attorney-
General.
I also made the fullest opportunity of those
invitations, and I have spent many, many
hours with representatives and officers of The
Department of Transport and with the officers
of the hon. Attorney-General's department,
and my remarks today are based on the find-
ings which I have secured.
I would not be fair to any hon. member
of this House if I did not say that my con-
clusions are these:
The proposition of a compulsory insurance
fund is fraught with uncertainties and other
detrimental factors which are extremely diffi-
cult to resolve. On the other hand, in spite
of certain deficiencies that might exist in our
unsatisfied judgment fund procedure, and the
allied factors which go with it— our safety
campaign and others— I must declare at the
outset that I am going to speak against the
proposition of compulsory insurance.
Now, what is the real factor with which
we are concerned? We are concerned with the
public interest. That is the paramount thing
that any of us has to deal with in this House.
I am not interested in establishing another
government department, a government-con-
trolled department, nor am I interested in the
expansion for this purpose of any existing
government department.
When I was elected some 18 to 20 months
ago, I said that I was against too much regu-
lation and that the fewer laws we had the
better. Let us have regulation and statutes
pertaining to the things that we need, but we
do not want the House or the people bur-
dened with laws which just clutter up the
whole picture.
Let us look at this situation and of course,
as hon. members know, this is primarily a
legal matter. The important factor to keep
in mind is that a plaintiff, being an injured
person or a person who has suffered damage
must establish his case; he has a right to
recover against the wrongdoer in any event
by bringing a court action or negotiating a
settlement.
That is the situation, whether the wrong-
doer is insured, or being uninsured has finan-
cial resources of his own. It is also the case
where the wrongdoer has no insurance and
has no resources of his own.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no insurance
company today pays any claim unless it is
satisfied that its insured party is to blame
and consequently is responsible in law for
the damage caused. And then, even then,
they pay only up to the limits of the policy
which may be the minimum limit of $10,000,
$20,000 and $5,000, to which I have referred
before.
The provisions of the unsatisfied judgment
fund provide for payments if the defendant
or the wrongdoer has no financial resources
or assets to pay the judgment, and in this
situation certain rules are laid down whereby
an injured plaintiff, having proved his case,
456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as he probably would have had to do had
the defendant been insured, may seek pay-
ment out of the fund.
Now, who is there in this House who is
going to force the people in the rural areas
of this province, who drive their vehicles
infrequently, to take out insurance which
they do not want?
But .what do we say of the irresponsible
motor vehicle operator who is financially
irresponsible and cannot pay the judgment
against him?
Two things happen to him. If he has no
insurance, and this is the main one, the
unsatisfied judgment fund will pay, and until
he reimburses the fund or makes some accept-
able arrangement for reimbursement, he loses
his ownership and operating privileges.
That latter factor is the second thing which
happens to that individual. And I say, why
not? He had his chance. He is not the person
we are concerned with. We do not need to
spend our time worrying about what happens
to the irresponsible person who refuses to
accept his duty, his responsibility to the
public.
We are concerned with the innocent person
who has been damaged, and under the fund
provisions he recovers on the $10,000,
$20,000 and $2,000 basis.
Hon. members say that is not enough, that
any judgment in excess of those limits is not
recovered. That is quite so, Mr. Speaker. But
any excess over the limits of an insurance
policy are not recovered, either, if the wrong-
doer has no asset.
So we have a common denominator as to
what this fundamental problem is. I suggest
that, on this ground alone, liability insurance
per se offers no advantage to the innocent
victims over the fund system.
Should this Legislature desire to increase
the minimum insurance policy limits, and the
corresponding limits payable out of the fund,
that is another question entirely. But the
situation as it exists today is the basis upon
which I am proceeding.
Of course, connected with any traffic salety
programme, we must allot some considera-
tion to the demerit system. Experience in
other jurisdictions proves that the demerit sys-
tem does reduce the frequency of accident
claims. The publicity which results from such
a system has a salutary effect on the motorng
public. They become safety conscious, and
indeed voluntarily see where their own salva-
tion lies and take out their own insurance.
The reason I mention that latter point is
that it is in their own interest as well, quite
apart from what we are talking about here
today, that people protect themselves against
the eventuality of a substantial claim being
made against them.
At this point, may I interpolate this obser-
vation, that it was only this morning I
received a memo in my own office with
respect to a certain citizen of this province,
that the cost of raising his overall insurance
limits from what is called all-inclusive cover-
age of $300,000 to $1 million would be $3.75.
Now, compulsory automobile insurance in-
volves another factor; consideration of the
establishment of a rating bureau. The initial
cost of such a project would probably be at
least $300,000, and would require a minimum
of 3 years to establish itself. Such rating
facilities already exist in the companies who
are established in business.
Now what do we say about territorial rating
as against flat rating? Of course, the reason
I am talking about rating is that any system
of compulsory insurance must of necessity
take these items into account, not only take
them into account, but they have to be re-
solved. Flat rate proposals are naturally
advocated by persons resident in the high
rate areas; similarly those from low rate areas
complain that they should not be burdened
with the high rates caused by others than
themselves.
I think the suggestion is perfectly reason-
able. The man who causes accidents should
be required to pay more for his insurance
protection or be taken off the roads. Once
again fallacies arise. Accidents happen any-
where, but the motorist is rated under the
territorial system where he normally resides.
I mention these matters to illustrate the prob-
lems which exist in dealing with this com-
plicated subject.
One of our aims is to establish a system
which reduces human suffering— a system
which protects the innocent person who has
suffered damages at the hand of financially
irresponsible people.
The whole system of compulsory insurance
falls by the board when one considers that
the word "compulsory" is meaningless be-
cause our highways are open to visitors, our
highways are open to people who drive
without permits, and to others who through
some circumstance do not in fact carry
insurance.
Therefore it is my opinion that any attempt
to apply the so-called compulsory insurance
scheme— if the innocent public are to be pro-
tected, and that is what we are primarily
concerned with— would and must involve a
y
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
457
fund of last resort, or an unsatisfied judgment
fund in any event.
There is frequent reference in the press
to our judgments, and the fact that those
large judgments have not been satisfied. That
situation exists almost every day under any
scheme, even where insurance applies, be-
cause the financial responsibility of the
wrongdoer who is insured only applies up
to the limits of his policy and such other
assets as he possesses. If he has no assets
beyond that to pay the judgment, then his
insurance has not provided the necessary
funds to cover the claim of the innocent
person who has suffered.
So again I interpolate this observation,
that any scheme of compulsory insurance
would of necessity have to have, or establish,
its own minimum limit, and therefore claims
which exceed those minimum limits would
not be covered or not provided for.
I remind hon. members again that insur-
ance companies, or the insurer, pays only if
its insured party is responsible in law, and I
defy anyone in this House to tell the House,
or to advance the proposition that, any
insurer under a compulsory insurance scheme
would pay under any other than that basis,
where legal liability exists. That principle of
liability is one which I am sure is misunder-
stood by most of those who urge compulsory
insurance as the answer to all our pains and
troubles.
Not just for the record but as a matter of
primary interest, there are many situations
which are not covered by insurance, and
which could not be covered by any com-
pulsory scheme.
I cite these examples: automobiles from
out of the province, visiting here, which are
not insured; cars from a province, although
insured when registered, may have ceased to
be insured; the situations of stolen auto-
mobiles being involved in accidents. There
are farm vehicles and other situations and as
far as Ontario is concerned, all of these situa-
tions would not be covered by a system of
compulsory insurance.
But this, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to hear
carefully. Notwithstanding those exceptions,
they are covered today, not under any insur-
ance scheme, but those exceptions where
liability exists, and where an innocent person
suffers, are covered under our unsatisfied
judgment fund.
I now come to a part of this discussion
which is not particularly pleasant for me, as
a lawyer, to present, but I shall proceed with
it. I give what I might call a bird's eye view
of the operation of the unsatisfied judgment
fund.
There are two types of action, or lawsuit,
which are involved, and hon. members under-
stand that the question of establishing liability
is fundamental to any kind of claim being
faced.
Firstly, there is the normal action where
there is a known defendant who is alleged
to be responsible for the injury or damage.
Secondly, there is a category under the
heading of "registrar's actions," and this is
where the fund differs from any scheme of in-
surance. Where the injury was caused in a
hit-and-run accident, and the court is given
leave to sue the registrar of motor vehicles,
then the plaintiff proceeds in that way to
recover his damages or a part thereof.
Now, with respect to registrar action, there
are not many of them. Firstly, there are about
40 in a year. Secondly, there has been no
criticism of any kind raised in connection with
delay in payment and so I do not propose to
discuss that further.
With respect to normal actions there are
two aspects. Firstly, there are those proceed-
ings in the action to obtain a judgment and,
secondly, the proceedings after judgment, to
obtain payment out of the fund.
Now, normal actions are conducted before
judgment without regard to the fund. They
proceed in their normal course, just in the
same fashion as though an insurance company
were defending the action, with two excep-
tions.
Firstly, all persons who might be liable
must be sued. To me that is perfectly reason-
able. If the offending vehicle was not driven
by the owner, both the owner and driver must
be brought before the court. If more than
one vehicle may have been responsible, all
owners and drivers must be joined. I say
that this is a necessary and logical protection
for the fund.
Now, if a defendant defaults at some stage
of the case, for example, failing to file his
appearance or deliver his defence, or not
appearing at the trial, then the hon. Minister
must be notified and, if after investigation,
if a defence is warranted to protect the fund
against a contestable or exorbitant claim or
any improper claim, then the hon. Minister
defends the case in the name of the defen-
dant. I say that this is a necessary precau-
tion to prevent exorbitant judgments being
awarded by default.
I suggest that anyone interested in this
proposition should do an analysis along these
lines. Firstly, because the fund must be
458
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
regarded as a fund of last resort, having
regard to normal payments that make it up,
as against the much more substantial amounts
of insurance premiums, it must therefore have
certain safeguards:
(a) All persons who may be liable must
be sued.
(b) Where the defendant does not bother
to defend, the hon. Minister may.
(c) The judgment creditor must take reason-
able efforts to recover the judgment before
turning to the fund.
Now all 3 of these prerequisites, or con-
ditions precedent, are not unreasonable and
their sum, their total, would seem to be a
minimum protection.
Secondly, the hon. Minister's legal rep-
resentatives come into the picture in two
ways: Firstly, where the defendant defaults
and the hon. Minister may defend. I under-
stand no criticism arises on this score. The
establishment of a settlement committee has
made it possible for the hon. Minister to
settle from 75 per cent, to 90 per cent, of
the actions he defends.
Thirdly, where the application is made
for payment out of the fund. It must be
remembered that the decision regarding the
payment out is the court's decision, not that
of any officer of the Crown.
Now, the Crown solicitors cannot prevent
it if the papers are not in order. In fact,
as I will mention in a moment, the officers
of the Crown, being the members of the
legal department under the hon. Attorney-
General, are frequently called upon to assist
in the presentation and preparation of the
material in the interests of the public and
against themselves.
My investigation led me into a certain
analysis of files and figures, and I think some
of them would be of interest to this House.
During the year 1957, that is from Janu-
ary 1 to December 31 of last year, I am
informed that there were a total of 475 appli-
cations brought against the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund. Of those 475 applications, 8 were
opposed. Two of those 8 applications were
dismissed for cause, and 6 of them were
opposed.
It would then follow that some 473 of 475
cases, in one fiscal year, were disposed of
through our present facilities. The two cases
which were dismissed were based on ques-
tions of law.
One plaintiff was unable to prove that he
qualified as being a resident in this province,
and that the province he came from had no
comparable legislation or authority. The mat-
ter, in that instance, went before the courts.
One of the members of our high court of
justice, Mr. Justice Judson as he then was,
distinguished between the situation that
existed, in a certain state of the United States,
and that in Canada, and dismissed the action.
The other was one who took default judg-
ment and failed, and refused all through his
proceedings to give any notice whatever to
the hon. Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of going
to the legal officers of the Crown. I felt free
to do so for two reasons. Firstly, because the
two hon. cabinet Ministers to whom I had
spoken placed no restrictions of any kind on
my inquiries and secondly, that as a practic-
ing lawyer, I have some interest in this sub-
ject matter.
Through those investigations I spent con-
siderable time with the Deputy Minister of
Transport on this subject, and he afforded
me all of the information at his disposal. I
also spent many hours with representatives
of The Department of the Attorney-General.
Those two departments are very fortunate
in having able people to assist them and
carry out their duties.
The unsatisfied judgment fund, of course,
was started in 1947, and Mr. Eric Silk, one
of our able public servants, was prominent
in the drafting of that legislation and has
been since in the administration of the pro-
cedural aspects.
Let me tell just what I found. I said
to them: "Look, I have all the figures for
1957, tell me what is happening right now.
What has happened to the last case that has
gone through your office?"
And I now give hon. members the figures
representing the last 25 cases that went
through the hon. Attorney-General's office for
approval, which is as of approximately Febru-
ary 21. This is a rather interesting situation.
Of those 25 cases, the following figures
apply and give the period from the date when
application was made for payment out, to the
date that final documentation was received
at the hon. Attorney-General's office. Now, 4
got the documentation in less than 1 month;
12 of the 25 took somewhat less than 2
months. Another 4 took less than 3 months, 2
of them had taken almost 6 months, and 3
of those 25 had taken over 6 months.
Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that I find
a little delicate to deal with because, on the
one hand, it established that any delay does
not arise in the Attorney-General's depart-
ment, but it does arise from the profession of
which I am a member.
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
459
Now what happened after the Attorney-
General's department took those documents?
I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you
were in charge of the treasury of any depart-
ment or office or organization, what would
you do if you were asked to sign cheques and
pay money? You would have to check the
information, and that is all that is being done
there.
Here are the figures which show the dis-
patch with which these matters were handled:
Of those last 25 cases, up to about Feb-
ruary 21, 18 of those files were sent on for
payment within the following day. Six of
them were sent on in less than 5 days, and
one was sent on in 6 days.
Now I do not think I need to press this
point any further, and I say this, and I would
not be fair to this House nor to the people
I represent, nor to the people of this province
if I did not say, that it is my considered
opinion that there is no delay whatever on
the part of the Crown in dealing with this
subject matter. Any delay exists on the part
of the people concerned. Sometimes, unfor-
tunately, solicitors who are being paid to
process these applications are not doing it.
Within the last several weeks, The Depart-
ment of the Attorney-General, in consultation
and in conjunction with The Department of
Transport, reviewed all of their outstanding
files, and they found that there were 400
files that had not been dealt with. They
were stagnated, they were old.
Now what about them? Well, here is what
Mr. Silk's office did. A letter was written
to every one of the 400 people, and I have
a copy of it here in my hand, and I want
to record exactly what Mr. Silk said. This
is addressed to the lawyer trying to get the
money out of the fund for his client, and
his client is that innocent person we are
trying to protect. He said:
This is a matter in which you acted for
the plaintiff and we acted for the Minister
of Transport who defended in the name
and on behalf of one or more of the
defendants. A check of our files discloses
that although the action was concluded
favourably to your client, some time ago,
no application has yet been made for pay-
ment out of the unsatisfied judgment fund.
This letter is being sent to you to bring
the matter to your attention in case of it
being overlooked. Frankly, it is prompted
by the number of inquiries from judgment
creditors [that is, and I interpolate, that
is the innocent victim] made directly or
indirectly to this office in connection with
matters where we find that no application
for payment has, in fact, been made.
Now what happened to that letter is very
interesting. There were 400 of them, Mr.
Speaker. About 116 of those lawyers replied,
and informed the department that they had
received payment privately, so they were not
proceeding against the fund, so the file in
the Attorney-General's office might be closed,
or they negotiated some settlement and they
were satisfied.
Now about 100 others replied: "Thank you
for reminding me of my deficiency, and I
will proceed at once with the finalization of
the matter. I will make application and
help you close your file."
Mr. Thomas: Do all my clients get any
money?
Mr. MacDonald: They must have a lot of
poor lawyers.
Mr. Rowntree: Now that is another matter,
Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend knows that.
The relatively few replied at once with the
material and of the remainder, being some-
what less than one-half, the solicitors them-
selves, and this I find most distasteful, that
the solicitors themselves involved, asked for
further instructions from the department
about what to do.
Now, when I am speaking in the House,
Mr. Speaker, I like to think of all the hon.
members here being willing to contribute
something positive, and it was my intention
that I would not fall for any observations
from anyone from across the House.
Today, my illusion that anybody who is an
hon. member of this House was willing to
contribute positively and constructively to its
well-being just falls by the board, when we
hear such interruptions being made by the
hon. member for York South who knows
better than to get into the—
Mr. MacDonald: What other conclusions
would one draw? They were hired to do-
Mr. Rowntree: The subject before the
House is whether or not the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund is doing its job.
Mr. MacDonald: No, it is what the hon.
member brought before the House. Let him
not get so excited.
Mr. Rowntree: I am here to say that it is
doing its job. Any deficiency comes from a
certain small group. As a matter of fact, if I
were pressed further on this point I would
460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
say this, that there is often a bad apple in
some barrels but the whole barrel is not bad.
Mr. MacDonald: A lot in that barrel. About
a quarter of them.
Mr. Rowntree: I will be happy to pursue
this subject on some other occasion, my hon.
friend, but when we get into the question of
bad apples I think all hon. members know
how I feel about that.
Mr. MacDonald: Now that he has opened
it, let him pursue it.
Mr. Rowntree: Out of all of these are the—
Mr. MacDonald: Apples.
Mr. Rowntree: —conclusions that I came
to. Bearing in mind that some people may
not be advised properly— and I hate to admit
that because most members of my profession
are happy to donate their services where
tli ere is need— apart from that, this fund is
one of last resort and in summary it provides
coverage against situations which are not
covered by any insurance scheme.
I say this, that there are 5 points of recom-
mendation that I make to both the hon.
Minister of Highways and the hon. Attorney-
General:
1. Let them continue their safety pro-
gramme with full dispatch. They are mak-
ing good headway, it is a subject where one
does not see the results immediately, but
let them not be disheartened by the obser-
vations of that one apple in the barrel. Let
them just carry on, and eventually the efforts
of their departments will bear fruit, good
fruit.
2. We require a programme of instructions
to the public in their own interest, to per-
suade them to provide for their own volun-
tary insurance, voluntary because it is better
than the minimum compulsory scheme that
exists elsewhere. They should be persuaded
to insure voluntarily in the same fashion that
many of us today carry insurance up to
a $100,000 or $300,000 limit, because we
recognize our duty to the other members
of the public. It is that realization which we
must make known to the people, who will
then accept it as their own responsibility to
carry this protection, and I am talking about
limits far beyond those which would ever
be provided by any scheme of compulsory
insurance.
3. I urge that they maintain that unsatis-
fied judgment fund. Let them keep it going
as a fund of last resort, it is doing a good
job.
4. There are factors concerned with that
scheme which any of us will admit might
require further consideration. The scheme
has been in existence only for 10 years.
We are at the point where that scheme can
be polished up in the light of our experience,
where we can make the adjustments with
some degree of protection to the rest of the
public who are maintaining it.
Our duty just does not lie towards the
man claiming the money, but it also lies
towards the rest of the people in this prov-
ince. I suggest this to the hon. Minister of
Transport and to the hon. Attorney-General
through you, Mr. Speaker. I make two specific
proposals to them:
Let them take an arbitrary figure of $500
for a claim. Segregate those claims of $500
or less against the fund, and let us see if
there is not some manner in which we could
resolve that or simplify the procedure.
I do not say that the steps taken at the
moment, through the sheriff's office, to ascer-
tain the nature of the wrongdoer's assets are
wrong, but maybe they might find that claims
of $500 or less would create a category
where they would be able to resolve or
simplify the procedure. This should result
in speeding up and having the rest of the
public protected at the same time.
The second specific suggestion that I make
is this, that I think that legislation should be
provided whereby the minute a judgment of
any kind— whether there is insurance or
whether the fund is involved— the defendant
becomes saddled with the onus of establish-
ing his financial responsibility in a practical
way.
At the moment the plaintiff has to search
him out, as to what assets he has, and how
he is going to get his money.
Now, I say that any person who has been
found liable should forthwith lose his licence
privileges. The onus of establishing whether
or not he can drive after noon tomorrow is
on him, the wrongdoer, not on the innocent
victim.
5. I urge that the government establish a
demerit system. There are two kinds of per-
sons involved, firstly the one who is finan-
cially irresponsible, and the second category
is where he is accident prone. No criticism of
the individual is intended, he is just accident
prone. Let us deal with him in the same
fashion, Mr. Speaker, as you would with an
office boy who cannot do his job; you would
transfer him to some other work he can do.
I say that if someone is accident prone, he is
almost in the same category as being finan-
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
461
cially irresponsible. He is a danger to the
rest of the community.
We are concerned only with innocent vic-
tims. Let the hon. Ministers establish that
demerit system and take these accident prone
or financially irresponsible people off the
highways.
I urge most sincerely that the hon. Minis-
ter of Transport and the hon. Attorney-
General establish those 5 points. I have
spent a lot of time on this matter and would
like to say that I was very happy at the
information, good and bad, pro and con,
which the officers of both those departments
gave me.
Now, time is moving on, but traffic safety
is something that is allied to this whole sub-
ject and there are 3 points I would like to
urge on the government:
1. There should be some set of regulations
or provisions by the officers of the Crown to
control the basic design of motor vehicles.
Now, a causal look at the legislation indicates
that the legislation provides for the carrying
and maintenance of certain equipment such
as lights or brakes or flicker lights. My point
is that I think that any automobile that
has its door at the front is a menace to the
person operating it and to those inside it,
and should be ruled off the road unless there
is a form of exit elsewhere in that vehicle
that can be used speedily, readily and
quickly.
2. There is a tendency in the last few
months by some manufacturers of motor
vehicles to cover the rear ends of their
vehicles with a set of dazzling red lights,
some of them 6 and 8 inches in diameter,
and as many as 4 of them. I say that they
are a menace to the public of this com-
munity.
3. With the varying types of vehicles
that we have, the many transport trucks and
the many small vehicles, I think that all
vehicles, both commercial and private, should
have bumpers of uniform level. All trans-
ports should have a dropper or skirt, a sheet
of steel, drop down at the rear, and I think
that all automobiles, whether they be large
expensive ones or small inexpensive ones,
should have bumpers of uniform height.
My last observation has to do with a
subject which is very close to your heart
I know, Mr. Speaker, and one which I think
appeals to every hon. member of this House.
It has to do with retarded children.
Now the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Phillips) and the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare (Mr. Cecile) have collaborated in
taking over what was formerly the sick
children's hospital at Thistledown, and at
the moment there is a great research pro-
gramme carried on there, on this subject of
children from 6 years of age up. It is
described as an intensive programme, and it
means just what it says.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the park
land at Thistletown would lend itself most
adequately to the provision, or the establish-
ment, of some boarding school or resident
school for children who are retarded either
mentally or physically, children who require
the kind of assistance which is beyond the
ability of their parents to provide.
I think this is a step in the right direction
at Thistletown, but I think it should be
regarded as only the first step because, as
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) said the
other day, any investment or any monies that
are spent on subjects of this kind are not just
monies thrown away, they are monies which
are invested in development and toward
human betterment.
Now, sir, you have been very gracious in
listening to me so patiently, and I thank
the hon. members for their kind attention.
Hon. R. Connell (Minister Without Port-
folio and Vice-Chairman of Hydro): Mr.
Speaker, as I rise to speak on this Throne
debate, I would like to, as the other hon.
members have done, congratulate you, the
Deputy Speaker (Mr. Allen), the hon. mover
(Mr. Kennedy), the hon. seconder (Mr. Guin-
don), and the new hon. members of the
House. If it is brief it is nonetheless sincere.
According to my schedule here, we are
some 50 minutes behind right now, and I am
going to try to do what is very difficult to do,
give 20 minutes back to the hon. members.
I have 20 minutes here during which I
thought I would speak on agriculture, but
unless I get some notes across here, insisting
that I go on with it, I am going to save that
for a later date. So I will give hon. members
what I am actually here for today— the Hydro
report.
I might say that in my job as vice-chairman
of Hydro, I have tried in the 16 months that
I have been there, to do primarily 3 things:
(1) to look after the interests of hon. mem-
bers of this House; (2) being a farmer, trying
particularly to look after rural interests and
(3) to look after government interests.
I will say something that I have said before,
and I find it more true than ever, that I do
think we get more value out of $1 worth of
Hydro than any other $1 we spend.
I do not know who the hon. chairman of
the committee on government commissions
462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is, but before I give this report, I would like
to extend an invitation to that hon. chairman,
and the hon. members of the committee on
government commissions, to come down and
visit the head office of Hydro and several
other buildings which we have there.
The reason I am doing that is this: the
Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario
is divided into 8 regions; once a year we
bring in the commissioners of the various
public utilities of each region, and take them
over that particular tour of the Hydro build-
ings. They find it very interesting, and learn
more about what is going on about Hydro
than in any other way.
Therefore, I would like to issue that invita-
tion to the hon. chairman and the hon. mem-
bers of the committee on government com-
missions, if possible before Hydro reports to
that committee, to come down and have that
visit. I am very sincere about that, and I
think it would make their job of looking into
the works of Hydro that much easier for
them and they might be able to question the
members of the Hydro Electric Commission
that much more intelligently.
In presenting my report on the activities
of Ontario Hydro for 1957, I feel that in
brief it can best be expressed by saying
that the commission entered its second half-
century of service with renewed vigour and
enthusiasm. The past year embraced a period
of significant progress and decisions that will
leave their impact on this province for many
years to come.
Many events are worthy of hon. members'
attention because they reflect the indissoluble
link between the commission and the econ-
omic development of our province.
Let me first, however, express my grati-
tude to our hon. Prime Minister ( Mr. Frost )
in naming me as second vice-chairman of the
great publicly-owned Hydro enterprise. I
consider it a rare distinction to assist in guid-
ing the destiny of this province-wide organi-
zation, which makes such memorable con-
tributions to the economic life of Ontario
and to the comfort and well-being of its
citizens.
I am mindful, too, of the privilege that
has been afforded me in being associated
with such men as James S. Duncan, our
Hydro chairman, our first vice-chairman, W.
Ross Strike, as well as the other members
of the commission, Lt.-Col. A. A. Kennedy
and D. P. Cliff. There is no doubt in my
mind that this province is fortunate in hav-
ing men of such calibre to direct the activi-
ties of Ontario Hydro.
Furthermore, since my appointment in
November, 1956, I have become increas-
ingly conscious of the efficiency of the Hydro
staff and the extremely intelligent administra-
tion evident at all levels of commission
management. I know I can say without fear
of contradiction that Hydro today stands
apart as one of the great engineering organi-
zations of the world.
At this juncture, too, I would like to
express my gratification for the fact that I
have been privileged to visit many sections
of the province, and to become acquainted
with those who serve their individual com-
munities as commissioners, managers or em-
ployees of the local utilities. The fact that
Hydro in Ontario stands pre-eminent as one
of the great publicly-owned organizations of
the world is, I am confident, due in great
measure to the selfless devotion to the ideals
of civic service manifested by these muni-
cipal representatives.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, 1957
was a year of momentous decisions and
achievements of far-reaching importance for
the commission and its associated municipal
electrical utilities.
During the course of my report to the
House I shall discuss such highlights of Hydro
progress as:
1. Announcement of plans for construction
of 3 new conventional thermal-electric gen-
erating stations;
2. Hydro's role in Canada's nuclear power
programme;
3. Rapid progress on the expansion of its
hydro-electric resources;
4. Revolutionary changes in underground
transmission facilities;
5. The status of the frequency standardi-
zation programme;
6. The introduction of far-reaching changes
in rural electrical service policy, and the
launching of the "Live Better Electrically"
educational programme in co-operation with
Hydro municipalities.
Before considering the importance of the
commission's decision to increase substan-
tially its thermal-electric capacity, let us
briefly examine the status of Ontario's hydrau-
lic resources as represented by falling water.
To present an accurate picture, I can only
refer hon. members back to the frequently-
repeated statement that Ontario Hydro can
readily envisage the full utilization of its
available hydraulic resources within the fore-
seeable future. I am certain that every hon.
member of this House is fully aware that the
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
463
present projects on the St. Lawrence and
Niagara rivers constitute the last major
sources of hydraulic power in this province.
In the light of these facts, plans for the
construction of two of the world's largest
thermal-electric plants, in the heavily indus-
trialized Toronto-Hamilton area, were initi-
ated. Last year when I presented my report
in this assembly, I said that a site for a
thermal-electric plant in the Fort William-Port
Arthur area was being considered. I am
pleased to advise hon. members now that
approval of the first plant of this type in
northern Ontario was announced in September
of last year.
The first of the two southern Ontario sta-
tions, to be known as the Lakeview G.S.,
represents an estimated capital investment of
some $250 million. With the first two units
scheduled for 1961 and 1962, its ultimate
capacity of 1.8 million kilowatts is more than
double that of the Ontario Hydro section of
the St. Lawrence power project. It is antici-
pated that the second plant— the Hamilton
G.S.— will be identical to the Lakeview sta-
tion.
Another thermal-electric station already in
service— the Richard L. Hearn generating sta-
tion in Toronto— is being enlarged. During
1957, the commission authorized installation
of a fourth additional turbo-generator. Thus,
the present capacity of this plant will be
progressively augmented in 1958, 1959 and
1960 by the completion of four 200,000-kilo-
watt units, raising its ultimate capacity to 1.2
million kilowatts.
The commission's decision to proceed with
the expansion of its conventional thermal
capacity has naturally focused public atten-
tion on the ultimate role of nuclear-electric
power and its place in Ontario Hydro's sys-
tem of operations.
I shall, therefore, lay before the hon.
members the pertinent facts of this situation.
Let me first say that Ontario Hydro is, and
always has been, keenly aware of the desira-
bility of using uranium produced in Ontario
mines to generate electricity, as an alternative
to the use of imported coal. This fact was
made quite apparent as far back as 1953,
when the commission announced its intention
of participating with Atomic Energy of Can-
ada Limited in feasibility studies relating to
the development of electricity from nuclear
sources.
To this end the commission assigned several
of its engineers to form part of a study group
entrusted with the responsibility of examining
the prospects of producing nuclear-electric
power.
Then, in 1955, Hydro announced that it
would proceed jointly with Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited and the Canadian General
Electric Company Limited in the construction
of a 20,000-kilowatt nuclear-electric plant (to
be known as nuclear power demonstration—
NPD) on property close to our Des Joachims
generating station on the Ottawa River.
The main function of this plant was to
demonstrate the feasibility of producing elec-
tric energy from a nuclear power plant using
natural uranium as a fuel and heavy water as
a moderator. NPD was also assigned to obtain
information on fuel element design, and to
permit engineers to study the plant's operation
in conjunction with other sources of power.
Parallel studies were also undertaken for
a full-scale nuclear power plant. The first
report relating to the larger plant became
available early in 1957. Also, due to certain
improvements in design over methods pro-
posed for the NPD reactor, it was deemed
advisable last April to suspend work tem-
porarily to permit incorporation of new
features.
I have great satisfaction in reporting to hon.
members of this House on the recent decision
to resume construction of the nuclear power
demonstration plant. On the recommendation
of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a com-
prehensive programme for the development
of the large-scale nuclear power plant will
also be undertaken.
It is a source of gratification to me, and to
my colleagues on the commission, that we
are to continue to have a prominent role in
these projects. Under the recently-announced
plan, Ontario Hydro will not only assign some
15 engineers to work with the nuclear power
plant division, which will be established by
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Toronto
to co-ordinate the entire programme, but will
also provide accommodation for the new
division.
The commission has also agreed to place
the services of its assistant general manager
of engineering, Harold A. Smith, at the dis-
posal of this new group. Mr. Smith, I should
explain, has been prominently identified with
the nuclear power programme since its incep-
tion. While serving as manager of the new
nuclear power plant division, he will also
continue his present duties with Ontario
Hydro — thus performing a most important
liaison function between the commission and
the nuclear power plant division.
I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
members of this House will find this prospect
as encouraging as we do at Ontario Hydro.
It is still our hope that the first major
464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
nuclear-electric plant in our system will be
available for base load (or continuous)
operation in 1965 or 1966, on a cost basis
that will be virtually competitive with coal-
fired stations.
It is quite evident, however, that the addi-
tional capacity will be required by 1961. I
am certain, therefore, that there will be
unanimous endorsement of the commission's
opinion that the construction of coal-fired
plants to meet the province's growing electri-
cal requirements constitutes the only course
open to it at present.
When I had the honour of addressing the
House last year, in the same capacity as I do
today, I spoke of our being in a period of
transition in the matter of power supply,
from falling water as a power source to fuels
converted in thermal generating plants. I
have already dealt with the newer aspect.
To enable the hon. members now to per-
ceive clearly this fundamental change, which
is more evident than it was a year ago, I
shall report on the activities of Ontario Hydro
in the field of hydraulic generation.
It is, perhaps, appropriate that the com-
mission's last major hydro-electric develop-
ments should be the most spectacular of all
that have preceded them. I speak, of course,
only of the very large-scale undertakings,
namely the St. Lawrence power project and
the Sir Adam Beck-Niagara generating
station No. 2 at Niagara Falls.
The International Rapids section of the St.
Lawrence River is the last major source of
hydraulic power in Ontario, while the
Niagara plant will tap the last amount of
power available on the Canadian side of the
Niagara River. Some 30 other hydraulic sites,
with a much smaller potential, of course, are
still available, and these will be developed
as conditions warrant, consistent with the
character of the anticipated load.
In all its phases, Hydro's St. Lawrence
power project, with a capacity of 820,000
kilowatts, is one of the most unusual ever
undertaken by the commission. It is encour-
aging to report that construction proceeded
according to schedule during 1957. By the
end of the year, the project was more than
80 per cent, complete. The hon. members
of this House, particularly those who took
part in Hydro's special inspection tour of
the project last fall, are doubtless well
acquainted with the various aspects of this
development.
The focal point is, of course, the twin
adjoining powerhouses, which will produce
their first power in July of this year, with
completion scheduled for 1960. The clock-
like progress of the project owes much to the
fine teamwork between the engineering and
construction forces of both the commission
and the power authority of the state of New
York.
Completed in 1957 were the Cornwall
dyke, the Iroquois dam and a major portion
of the Long Sault dam. At the Robert H.
Saunders-St. Lawrence generating station, 90
per cent, of the concrete had been placed,
and installation of mechanical and electrical
equipment is progressing satisfactorily. The
regional operations staff of Ontario Hydro
took over the Iroquois dam from the United
States contractor last December.
The unique rehabilitation programme, in-
volving the relocation of some 6,500 people
who resided in the area to be affected by
the flooding associated with the power pro-
ject, was virtually completed late in Decem-
ber of last year. Two new townsites, Ingleside
and Long Sault, have been established, incor-
porating homes from 6 villages formerly
located on the banks of the St. Lawrence.
Retaining its identity, the village of Iro-
quois has also been entirely relocated, while
the business section of Morrisburg was moved
to the northern section of the community.
In all, this programme, covering a 20,000-
acre area, has entailed the relocating of 525
homes, while the commission has provided
water, sewage, electrical and other utility
services, as well as churches, schools, public
and other buildings.
Another important phase of this project is
the relocation of a 35-mile section of high-
way No. 2. Similarly it has been necessary
to construct a new, 40-mile section of double-
track Canadian National Railways line be-
tween Cardinal and Cornwall.
As hon. members can readily appreciate,
the rehabilitation of the 6,500 people living
in the area has entailed considerable negotia-
tion in acquiring the land, which will form
part of the headpond for the St. Lawrence
development. By the end of January of this
year, Ontario Hydro negotiators had com-
pleted 2,100 agreements for the purchase of
the necessary property. This represents ap-
proximately 95 per cent, of the total land
and buildings required.
Hon. members of this House will be grati-
fied to learn that only 10 of the 2,100 prop-
erty transactions have been referred to the
Ontario municipal board, the appeal body
appointed by this government to arbitrate
such cases.
Such a record underlines the patient under-
standing of the residents of the area and, I
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
465
am sure, the courtesy and consideration dis-
played by the commission's representatives.
A project of these dimensions inevitably
causes some disruption in the lives of the
people. The fact that Ontario Hydro has
been able to carry forward this phase of the
St. Lawrence development on schedule, and
with a minimum of friction, is, to a large
degree, also attributable to the helpful advice
and co-operation accorded the commission
by many of the civic officials of the St. Law-
rence communities.
I am certain this attitude stemmed par-
tially from a far-sighted realization of the
ultimate benefits that will accrue when the
development reaches completion. This recog-
nition of the impact of the power and seaway
projects is quite evident in the optimism prev-
alent today in these relocated communities
where vigorous plans are being made for
industrial expansion.
A striking indication of the unprecedented
public interest in the St. Lawrence power
project is provided by the fact that some
820,000 visitors from practically every prov-
ince of Canada, many sections of the United
States, and several other countries viewed
construction progress during 1957.
Now let us direct our attention to Niagara
Falls, which ranks as one of the major sources
of hydro- electric power in the world. I am
confident that hon. members of this House
experience a genuine sense of pride in the
achievements of Ontario Hydro in this section
of the province. Today, the second stage of
construction at the Sir Adam Beck No. 2 gen-
erating station is nearing completion. Two of
the 4 new units were placed in operation
last year. The other two units will come into
service by the summer of this year. These,
together with the 12 units completed in 1954-
1955 and the associated pumping-generating
station, will raise the capacity of the plant
to the impressive total of 1.37 million kilo-
watts.
For those who have not had the opportunity
of visiting the Niagara Falls area recently, a
tour, either now or in the warmer months
approaching, would be both stimulating and
surprising. Many hon. members would, I am
certain, be astounded to see the vast reservoir,
with a capacity of 650 million cubic feet of
water, which the commission has created for
its pumped-storage scheme.
A particularly interesting feature of this
unique undertaking is the fact that the units of
the station act as pumps during lower power
demand periods, lifting water from the power
canal into the reservoir. Then, during peak
demand periods, the units become generators
when they are reversed, at the same time dis-
charging water back into the canal to permit
a greater output from the Sir Adam Beck sta-
tions.
Three units of this new 170,000-kilowatt
pumping-generator station were in operation
by the end of 1957, with 3 more scheduled
for service this year.
In recalling the commission's progress dur-
ing 1957, another event stands out in bold
relief. The 1950 Niagara Diversion Treaty,
between Canada and the United States, made
provision for a far-reaching remedial works
programme. This programme was specifically
designed to preserve and enhance the beauty
of the famous Horseshoe Falls, as well as to
promote more effective use of Niagara River
water for power production purposes. As
many are perhaps aware, this programme, in
which Ontario Hydro participated jointly
with the corps of engineers, United States
Army, was officially completed in September
of last year.
In northern Ontario, intensified mining
activity, particularly in the world's major
uranium-mining area around Blind River, and
expansion of pulp and paper and other indus-
tries, have been major factors in increasing
demands for power, as they quickly turn this
former wilderness of forests and lakes into an
important element in the province's economy.
To meet the needs of the mines, factories,
farms and homes in the north, Ontario Hydro
in 1957 had under way a programme of con-
struction which included the building of 3
new hydro-electric generating stations on
northern rivers, and extensions to 4 existing
stations.
All this is in addition to the new thermal-
electric plant, the Thunder Bay generating
station at the Lakehead, to which I have
already referred, and which is scheduled for
service in 1961. Its initial capacity with one
unit will be 100,000 kilowatts with provi-
sion for enlarging it to 1 million kilowatts
as required.
The 3 new hydro-electric stations are
located at Whitedog Falls, on the Winnipeg
River; at Caribou Falls, on the English River;
and at Silver Falls, on the Kaministikwia
River. The 54,000 kilowatt Whitedog Falls
plant, and the Caribou Falls station, with a
capacity of 67,500 kilowatts, are scheduled
for service this year. The 45,500-kilowatt
development at Silver Falls will be in opera-
tion in the fall of 1959.
Record progress is reported on the exten-
sions to the Cameron Falls and Alexander
plants on the Nipigon River. An additional
unit at Cameron Falls, scheduled for opera-
466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion in 1958, will increase the plant's capacity
to 76,700 kilowatts, while another unit which
will be in operation shortly at the nearby
Alexander generating station will raise this
plant's capacity to 60,900 kilowatts.
During 1957, the commission authorized
an additional generator at its Abitibi Can-
yon plant on the Abitibi River to increase
the capacity of this plant to 226,000 kilo-
watts early in 1959.
An ingenious diversion of water from Lake
St. Joseph into the English River watershed
has permitted the installation of an additional
unit at the Manitpu Falls plant, which will
have at total capacity of 65,700 kilowatts
when the fifth unit is completed shortly. The
additional flow has also enabled commission
engineers to plan for extra capacity at the
previously-mentioned Caribou Falls project,
and for the installation of larger capacity
units when Hydro proceeds with the develop-
ment of Maynard Falls, another English
River site.
My report on the commission's hydro-
electric projects would not be complete with-
out a brief reference to Hydro's recent an-
nouncement that it is undertaking further
developments in northeastern Ontario on the
Mississagi and Abitibi rivers. Both of these
projects, to be known as the Red Rock and
Otter Rapids generating stations respectively,
are estimated to have a combined potential
of 162,000 kilowatts, and constitute a long-
range plan to harness additional sites in
northern Ontario. It is presently anticipated
that initial power from these new projects
will be available in 1960 and 1961.
The combined cost of the two develop-
ments, both of which are located within the
northern Ontario properties— a system held
and operated by the commission in trust for
the province of Ontario— is estimated at $50
million.
Mr. Speaker, that is the general picture
of what Ontario Hydro is accomplishing in
augmenting its power resources, and I am
confident you will agree that it constitutes
a record of genuine and reassuring progress.
To summarize briefly, I would like to point
out that Hydro's resources in 1957 totalled
4,844,100 kilowatts, representing a net in-
crease over the previous year of 292,000 kilo-
watts or 6.4 per cent.
When we realize that 16 new sources of
power have been placed in service since
1945, increasing Ontario Hydro's capacity
by 150 per cent., we are keenly aware of
the close relationship between the commis-
sion's operations and the tempo of the pro-
vincial economy.
This statement can be further substan-
tiated by a rapid scrutiny of Ontario's grow-
ing electrical requirements. When the com-
mission began to supply power to the 14
original municipalities in 1910, the demand
was only 4,000 kilowatts. By 1945, the total
load had reached 1,852,000 kilowatts, and
demands for 1957 were 4,783,500 kilowatts
—an increase of 158 per cent, in 12 years.
In speaking of the province's electrical
requirements, I should point out that peak
demands on the commission's southern
Ontario system were affected by certain
declines in industrial activity, and by abnor-
mally mild weather conditions. Thus, the pre-
vious year's peak was exceeded by only 4 per
cent.
On the other hand, demands in the north-
east were 17 per cent., and in the north-
west 14 per cent., higher than those for 1956.
It is interesting to note that the average
increase in demands experienced by the
major electrical utilities in the United States
was only 2.8 per cent, during 1957. When
compared to last year's 6 per cent, overall
growth in demands on Hydro's systems, I
believe there is every reason to feel extremely
gratified that we are maintaining a healthy
economic growth despite the conditions I
have previously outlined.
To avoid any misunderstanding with regard
to the commission's plans for augmenting its
resources in the next decade or more, I
would like to deal briefly with the question
of anticipated future demands.
It is estimated that Hydro, which is today
supplying approximately 90 per cent, of the
electric energy used in Ontario, will find it
necessary to cope with demands totalling
approximately 6 million kilowatts by 1960.
Ontario Hydro's 1956 brief to the Royal
commission on Canada's economic prospects
envisaged the possibility that our electrical
demands might be in excess of 20 million
kilowatts by 1980. Plans to augment our
resources to meet such requirements must be
made and implemented well in advance, in
order to maintain an adequate supply of elec-
tricity as well as keep a safe margin of
reserve capacity for contingencies.
Manifesting a wholesome confidence in the
sustained growth of this province, the com-
mission's expansion plans envisage a progres-
sive increase in generating resources of some
3 million kilowatts in the next 5 years.
Improvement of transmission facilities con-
stitutes another major aspect of our opera-
tions. Insuring a greater degree of system
security, Ontario Hydro has, for a number of
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
467
years, followed a consistent policy of integrat-
ing its own system. It has further strengthened
this network by effective and highly bene-
ficial transmission-line interconnections with
adjacent electrical utilities in the United
States, Quebec, and Manitoba.
Of particular advantage has been the tie
established in 1950 between our systems in
northeastern and southern Ontario. Fortifying
this link, Hydro is now constructing a new
230,000-volt transmission line over a distance
of 110 miles.
As I mentioned earlier in this report,
increasing power demands in the Blind River
area are necessitating the construction of addi-
tional generation and transmission facilities.
Thus a similar transmission line has been built
between that area and Sudbury, operating at
115,000 volts until such time as a 230,000-
volt transformer station is completed at Blind
River.
While dealing with our transmission net-
work, I proudly draw the attention of hon.
members to a revolutionary system for cool-
ing underground transmission cables de-
veloped by the commission's engineering staff.
This new technique, which has been
acclaimed as a "world first," was introduced
last year in the laying of four 115,000-volt
circuits along a 3.5-mile route near Toronto's
new expressway adjacent to the lakeshore.
A conception of the far-reaching impor-
tance of this new development is provided by
the fact that our engineers estimate that the
cables will carry 50 per cent, to 60 per cent,
more power as a result of the new cooling
method.
I am also pleased to inform the hon.
members of this House that the frequency
standardization programme in southern On-
tario is approaching a successful conclusion.
Launched in 1949, it has involved so far
the alteration from 25 to 60 cycle operation
of more than 6.135 million frequency-sensitive
items owned by 915,700 customers.
It is a recognized fact that this was one
of the largest undertakings of its kind in the
world, involving a 12,000-square mile "island"
extending from Windsor to a point a few
miles east of Toronto. Today we look back
on the completion of some 90 per cent, of
the programme. Generally speaking only cer-
tain parts of Toronto and Leaside remain to
be standardized. We are also proceeding
with frequency standardization work in a
section of northeastern Ontario.
Keeping pace with the changeover of cus-
tomers' equipment was the conversion of
generating facilities to meet the growing 60-
cycle loads. Last year, 8 units in plants owned
and operated by two of our Quebec suppliers
were altered for 60-cycle operation.
Completion of the entire programme in
1959 will establish the 60-cycle frequency
throughout Ontario, placing it in line with a
vast portion of the North American continent.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to a sub-
ject which is of particular interest to me. I
refer, of course, to the commission's rural
operations, which have created such a re-
markable transformation in the mode of living
on our farms and in the smaller communities
of the province.
It is a source of particular satisfaction to
me to direct the attention of hon. members
momentarily to a decisive step taken by On-
tario Hydro during 1957. As they are perhaps
already aware, the commission gave approval
to certain changes in policy that are of para-
mount importance to many farmers and to
rural customers in built-up areas.
In relaxing its density requirements for
farm line extensions, the commission will now
build two-thirds of a mile of line along a
public road to any soundly-established farm.
The previous policy was to build only one-
third of a mile of line. At the same time,
Ontario Hydro introduced into the existing
hamlet rural rate structure a new third block
of 500 kilowatt-hours a month, at a net cost
of one cent per kilowatt-hour. I might explain
that this change was designed to benefit
rural customers in high-density residential
areas by bringing their rate closer in line
with prevailing municipal rates.
This rate reduction will affect more than
130,000 domestic customers in built-up rural
areas in the province. These customers, whose
present use of energy extends into the third
block, will obtain a lower rate and be better
able to enjoy the advantages of the ever-
increasing number of home electrical appli-
ances.
I am confident that many hon. members
of this House, particularly those who rep-
resent predominantly rural constituencies, will
welcome these changes in Hydro's rural
policy. But let me remind them that these
changes represent just another link in a long
chain of events which have resulted in the
wide expansion of the commission's rural net-
work, in the last 4 decades or more, to extend
the countless benefits of electrical service.
One has only to compare 1957 with 1945
to realize the rapid expansion of Hydro
service in the rural areas of the province.
At the end of 1945, Ontario Hydro was serv-
ing a total of 156,560 rural customers over
21,569 miles of line. By the end of 1957,
468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the number of customers had risen to 453,-
600, an increase of 190 per cent.
During the same period, the commission
brought the total number of miles of line
in service up to 45,375, representing an
increase of 110 per cent. Last year alone,
there was a net increase of 883 miles of rural
distribution line, with a corresponding addi-
tion of 23,556 customers.
The far-reaching implications of Hydro's
expansion of its rural network can be more
fully envisaged by the realization that elec-
trical facilities are today available to 94 per
cent, of the farmers of this province.
My association with the commission in the
past 16 months or more has made me keenly
conscious of Hydro's dynamic effect upon
Ontario's agricultural economy. Statistics in-
dicate the unique fact that a total of slightly
more than 192,000 farms were being operated
in 1932. Figures obtained during the 1956
agricultural census revealed that this total
had shrunk to slightly more than 140,000
operating farms.
Despite this fact, the value of the prov-
ince's agricultural production during the same
period jumped from approximately $248
million to a figure in excess of $1 billion.
While some allowance must be made for
the inflationary price trend, it is obvious
that the increased mechanization of farming
operations, brought about largely by the
growing availability of electricity in the rural
sections of Ontario, has had an important
influence on the output of our farms.
The fact that there are approximately 400
possible electrical applications on a modern
electrified Ontario farm explains why we
still rank as Canada's leading agricultural
province in spite of our dramatic emergence
as the foremost industrial centre of the
nation.
Present plans for the extension of rural
facilities during 1958 envisage service to an
additional 27,515 customers, and it will be
necessary to extend our rural distribution
lines by some 1,200 miles.
No report is, of course, entirely complete
without reference to the financial operations
of an organization.
As hon. members can appreciate, however,
in the case of Ontario Hydro, the task of
assimilating all the figures relating to its
widespread and varied activities entails con-
siderable time and effort. Therefore, I hasten
to point out that I can, at the moment, give
only preliminary figures. Let me say on the
other hand, that the final figures will be made
available to hon. members as soon as pos-
sible, through the medium of our annual
report.
I have no hesitation in saying that our
financial operations in 1957 constitute another
record of satisfactory progress. It is presently
estimated that our total assets at the end of
the year had reached a figure in excess of
$2.26 billion compared to $2 billion at
December 31, 1956.
On the other side of the ledger, the com-
mission's long-term liabilities stood at approxi-
mately $1.57 billion, of which $46.5 million
represents the balance of outstanding
advances from the province of Ontario.
I am sure every hon. member will concur
with my statement that the commission's
financial stability and reputation merits
unanimous admiration. To provide proof of
this fact, I have only to mention that
Canadian investors demonstrated their con-
fidence in Ontario Hydro during 1957 by pur-
chasing $200 million worth of the commis-
sion's bonds issued to assist in financing its
tremendous expansion programme.
I am also pleased to say that the first bond
issue made this year— on February 13— involv-
ing $75 million was also an outstanding suc-
cess, especially when we consider current
market conditions.
As one of the world's largest electrical
utilities, the commission employs 19,000
people of widely-diversified skills. When one
also considers the total indirect employment
v/hich results from Hydro's annual capital
expenditures— which this year will total some
$212 million— and which is spent largely in
Ontario, he will see the further contribution
which the commission makes to our overall
economy.
In its constant search for the latest and
most efficient methods of handling its admini-
strative and engineering responsibilities,
Ontario Hydro has created a new data pro-
cessing division. This division will be in
charge of a new electronic computing system
that will eventually replace much of the
present computing, punch-card and other
electronic equipment now in use.
The new installation, which will occupy
about 6,000 square feet at Hydro's head
office here in Toronto, will be ready for
initial operation this year. Ultimately it will
involve the linking of Hydro's 9 regional
offices and 104 rural operating areas with a
central point in Toronto, to enable it to per-
form a substantial portion of the customer
accounting, payrolls, and inventory control,
as well as scientific and engineering computa-
tions.
FEBRUARY 28, 1958
469
I am aware that this represents the intro-
duction of modern-day automation into the
commission's operations. I, therefore, would
like to assure the hon. members of this House
that the transition will be gradual, requiring
6 years to complete. They will, I am sure,
wish to commend the commissions manage-
ment for the study and attention being given
to the necessary staff adjustments and the
problem of ensuring that no employee loses
in terms of job security and remuneration.
On the other hand, we envisage the possi-
bility of eliminating many routine and
monotonous tasks, at the same time offering
work of a higher order of interest and skill.
In this way we are confident of increased
efficiency, and, as a logical result, even
better service to every electrical customer in
the province.
Earlier in my address, I drew attention to
the fact that I had been privileged to associ-
ate myself on many recent occasions with
those who direct the activities of the municipal
electrical systems of the province. For a mo-
ment, therefore, I would like to discuss this
important phase of Hydro operations, involv-
ing the direct distribution of electricity to
over one million industrial, commercial and
domestic customers in Ontario.
In fact, the remarkable expansion of On-
tario Hydro in the past 51 years is largely
a reflection of continued development in our
urban centres and a consequent growth in
power demands from the municipal electrical
utilities. I mentioned previously that the
Ontario commission, in 1910, began supplying
power to the first 14 municipalities which had
signed contracts for Hydro service. Since
that time more and more municipalities have
recognized the advantages of affiliating them-
selves with the province-wide system, and
today we serve 351 municipal electrical utili-
ties.
Another heartening manifestation of the co-
operative partnership between the commission
and its municipal customers can be readily
found in the current "Live Better Electrically"
campaign launched late in 1957 as a joint
enterprise.
This programme entails the use of Hydro
advertisements in daily and weekly newspapers
across the province, while at the same time
making use of the communication facilities
provided by radio and television. Supple-
menting these phases of the educational
project, we will also emphasize the safety
and cleanliness of electricity through such
media as bus, car and truck cards; school
and farm papers; counter cards; school book
covers, as well as consumer booklets and
postage meter slugs.
In addition, a mobile demonstration coach,
and also homemaker demonstrations and dis-
plays at major exhibitions and fairs, will
show the uses, advantages and benefits of
electrical service.
I am quite sure that there is general agree-
ment with the view that we should keep the
people of Ontario fully acquainted with the
many advantages of "living electrically."
Let me point out at this juncture that the
electrical rates prevailing in this province
compare very favourably with the cost in
other provinces of Canada, and indeed, with
the cost anywhere in the world. The fact that
there has been no general increase in the
wholesale cost of power to the muncipal
Hydro systems since 1953 is of more than
ordinary significance. Equally striking is the
fact that some 100 Ontario municipalities
have found it possible to institute rate reduc-
tions, ranging from 5 per cent, to 25 per
cent., for their customers since the begin-
ning of 1956.
A study of the Canadian consumer price
index reveals that the price of all commodi-
ties increased by an average of 80 per cent,
between 1940 and 1956. But in Ontario
during these same years, the average price
of electricity used in the home and on the
farm has actually gone down 4 per cent!
In stressing the benefits inherent in low-
cost Hydro service, we are not only seeking
to protect an important source of revenue,
but are also directing attention to the fact
that electricity exerted, and will continue
to exert, a vital influence on the high stand-
ard of living prevalent in Ontario.
In concluding my remarks, it is highly
gratifying to be able to provide assurance
that Ontario Hydro does not contemplate any
general increase in the cost of power to
municipalities in 1958. In view of the fact
that this affects the majority of the more
than 1.6 million customers served by Hydro
in Ontario, such an assurance represents a
contribution of immeasurable proportions to
the economic stability of the province.
The commission stands ready at all times
to keep hon. members of the Legislature
fully informed on all phases of Ontario
Hydro's plans and progress; indeed, during
the past several years many hon. members
have received first-hand information relating
to municipal Hydro improvement programmes
and other developments in their own con-
stituencies.
For the support that the commission has
received from all hon. members of this House
—enabling us to guide the destiny of a great
470
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
enterprise that is, in every aspect, an excel-
lent example of "democracy at work"— I ex-
tend my most sincere thanks and appreciation.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members have been
most patient in listening to this long report.
I have speeded it up as much as possible.
These reports will be, or I guess they are
now, on your desk, and if you are particularly
interested in some of these things, you will
be able to go over them more at your leisure.
Mr. A. G. Frost (Bracondale): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
THE SURVEYS ACT, 1958
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 95, "The Surveys Act, 1958."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the laws governing
surveys in Ontario are as old as its history,
and the first revision of these laws was made
in 1849 and the most recent in 1920.
Three different systems of surveying town-
ships were made and used before 1829, and
3 other systems have been followed since
that time.
The 1920 Act which is in force at the
present time did not deal separately with
each of the 6 systems, with the result that
difficulties were experienced in determining
the proper method to be followed in any
particular system.
This bill, which has been prepared over a
period of years by the association of land
surveyors and the surveyor-general, does not
change the basic principles of the present Act,
but extends these principles and deals with
each system separately and completely even
though this results in some repetition.
It is felt that this method will make the
Act more readily understandable, bringing
about greater certainty in survey practice and
reducing the work of surveyors.
The bill provides another feature which is
felt will be of great assistance to practicing
surveyors; regulations will be made illustrating
and complementing by words and sketches the
many difficult and highly technical procedures
set out in this Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment
of the House, I would say that we will pro-
ceed on Monday with certain bills and with
the continuation of the debate which was
adjourned a few moments ago by the hon.
member for Bracondale.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.20 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 21
ONTARIO
Legislature of Ontario
Beuates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, March 3, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 3, 1958
Notice of resignation of Mr. Hunt 473
Tile Drainage Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 473
Public Utilities Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 473
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 474
Local Improvement Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 474
Stallions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, second reading 474
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 474
Child Welfare Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 475
Public Lands Act, bill to amend, Mr. Mapledoram, second reading 476
Investigation of Titles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 476
Insurance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 476
Township of Tay Road Allowance Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 477
Provincial Land Tax Act, bill to amend, reported 477
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 478
Corporations Information Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 478
Teachers' Superannuation Act, bill to amend, reported 478
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, reported 478
Certification of Titles Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 479
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne,
Mr. A. G. Frost, Mr. Innes, Mr. Grossman 479
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Price, agreed to 501
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 501
473
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, March 3, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that a
vacancy had occurred in the membership of
the House by reason of the resignation of
Stanley Joseph Hunt, hon. member for the
electoral district of Renfrew North.
Toronto, March 1, 1958
The Honourable A. W. Downer,
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
of the Province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker:
I beg to tender my resignation as a member of the
legislative assembly of Ontario effective today.
It is with sincere regret that I take this step, being
mindful of the very pleasant association I have en-
joyed with hon. members on both sides of the House
during the years that I have sat as a member.
However, this action has now become necessary in
view of my acceptance of the Progressive-Conservative
nomination for the federal general election of March
31 for the electoral district of Renfrew North.
May I take this opportunity of thanking you for
your many kindnesses to me throughout my term as
a member of the Legislature.
Yours very truly,
Witnesses:
(signed)
Mary Coombs C (signed)
Roderick Lewis / S. J. Hunt
}
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the commissioners of
estate bills their report in the following case:
Bill No. 29, An Act respecting the estate of
Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen Isabel
Drope trust and the Charlotte Ross grant trust.
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable the Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable Mr. Justice Schroeder
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1
February 28, 1958
Roderick Lewis, esq., q.c,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re: Private Bill No. 29, An Act respecting the Estate
of Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen Isabel
Drope Trust and the Charlotte Ross Grant Trust.
The undersigned commissioners of estates bills, as
provided by The Legislative Assembly Act, RSO
1950, chapter 202, section 57, having had the said
bill referred to us as such commissioners, now beg
to report thereon.
We have heard counsel for the petitioners and the
official guardian on behalf of infant beneficiaries. We
have also been presented with consents signed by the
adult beneficiaries under the will and the trusts, and
the official guardian did not object to the passing of
the bill.
We are of the opinion that the provisions of the
said bill are proper for carrying its purpose into
effect, and that it is reasonable that such bill be
passed into law.
The bill duly signed by the commissioners and the
petition for the same are accordingly returned here-
with.
Yours faithfully,
(signed)
Dana Porter, c.j.o.
Walter F. Schroeder, j.a.
Commissioners of estate bills.
Mr. Speaker: The bill, together with the
report of the commissioners of estate bills
thereon, will be referred to the standing com-
mittee on private bills.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TILE DRAINAGE ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Tile
Drainage Act."
Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sum of $3 mil-
lion has been in the statute since 1929, and
this amendment proposes to increase it to $5
million in view of the increased cost today.
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Public Utilities Act."
Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this one amendment,
section 3, is to make it clear that the arbitra-
tion is applicable to expropriations under
part 1 of the Act. Clause 8 of section 13 is
repealed, because the same section is now
applicable under The Ontario Water Re-
sources Commission Act, 1957. Subsection 3
of section 35 is amended to provide that it
will not be necessary to levy a rate to pro-
vide for interest or payments on account of
debentures, issued for the construction of,
474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and other matters pertaining to, the utilities.
The amendment is to make it clear that this
provision does not apply where debentures
have been issued for local improvement
works.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, at this time
that all of these bills are going to the muni-
cipal law committee.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Ontario Municipal Board Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amend-
ment to subsection 1 of section 61, clears up
the matter of proceedings of the municipal
board notwithstanding any irregularity in
the by-law or proceedings. The amend-
ment provides for the same procedure where
there are omissions in the by-law or proceed-
ings. And then, section 67 requires the ap-
proval of the board to the undertakings of
the municipality before the by-law is passed
authorizing such undertaking. The amend-
ment provides that a by-law, that has been
passed before approval is applied for, is not
in contravention of section 67, if it includes
a provision that the by-law does not take
effect until approved by the board.
THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves the first read-
ing of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Local Improvement Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to add
a new section 45A, which provides that where
there has been a gross or manifest error in a
special assessment, the court of revision may
reduce the owner's share of the cost of the
work.
Mr. H. J. Price (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, as in former
years, I would like to mention in this House
that last Saturday, March 1, was St. David's
Day.
This day is set aside by the Welsh people
as their feast day to commemorate their
patron saint, St. David, for whom my riding
is named.
I would also draw to the attention of the
hon. members of this assembly that, in July
of this year, the British Empire games are
being held in Cardiff, Wales. Ontario will
be well represented by members on the Cana-
dian team, and we hope that they will
enhance the goodwill which already exists
between the people of Wales and the people
of this province.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): I had no
intention of referring to St. David's Day
today, but of course it was on March 1, but
in speaking of that great day as a native
Welshman, born in Wales, I am not speaking
for St. David's riding, I am speaking for
every hon. member of the Legislature.
I am quite sure that they will all join me
in paying tribute to a great little country
across the other side. Although it is small
in area and also small in population, I do
not know of any country in the civilized
world which has made a greater contribu-
tion to our civilized way of life. I am very
happy to join the hon. members in paying
tribute to the Welsh people in Canada on
their great day when they pay tribute to the
patron saint, St. David.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE STALLIONS ACT
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves second
reading of Bill No. 98, "An Act to amend
The Stallions Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves second reading
of Bill No. 94, "An Act to amend The Min-
ing Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, here is a short
explanation of this bill. The amendments pro-
posed to The Mining Act would allow the
engineer of mines to require unworked mines
to be protected by means other than fencing.
The present legislation provides that unused
working shall be protected by fencing and
this broadens the Act.
Another amendment deals with the require-
ments for temperature indicators on air com-
pressors and these requirements are increased.
Subsection 2 of the amendment provides addi-
tional safeguards against the inadvertent
release of the hoist brake, and another sec-
tion will permit the changing of balance of
shaft conveyances carrying men on the fixed
MARCH 3, 1958
475
or clutched in drum while shaft sinking, in-
spection or maintenance work is carried on,
and the last amendment deals with providing
certified copies of certain agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I would like this bill to go
to the mining committee.
THE CHILD WELFARE ACT, 1954
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 90, "An Act to amend The Child
Welfare Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: I would like to add to the com-
ments made in the first reading. I think
I shall refer to all sections so that the explan-
ation will be, I hope, well understood.
Subsections 3 and 4 of the Act itself had
been interpreted as permitting the court to
fix upon municipalities retroactive liability
for the maintenance of children placed in
the care of the children's aid societies for
reasons other than statutory neglect. It was
not the intention of this Act to make any
such provision, and the proposed amendment
rectifies the situation which limits the lia-
bility of the municipality to no more than
10 days' arrears.
Further, the amendment to subsection 5
became necessary because the limitation of
temporary wardship to a total period of not
more than 24 months was frequently cir-
cumvented by long and repeated adjourn-
ments which could not be included in a
24-month period.
The proposed amendment provides for the
inclusion of all periods of adjournment in the
total 24-month period of temporary commit-
ment, and this amendment, I suggest Mr.
Speaker, will have no undesirable effect.
Where continued protection of the child
is necessary, recourse can be had for an
order of permanent wardship which, if neces-
sary, could later be terminated.
On the other hand the status of the child
could change from ward to non-ward in the
care of the society, either at the expense of
the society or, with consent of the munici-
pality, at the expense of the municipality.
Subsection 2 deals with fathers of children
born to unmarried mothers who have evaded
the liability fixed upon them by the court,
although financially competent to meet the
responsibilities. Provisions are made for the
use of garnishee proceedings which will make
possible the attachment of the wages of such
a person.
In section 3, we have found that consider-
able hardship and anxiety have in the past
resulted from unnecessary and long delay in
the completion of adoption proceedings. Many
of these delays have been occasioned by lack
of attention by some solicitors and the
children's aid society. We therefore believe
that unnecessary delays and resulting anxiety
will be reduced by mandatory attention to
application.
Regarding part 2 of this section 3, there
have occurred a number of instances where
unmarried mothers have been asked to sign
consents for adoption so soon after the birth
of their children that they could not have
any understanding whatever of the conse-
quences of their action.
Further, it is well known that many
mothers suffer periods of deep depression
after the birth of their children, and may not
be in an emotional state to appreciate the
gravity of the decision they are called upon
to make, and it cannot be over-emphasized
that the unfortunate cases, the contested
adoption applications which have recently
come to public notice, have been occasioned
by failure on the part of a parent, or parents,
to appreciate fully the significance of their
decision to surrender their children.
Through these amendments, it is intended:
(a) That a delay of 15 days after the birth
of a child must elapse before the consent of
the mother may be signed.
(b) That the mother's consent must be
signed before a responsible public official.
(c) That during a further period of 15
days, a mother may cancel her consent
through merely filing notice of cancellation
with the director.
It is believed that with these provisions
the root causes of the majority of contested
adoption applications will have been re-
moved.
And part 3 in this section makes provision
that once the validating period and the can-
cellation period, each of 15 days, have passed,
no written consent may be withdrawn unless
the court is satisfied that the welfare of the
child will thereby be best served.
It is believed that the foregoing provision
will eliminate the majority of the contested
adoption applications, and that this provision
will assure that any which should be con-
tested will be decided in keeping with the
best interests of the child.
With the increasing knowledge of children
and their need, the extended period once
required for the assessment of the suitability
of placements are no longer essential; further-
476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
more they increase the public cost. In those
cases where a decision cannot be reached
without a longer probationary period, there
is nothing to prevent an extension of time.
Also, this section, 5 of part 4 of The
Child Welfare Act, will effect certain changes
in the status of natural parents of children
who are the subject of adoption orders, and
of the adopting parents in such orders.
One purpose has been to extinguish, in
law, all rights and responsibilities of the
natural parents and kindred toward their
children when these are the subject of an
adoption order, except in respect of the laws
of incest in the prohibited degrees of con-
sanguinity.
A further purpose has been to establish,
in law, the right and responsibilities of adopt-
ing parents and kindred and of their adopted
children.
The overall purpose of these changes in
status and relationship has been to create a
legal relationship between society and the
adopted child which is as close as is humanly
possible to the relationship that exists between
society and the child living normally with
its natural parents.
Under the present provisions, although the
change was intended to be effected in all
respects, the respects in which the relation-
ship is actually changed are specified, imply-
ing thereby, that in all respects not specified,
the child is not deemed to be the child of
the adopting parents.
The amendment here proposed is so worded
as to provide that, upon the making of an
adoption order, the child ceases, without
specification, to be in all respects the child
of the natural parents, and becomes the child
of the adopting parents as if born to them
in lawful wedlock.
The only exceptions to this change in
relationship are those set down specifically in
the amendment with respect to the laws of
incest and prohibited degrees of consanguin-
ity.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in order that all
adopted children and adopting parents may
enjoy their relationship to the full, without
having to apply to the court for approval of
their existing adoption orders, this Act makes
provision for recognition and equal status of
all adoption orders made in Ontario, past,
present and future, and further recognizes, for
all purposes in Ontario, those adoption orders
made under the laws of any other province,
state or country. This is done in order that
desirable and stable social situations may also
become so in law.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): I would like to
ask the hon. Minister a question concerning
part 4 of section 60. It says in this part that a
child means a person under or over 21 years
of age. Now, surely, there is an age some-
where where a person cannot be regarded as
a child. Would the hon. Minister explain that
please?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, for purposes of
adoption, Mr. Speaker, I doubt if any age
would make any change in terminology in that
respect, it means the same thing. He is still
a child and he can be adopted after 21 years
of age.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
as director of the children's aid society in
Oshawa, I would like to commend the hon.
Minister. I think this is very, very good
legislation long overdue and badly needed,
and I would like to commend him. I think
it is really worth supporting.
THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 85, "An Act to amend The
Public Lands Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say that this
Act is going to the lands and forests commit-
tee next Wednesday.
THE INVESTIGATION OF TITLES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 86, "An Act to amend The In-
vestigation of Titles Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 87, "An Act to amend The Insurance
Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say that this
amending Act has two or three provisions
which I think are of interest to the House and
to the public.
First of all, under section 1 of the bill, at
the present time, property is excluded under a
contract of fire insurance. It is covered for
fire but excluded in connection with any prop-
MARCH 3, 1958
477
erty undergoing any process involving the
application of heat.
This amendment changes the word "prop-
erty" to "goods" so that the exclusion is
narrowed down. The exclusion now is for
goods only and, of course, that simply means
that if the policy is to cover goods as well,
it must say so on the face of it.
The other section is one that has been
brought about by reason of the age in which
we live, the age of nuclear energy and the
possible serious catastrophic results which can
come from the use of that energy in some
circumstances.
Loss or damage to property may be caused
as a result of that, and if the nuclear
reaction or nuclear radiation results in fire
or explosion, the loss or damage caused by
such fire or explosion is covered.
If, however, such nuclear reaction or
nuclear radiation results in heat or energy
alone, there being no fire or explosion, the
insured property is not covered against the
loss or damage so caused unless the policy
contains a provision in that respect.
Now I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but it
seems to me that perhaps that can be put
very simply that the difference is really
the difference between cooking to ashes in
the one case or just evaporating by heat, but
at any rate there is that distinction. In the
one case it is covered and the other case it
is covered only if specified in the policy. The
magnitude of loss by contamination may be
catastrophic in nature, and it will be covered
by insurance only where the policy contains
a provision to that effect.
I think those are the only two major
changes in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave
the chair and the House resolve itself into
committee of the whole.
TOWNSHIP OF TAY ROAD ALLOWANCE
ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 67, The
Township of Tay Road Allowance Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 67 reported.
THE PROVINCIAL LAND TAX ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 68, An
Act to amend The Provincial Land Tax Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): May I ask the hon. Minister how often
this assessment is made at the present time?
He says in the new Act it is to be made every
3 years. Is that the practice now?
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram (Minister of Lands
and Forests ) : The practice now is to do it
every year. It is done every year and the
number of assessment notices have jumped
about 3,000 to 4,000 or so in the last two
or three years.
It has been a gradual taking over, or put-
ting into effect, of The Assessment Act on pro-
vincial Crown land, and it has come to be
a problem so far as getting assessment notices
out through our district offices is concerned.
In addition, we do not think the assess-
ments will change too much in that 3-year
period, so now we are asking the right to
make the assessment every 3 years, and
divide the province into 3 different sections,
so that there will be one section done every
3 years.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Chairman, it
appears by the content of this bill it is the
intention of the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests and the Ministry generally to carry
on with provincial land tax.
Now, I have had quite a number of
inquiries in the north country since the hon.
Prime Minister and Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Frost) brought down the budget the other
day, particularly with regard to the possible
adjustments in educational grants.
The House may wonder, Mr. Chairman,
what educational grants have to do with this
particular bill.
It has this to do with it, that over the years,
much of the principle behind The Provincial
Land Tax has been based on the presumption
that a provincial land tax was necessary. It
was perhaps considered to be reasonable
that people should pay provincial land tax
when they were getting educational grants
out of proportion to the more settled parts of
the province.
I do not intend to go into a debate today
on the justification or otherwise of the assess-
ment as it applies to education grants, but
I do want to say this, and I want to be most
emphatic about it, Mr. Chairman, that if
there is going to be any downward adjust-
ment—not necessarily in percentage, but in
dollars and cents— in the educational grants
in the districts, not referring to the counties
but in the districts, then I think the hon.
Minister is going to have to explain in a far
more detailed manner why it should be neces-
478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sary to carry on the provincial land tax at all,
especially to the extent that it is now levied.
Mr. Oliver: In regard to the provincial land
tax, could the hon. Minister say what revenue
the province derives from the land tax?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I have not the
figures in front of me, but I could get them.
I must admit I have some sympathy with
the hon. member for Kenora in what he said.
And I might also say that the provincial land
tax is to be given a complete "look-at" this
year. I have asked the government to set up
the members in my own department as well
as members of the Treasury department,
because I do believe there is some unfairness
in the way the Act is administered.
Actually, as far as assessment purposes are
concerned, they are using the Ontario manual,
and the assessment work is done by our
district offices, which I think try to do a
good job. But I do believe there could be
some unfairness in the way it is administered.
I must say that I have had some com-
plaints myself, and letters, particularly from
people in the north, who feel their assess-
ments are too high. On the other hand there
are probably cases where the assessments are
not high enough, and I am thinking in terms
of tourist resorts and quite large establish-
ments.
The same Act applies to a piece of land
which is taken out of the Crown under The
Homestead Act and the same Act applies
to quite a large summer resort project. I do
believe there is some feeling of injustice on
the part of some of the small land owners
in the north in regard to this Act, but actu-
ally, as far as this particular bill is concerned,
or the amendment to the Act, they are just
for purposes of improving administration pur-
poses, in this particular section.
But I do believe that next year we will
probably bring in, or make a new attempt
on, something towards what I think might
be a different approach to The Provincial
Land Tax Act.
Mr. Wren: The hon. Minister misunder-
stood, to some extent, the meat of the subject
I was getting at. It is very important to the
north country.
What I want to know is (let us forget
educational grants for a moment, let us not
think about them for a moment) but in the
absence of the grants, the special grants—
and they have been generous where neces-
sary to outlying school areas— but forgetting
education for a moment, what is the purpose
of the tax at all in the light of the high gaso-
line taxes and other rates for the construc-
tion, development and maintenance of roads?
What is the purpose of the provincial land tax
at all, if these educational grants are going
to be adjusted?
I suggest that if there is going to be any
general adjustment downward in dollars and
cents of educational grants or any other
grants, then this provincial land tax itself
should be abolished.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I might say that I
have never heard any discussion in regard
to cutting off any grants, or reducing any
grants which come out of The Provincial Land
Tax Act, and as I say again, this particular
section deals only with administration prac-
tices under the Act as set up at the present
time.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill No. 68 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 71, An Act
to amend The Corporations Act, 1953.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 71 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS INFORMATION
ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 72, An Act
to amend The Corporations Information Act,
1953.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 72 reported.
THE TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION
ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 73, An Act
to amend The Teachers' Superannuation Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 73 reported.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 64, An Act
to amend The Mechanics' Lien Act.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 64 reported.
MARCH 3, 1958
479
THE CERTIFICATION OF TITLES ACT,
1958
House in committee on Rill No. 66, The
Certification of Titles Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Rill No. 66 reported.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the committee
do now rise and report certain bills without
amendment.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and begs leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. G. Frost (Rracondale): Mr. Speaker,
I cannot let this opportunity pass without say-
ing, as others have said before me, that we
appreciate the fairness and dignity with
which the Speaker continues to preside over
the proceedings of this House.
May I extend my congratulations to the
hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) in
respect of his address moving the acceptance
of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-
Governor of Ontario (Mr. Mackay). It is
always good to listen to the hon. member for
Peel, to see his kindly personality, and to
appreciate his broad humanitarian outlook. He
has given long and valuable years of service
to his own community and to this province,
to his country and to this House.
Recause I have known the hon. member
for Peel for over 50 years, I hope he may
long be spared to be with us.
I also extend my warmest congratulations
to the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon). I listened to his remarks with
interest, and I am sure his fine address of a
few days ago, seconding the motion, is ample
indication that he will make many a valuable
contribution in these proceedings.
I should like to give an especially warm
welcome to the hon. member for Glengarry,
the hon. member for Middlesex North (Mr. W.
A. Stewart), the hon. member for Elgin (Mr.
McNeil), and the hon. member for Lanark
(Mr. McCue), the 4 able young men whom we
have added to our ranks. Two of the hon.
members represent our great agricultural
industry, one comes to us from the field of
commerce, and the third represents the medi-
cal profession. These hon. members are young
in years but they all possess the primary
qualifications for participating in our public
life.
It is needless to say that each one of them
has made a marked success in his business or
profession. In contesting their respective rid-
ings and entering this House they are, in my
humble opinion, performing a service of very
great value.
I also congratulate the hon. Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Frost) on the success of his govern-
ment in the by-elections which resulted in
the elections of the hon. members whom I
have just mentioned. If by-elections are a
test of public sentiment, and I think they
are, the hon. Prime Minister may be proud
of the record of his government. In the
many by-elections which have occurred since
this government took office, not one has been
lost by the government. This I construe as
evidence of the abiding faith of the people
of this great province in the leadership of
the hon. Prime Minister and the high stand-
ard of government which it is achieving.
In my brief remarks there are two or
three subjects to which I would like to give
special attention:
First, I should like to speak of the work
of The Department of Public Welfare. The
increased provincial aid with respect to homes
for the aged is something of which we can
be proud. A few years ago these homes
were almost entirely a municipal responsi-
bility, today we are paying provincially 50
per cent, of all costs and literally we have
assumed 75 per cent, of the maintaining costs.
Not only is this a substantial measure of
aid in respect of local taxation, but we are
meeting new demands for improved houses
all over Ontario. My understanding is that
a similar programme of generous aid is pro-
jected for houses operated by charitable and
philanthropic organizations.
Life today is by no means as simple as
it was even 30 or 40 years ago. The care of
the aged demands adequate facilities. Money
in itself is not sufficient. There are very
many cases where housing and a moderate
amount of nursing care is essential. The
homes for the aged as built and operated
today are meeting these pressing needs.
I also consider it a very happy circum-
stance that, partly because of the policies
of this government and partly because of the
now realistic Ottawa views of revenue dis-
tribution, we are now able to relieve the
municipalities to a great extent of unem-
ployment relief costs. The municipal con-
tribution has recently been reduced from 40
480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
per cent, to 20 per cent, in this connection.
This, I think, is a factor which will be wel-
comed by every farmer and every house-
holder.
There are numerous allowances to which
the province contributes, such as blind per-
sons' allowances, old age assistance and so
on. These allowances have all been in-
creased in accord with the recent increase
in the old age pension by the federal govern-
ment. I think I should sincerely commend
the government of Canada for its recent
increase of $9 per month in the old age
pensions. An extra $18 to an elderly couple
is a real assistance in these days of high
living costs.
Almost as commendable, I think, is the
interest being displayed both here and in
Ottawa in the current study of the social
security system of the United States. This
contributing plan has many commendable
features. It provides for somewhat earlier
retirement benefits, and these are more gen-
erous than under our present plan. I think
we may look forward to a gradual adoption
of some such plan within the readily fore-
seeable future.
Without going into the vast and com-
plicated details of such a plan, I would like
to point out that today, in the United States,
90 per cent, of the earning population,
whether salaried or self-employed, is covered
under the terms of this social security. Surely
we have here solid evidence of its success.
As this session proceeds, we will hear in
some detail about the forthcoming plan of
hospital insurance. Before we can success-
fully operate the hospital insurance plan, we
must have ample hospital accommodation.
I was glad to know that, as of January 1,
1958, both the federal government and the
government of this province increased grants
for capital construction by just about 100 per
cent. There are some variations with which
I will not attempt to deal. However, if we
consider the former grants for new hospital
construction as distinct from nursing homes
and so on— $1,000 per bed provincially and
$1,000 per bed federally— here the scales of
grants have been doubled.
I am deeply glad to know that the local
autonomy of our general hospitals is not
being disturbed. The moving force behind
our great hospital establishments has been
the work of public spirited men and women
on a community basis. This happy situation
is something, I know, which we would be
very loath to see disturbed.
I should add a word about mental hospital
construction. The venerable institution on
Queen Street West, designed by Mr. Howard,
who donated High Park to the city of
Toronto, is still serving a fine purpose.
Recently we have seen a $1 million addi-
tion put into use, adequate reception wards,
modern laboratories and adequate offices. I
have no doubt that this great hospital will
serve this community for many more years
as faithfully as in the past.
For the first time in history, the needs of
the north have been recognized. A fine new
mental hospital in North Bay, and another
at Port Arthur, are serving a very long-
standing need indeed.
I understand large additions are being made
to many of the other hospitals, and that a new
hospital is planned for the Chatham area and
still another for the Huron-Bruce area. The
increase for this type of establishment is in
line with the increase in our population.
However, the construction of new build-
ings is accompanied by the application of the
most modern treatment measures, so that the
Ontario hospitals are maintaining a rate of
discharge comparing favourably with that of
similar hospitals throughout the continent.
In this Metropolitan Toronto area, our
greatest difficulties arise from our fantastic
rate of growth. Nearly one-quarter of the
entire population of Ontario is located within
the boundaries of this metropolitan area.
Suburban developments dot the landscape in
all directions, and the same is substantially
true of all our larger urban centres.
Urban growth, so to speak, feeds upon
itself, and the bigger the community becomes,
the faster it continues to grow, whether we
like it or not.
The very great growth of this and other
urban centres produces a multitude of prob-
lems. One of the biggest is that of transporta-
tion. Thousands of our people morning and
night must move for long distances to and
from their places of work. Mass transportation
is a tremendous factor, but whether we like
it or not, transportation by automobile
affords one of the most vexing problems faced
by this or any other government. The story
is the same all over America.
In New York city and Montreal the prob-
lem is in large part met by most elaborate
commuter systems. If I recall correctly, the
Long Island commuter service of the Penn-
sylvania Railroad during rush hours has a
train leaving New York every 90 seconds.
I have spoken about the commuter serv-
ices, or rather the lack of commuter services,
in this Metropolitan Toronto area. We have
a service of sorts between Toronto and Oak-
ville, and to a very limited extent, our people
MARCH 3, 1958
481
can use other lines on the railway network
serving this city.
A railway map of the Toronto metropolitan
area presents an interesting study. It shows a
multiplicity of lines— through lines— with others
of a local aspect. The fact of the matter is
that none of these lines is operating at any-
thing like capacity as to passenger services,
and I suggest now, as I have suggested on
many occasions before, that a drive should be
made by this government, by our municipal
governments, and if necessary by our federal
government, with a view to enlisting the
services of our great railways, in the solution
of one of our most pressing problems.
Nobody wishes the railways to operate at
a loss nor to perform any service at a loss. If
such transportation should be subsidized, then
let it be subsidized.
I have been encouraged in recent months
by reading reports of statements by Mr.
Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian
National Railways, on this subject. These
statements show a revived interest. I hope
that Mr. Gordon's interest will continue, and
I hope this administration will join with our
metropolitan administration in trying to work
out ways and means of reaching a solution to
this great problem.
Our men and women in outlying suburban
areas stand out in the cold, rain, and snow for
long periods, hoping for the arrival of the
infrequent buses which are all too few and
which are a completely inadequate feature
of suburban development. There are no
shelters provided for these people. They wait
in extreme discomfort. The problem is really
not of their making because suburban housing
is almost the only solution for their problems
of shelter for themselves and their families.
The construction of an east-west subway
would do much toward easing the problem
of mass transportation, but it is by no means
the complete solution, and only in a degree
does it affect the transportation problems
of our suburbanites.
Some of our railways have rights of way
of considerable width. Is there any possibility
that such surplus right of way, in certain
areas, might be used for supplementary
transportation perhaps by rapid transit buses?
Is that field worth exploring? Most certainly,
the sooner the problem of mass transportation
in this, and ultimately others of our great
urban areas, becomes the subject of extensive
study, the sooner we shall arrive at a prac-
tical solution.
We are seeing some very fine highway
developments in this particular area. The
bottleneck at the Humber, which has been
a source of vexation for so many years, is
being finally cleared up. We have highway
facilities leading out of this city to the west
which are fairly adequate; to the east, there
is very considerable overcrowding and again,
to the north, there is overcrowding.
The Toronto interceptor road is a credit to
The Department of Highways. Without it
the traffic conditions on the Kingston Road
east of this city would have been nothing
short of appalling. Highways such as Nos.
400 and 401 are not only a credit to this
administration, but they are enduring assets
which will benefit generations to come.
I should just like to say a word about
education. We are in the midst of a tremen-
dous programme of building schools which
must continue for two reasons: First, many
of our older schools are obsolete, and sec-
ondly, we have the needs of a vastly increas-
ing population.
In the building of new schools I think the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dun-
lop) agrees with me that certain limitations
must apply. Actually, the question is the
same as that which faces anyone, for ex-
ample, building a new house— namely, how
much can I afford? So I suggest that the
hon. Minister of Education is on the right
track when he encourages a maximum con-
struction, perhaps leaving the luxuries for
later on.
I think I can speak for every home owner
in Ontario, also, when I say we should wel-
come the present revision of education grants.
Without going into detail, what is accom-
plished is to transfer a larger share of educa-
tion costs from the farmer and home owner
to the much broader provincial base.
I have noticed considerable comment of
late about the abuse of high school facilities
by a certain segment of our youthful popu-
lation. I think we should commend any
efforts which the hon. Minister of Education
may make, with a view to clearing out of
our high schools, our technical schools and
our universities, that small segment of Ontario
youth which cannot or will not benefit from
the facilities which are afforded them.
If a boy or girl becomes a loafer in a high
school, it would seem a kindness at the hands
of the authorities when he or she is removed
from the school and placed in some line of
useful endeavour where he or she can learn
the lessons of life in the school of hard work.
I should like to add a hearty word of en-
dorsement in relation to the administration
voting $5 million for the purpose of enabling
municipalities to get on with special public
482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
works. As I understand it, the government
is repaying 70 per cent, of the labour costs
involved. Many of our municipalities have
already taken steps to participate in this pro-
gramme which will result in marked municipal
improvement and in putting many thousands
of our people into gainful employment.
Unemployment is distressing, but in this
land of opportunity, it need not be discourag-
ing. There are tremendous things to be done:
new housing, new schools, tremendous high-
way development, new bridges, some of them
of enormous size, land clearing, the works re-
lated to water supply, sewage disposal and
natural gas distribution. There is no end to
the list of projects which we can tackle in
this great province.
I have an unbounded faith in this great
future. All economies have their ups and
downs, and have always had them. There
will always be dislocations, but there is no
cause for pessimism, in fact, quite the con-
trary.
I say to this House, and particularly to our
hon. members opposite, that never in the
history of this great province has there been
launched such an extensive programme of
human betterment as has been accomplished
by this administration. I look forward to the
future with confidence.
I suggest that one of the biggest duties lying
immediately before this House is to consider
measures which will tide us over our tempor-
ary difficulties, and which will contribute to
that abounding prosperity which lies in the
years ahead.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to join with the other hon.
members of this Legislature, in paying tribute
to the fine way in which you conduct pro-
ceedings of this House. While we have had
object lessons, on various occasions in the way
of praise being heaped on the hon. Prime Mini-
ster (Mr. Frost), and the other hon. Ministers
of the government, I would like to remind
hon. members that we on this side of the
House— the official Opposition— have some very
outstanding men, too. I am referring at the
present to two outstanding men, namely the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver)
and the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon).
The hon. leader of the Opposition has
guided the course of the official opposition
with distinction. He has kept the government
on its toes at all times. Much of the legisla-
tion put on the statutes of this province is a
direct result of constructive criticism and sug-
gestions made from this side of the House.
Whether the government hon. members
care to admit it or not, it is a known fact
that some of the legislation, blocked in one
session of the House, becomes government
policy in the next.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has been
a tower of strength to this province, and this
province is much richer by having had him,
as a legislator, in this capacity continuously
for 30 years.
I am also pleased to be associated with a
party, which has as its dean of the Legisla-
ture, the hon. member for Brant. He has the
distinct honour of sitting in this Legislature
continuously for 39 years, longer than any
other man. His sound and sincere judgment
is respected by every hon. member, and I
can say without reservation that any of the
hon. members who have not had the privi-
lege of knowing this man personally have
missed an experience that cannot be obtained
elsewhere. We all hope that he will be with
us for many, many years.
I am going to speak for a moment on the
unemployment condition at the present time,
on some of its causes and what, in my
opinion, will correct this condition.
First of all I want to remind the hon. Prime
Minister, and the other hon. members of his
government that, if it were not for the unem-
ployment insurance inaugurated by the former
Liberal administration in Ottawa, there would
be a line-up of dissatisfied and hungry people
from Union Station to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's office.
I do want to remind the hon. Prime Minister
that he is not being fair if he does not spruce
up and take more responsibility for this
present condition. His government has been
in power for 15 years in this province, a prov-
ince with one-third of the population of the
Dominion; a province representing almost
one-half of the revenue earned in the
Dominion.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this cannot be ignored
any longer. During the last 6 months there
has been growing unemployment in the prov-
ince. The hon. Mr. Frost must assume some
responsibility, and not continually lay the
blame elsewhere.
The present difficulties experienced by
many businesses and workers go deeper than
just seasonal unemployment. There are many
causes, but one of the most important is
inflation. Inflation increases the price of
goods until these goods are priced off the
market. When markets vanish, there is no
demand for goods, production declines, and
unemployment increases.
MARCH 3, 1958
483
Inflation takes place when there is a short-
age of goods in relation to the supply of
money. The available money starts competing
for goods, prices rise, and the buying power
of the individual on wages or pension declines.
Government spending influences the economy.
When governments spend more money than
they take in, they put more money into circu-
lation in competition for goods and thereby
contribute to inflation.
Governments which collect more money
than they spend can use the remainder for
tax cuts or savings. They can apply this sur-
plus to a reduction of debt. In good times,
debt reduction makes good sense, so that in
times when the economy declines and people
are unemployed, the government can borrow
on its credit. Borrowing can be used to aid
unemployment, by creating work projects or
by tax cuts, as a stimulant to business by
creating purchasing power that will cause
industry to expand and to employ more
people. Reducing taxes on individuals, and
on industry, is a very real way to help cure
unemployment.
The Conservative government in Toronto
has not saved in the good years. Since 1949,
when the hon. Mr. Frost bcame Prime Mini-
ster, the net debt of Ontario has increased
from $275 million to almost $760 million as of
March 31, 1957, and will increase another
$100 million this year to $860 million. Every
day the hon. Mr. Frost has been Prime Mini-
ster, his government has added $100,000 a
day to the province's debt. During 1957-1958,
the debt increased by $100 million or— and I
repeat— or $12,000 per hour, 24 hours a day.
I do not feel that artificial means will cure
this present recession. True, a programme of
economic development and public works will
be a temporary measure, and be a sort of
stimulant.
However, and I say this most emphatically,
we must reduce taxation on small businesses
and industries which are trying to carry on
under present conditions. They have been the
backbone of the expansion and prosperity of
this country for decades, and they are the ones
who must receive aid immediately. We can-
not collect taxes from business and manu-
facturing firms after they have closed their
doors.
We must seek ways and means to encourage
expansion. For example, one way to discour-
age industry was the Ontario government's
increase in the corporation tax, put on by this
government last session (which, incidentally,
was voted against by the whole Liberal party).
It was a knife in the back of every small
business throughout this province. It was
uncalled for at the time, and under the pre-
vailing economic conditions was detrimental
to our economy, and I suggest this increase
in the corporation tax should be repealed at
once.
High taxes limit corporations from expand-
ing, thus limiting the employment potential of
industry and may, in fact, take its part in
discouraging industry. This and other factors
may actually bring about the flight of in-
dustry from a community and in some cases
even from the country.
We had an example of the flight of industry
from my home city of Woodstock, and many
more such cases throughout the province—
the Wood-Mosaic Company which employed
upwards of 200 people, and supported pos-
sibly 800 people in the community, closed
down because of economic and other condi-
tions. I understand that the machinery is
now being shipped to the Philippines.
This is a shocking situation, and to my
knowledge no move was made by the gov-
ernment, or any other group, to discuss their
difficulties and encourage the continuance of
their operations. There are many, many more
examples throughout the province.
I submit that a Department of Industry
should be set up in connection with The
Department of Planning and Development,
to keep the industry we already have. A
Department of Industry would be a great
asset to small manufacturing firms who could
go to it for advice and help in continuing
and extending their operations.
Possibly a period of tax exemptions could
be given, as is now the case in mines. This
would encourage small businesses and manu-
facturing firms.
Efforts should be made by this department
to encourage the manufacture of goods in
this province by firms which are now im-
porting them from other countries, and I
would strongly stress that we should have
a programme to buy more Ontario products.
May I repeat again that government must
encourage and co-operate with industry if
we are going to reduce unemployment by
expanding employment opportunities.
I want to speak briefly regarding highways
in the province. Highway builders encounter
many difficulties. However, some of these
problems in buying land could be overcome
if more planning was done beforehand. A
master plan as advocated by our party last
session would be a good thing if it was carried
out right across the province.
The closing of roads is causing many hard-
ships in certain communities. About 3 months
ago, The Department of Highways held a
484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
meeting in the county of Oxford, in the
townships of Blandford and Blenheim, and
the land owners were brought to this meet-
ing because the department wanted, to explain
to them what was going to be done, and
intimated to them that some roads would
be closed on the route of highway No. 401.
In the meantime, the land owners became
alarmed, the villagers and the people in the
towns also became alarmed, but they wished
to co-operate with the department in all ways
possible. But when I came down to the
House and inquired about this situation,
they told me that nothing was going to be
done definitely for 2 or 3 years.
At the present time, these people are in
a state of confusion, they know the roads
are going through, they do not know which
roads are going to be closed, they do not
know how much they are going to be com-
pensated, but they do know that they are
going to be in real trouble.
There are many factors which affect road
closing, and I strongly feel that the govern-
ment is not taking the right action concern-
ing many of the road closings throughout the
province. There are many factors, such as
mail delivery, fire hazards, distance away
from neighbours, maintenance by the muni-
cipalities themselves, and dead-end roads,
and these I feel certainly need closer con-
sideration by The Department of Highways
at the present time.
In my own county of Oxford, we have
many narrow bridges on main highways. I
have brought this up in the House before,
but I want to mention it again because, see-
ing that we have a safety committee sitting
in the House this time, I think it is most
important that we take a look at these nar-
row bridges where only one car can pass
on an otherwise main highway. They are
certainly death traps which we must over-
come.
I was particularly interested in the remarks
of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr.
Lewis) and his driver-training outline which
he gave to the House last week, and I cer-
tainly agree with his sentiments whole-
heartedly.
However, for the moment we can, and
must, have a more consistent procedure in
issuing drivers' licences. I say it is much
easier to refuse drivers in the first place than
after they have committed an offence, and I
think many of the hon. members who have
had complaints from their constituents along
this line would certainly agree with me.
I was particularly in favour of the remarks
made by the hon. leader of the Opposition
last week, and I am whole-heartedly in
accord with his suggestion, and I certainly
hope that the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Allan) will act on this important feature
of the driver handicap situation in this prov-
ince.
In the county of Oxford we are still con-
fronted with many railway crossings, involv-
ing many accidents. Two years ago I spoke
in this House on one particularly dangerous
crossing at Creditville, on highway No. 2,
and I may state that this overpass is now in
the process of completion.
However, in the town of Ingersoll, in the
county of Oxford, we have a very bad rail-
way crossing situation, where numerous
deaths and accidents have occurred since
1947. The report from the board of transport
commissioners for Canada shows the follow-
ing:
C.N.R. crossing (Mutual St.) North River
June 17, 1947; 1 killed
May 21, 1948; 1 killed, 1 injured
April 3, 1957; 1 killed
December 29, 1957; 1 killed
C.N.R. crossing (Thames St.)
June 13, 1954; 1 killed, 2 injured
C.N.R. crossing (McKeand St.)
June 7, 1947; 1 killed
C.P.R. crossing (Mutual St.) South River
May 17, 1948; 1 killed, 1 injured
C.P.R. crossing (King St.)
April 15, 1953; 1 killed.
Now I would strongly urge that The
Department of Highways, The Department
of the Attorney-General, and the board of
transport commissioners act on this very
tragic situation in the town of Ingersoll.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
I think that I can speak for the hon. Minis-
ter of Highways, who is not in his seat,
as well as myself to the extent that we both
believe we have been putting pressure on
the federal authorities to move in that direc-
tion as much as possible. I do think that,
in the last couple of years, there has been
a great deal more effort made than ever
before.
Mr. Innes: I, like the hon. member for
London South (Mr. Jackson), am very much
concerned about the empty bed complement
in the sanatoria in the province. As was
stated, 24.5 per cent, of these hospital beds
are empty.
MARCH 3, 1958
485
I only want to suggest that, since great
strides have been made by the medical
profession in reducing tuberculosis, and since
there is a greater need for research in some
of the other diseases, that we endeavour to
convert some of these into research hospitals
for things like cancer or heart disease, which
are so prevalent at the moment, and which
need more support and encouragement from
this government.
I would like to speak briefly about one
aspect of education, and the present Con-
servative government's policy of undermin-
ing the standard of teacher training. The
Royal commission on education reported in
1949, in a submission to the Conservative
government entitled, An Emergency Training
Scheme for Teachers for Public and Sec-
ondary Schools of Ontario, that:
The first objective must be to discon-
tinue the emergency normal school sum-
mer sessions and the issuance of letters of
permission.
Further on in the report, the commission
stated:
Before submitting our recommendation,
we must state that any lowering of quali-
fications for entrance to the teaching pro-
fession is contrary to our convictions.
Recommendation No. 2 reads:
That the length of each training course
under the emergency teacher training
scheme be one school year.
It is nearly 9 years since this report was
submitted to the present government. Figures
prove that the government has not moved to
discontinue the issuance of letters of permis-
sion. In 1949 there were 1,069 teachers in
Ontario schools on letters of permission. The
last report submitted by the department, for
the year 1956, shows 943 teachers still teach-
ing on letters of permission.
In 1952, just 3 years after it was recom-
mended that the emergency summer sessions
be discontinued and the length of each
training course be one school year, the gov-
ernment inaugurated a new programme for
emergency training.
Academic qualifications for entry into the
teachers' college were lowered to grade 12
standing. The length of the training course
before teachers entered the school system
to teach was not one year, but 6 weeks.
This emergency training programme today
is training more teachers by the short method
than the regular full year course for grade
13 graduates.
In 1955, some 1,483 students with grade
13 standing were trained for the full one
year course; in the same year, various stages
of the emergency training programme were
being taken by 1,993 students.
In 1956, some 1,575 students were taking
a full one year course and 2,221 were at
various stages in the emergency programme.
In 1955-1956 the emergency training pro-
gramme for secondary school teachers gradu-
ated more students than did the regular
course.
The hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dun-
lop), when confronted with the fact of a
lowering of the teacher training standard,
merely shrugged and answered: "I have not
lowered the standards, I have just changed
them."
It would seem that, rather than eliminate
the emergency training programmes, the gov-
ernment has converted an emergency into a
permanent condition in the educational
system.
No one would suggest that a surgeon is
qualified to operate on a patient after a two-
month course in surgery, or that engineers
are qualified after two months of instruction.
Yet The Department of Education, in state-
ments issued by the hon. Minister, would have
us believe that anyone is capable of teaching
our children in any grade from 1 to 8 after
6 weeks of instruction. It does not make
sense. The hon. members know it and I know
it. The hon. Minister of Education and the
government also know it, but they do not
want to act.
As a farmer, I would like to speak for a
few moments on some of the problems con-
fronting farmers at the present time. Agri-
culture is a basic industry. Since 1952, agri-
culture has been a depressed industry in an
otherwise booming economy. Farmers have
not received a fair share of the general pros-
perity, and the Ontario government has done
little to assist them.
The farmer has always been one of the best
spenders in the country, and when his buying
power is curtailed, we see curtailment in
other basic industries. The farmer has always
been a large purchaser of the products pro-
duced and manufactured by these other basic
industries.
At the present time we have, in the prov-
ince, several marketing schemes, some in
operation and some in the process of organiza-
tion. I believe farm marketing schemes are
good for the farmers. There have been mixed
feelings on the part of some producers about
the sincerity of the government's support for
486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
marketing boards, and I feel that it is most
important that government makes clear its
position in regard to them.
It would appear that there is a revolution
taking place in agriculture at the present
time which will intensify, not diminish, in the
future. The present cost-price squeeze, the
high cost of goods which the farmer buys,
high taxes and insufficient farm credit have
caused many problems for farmers. In industry
automation has reduced the cost of many
commodities. Automation offers some hope
for agriculture, and will undoubtedly reduce
some costs.
Unfortunately, the difficulty has been in
finding enough money to warrant expenditure
for equipment in order to automate to the
extent necessary to show a profit.
True, The Junior Farmers' Establishment
Act has been of assistance but, unfortunately,
it is outdated and must be extended and
brought into line with today's thinking. The
loan limits should be increased. The age limit
should be increased.
While it was possible 10 years ago to start
an operation on $10,000, today this figure has
practically doubled. A credit bureau should
be set up to aid farmers who are already
established, and who need additional capital.
Insufficient capital, to some extent, has in-
creased the growth of the so-called contract
farming.
Shall the small, self-sufficient operator be
displaced by the big corporation which will,
in all probability, not only mass produce farm
products like its industrial counterparts, but
quite possibly own the land along with the
processing and the distribution facilities?
There is the prospect that under contract
farming, the independent farmer will become
merely a tenant or a labourer on the farm he
now owns. Should the government step aside
and let this farming group disappear, or
should the government move to preserve this
independent class? I believe the independent
farmer should be encouraged to own and
operate his own business and that the govern-
ment, if necessary, should take steps to pro-
tect him against the onslaught of corporate
engulfment.
Some positive steps which the government
can and should take, at the present time, are:
1 . A more realistic and extended farm credit
system, more in conformity with present-day
needs.
2. A comprehensive study of land use in the
province.
3. The study of the economic picture as it
affects agriculture with special emphasis on
automation.
4. More research in farm management with
special consideration to efficiency as it affects
the individual farmer.
5. Marketing and its various related factors
such as contract farming.
I would like to refer for a moment to The
Milk Industry Act. This board, which is now
in operation, has many problems and I believe
is trying to administer in a fair way. I would
like to express my agreement with the formula
pricing of milk which has been very satis-
factory and from which I hope the board will
not deviate.
With the advent of bulk handling of milk,
there have been many advantages to the
producers and to the distributor.
However, we have also many disadvantages.
It has created some responsibilities which this
government must assume and must assume
immediately :
1. There must be a training course given
under government supervision for drivers of
bulk trucks regarding quality of milk.
2. There must be more check tests made for
butter fat and for the weight of milk at the
farm, under government supervision.
3. Last, but by no means least, there must
be a policing of milk trucks in this province
to some degree.
There is, and has been, bootlegging of milk
in this province from one market to the other,
and it must be stopped at once. Cheap milk
is being sold on high priced markets, and the
producers are not receiving the benefits. Along
with this, some health regulations are being
violated under this new set-up.
I want to speak for a moment on pipe lines,
and I want to congratulate the hon. member
for Lambton East ( Mr. Janes ) . I am sorry he
is not in his seat, and will say that I was
pleased to see the change in attitude on his
part, and that he is now not as agreeable to
the rulings of the fuel board as he had been
in the past.
In the county of Oxford, we have had
various pipe lines and telephone lines crossing
the lands of the farmers.
When attending the hearing of the fuel
board last summer, I was not particularly
impressed with the way in which the farmers
were received. Briefs were presented and
speeches were made by the pipe line company
officials, and also by representations of several
groups from towns and cities that are receiving
the gas or oil as the case may be. Incidentally,
the farmers whose lands these pipe lines go
through were left to the last.
They have not and are not receiving their
just consideration.
MARCH 3, 1958
487
In this regard, I would like to relate an
incident which happened last year in my rid-
ing. The Department of Highways signed an
agreement of sale to a farmer in April, the
farm to be vacated in November. In the
meantime this man passed away, and after
the widow had sold all her stock and imple-
ments she could not collect from The Depart-
ment of Highways. Why? Because, in the
meantime, a pipe line company stated its
intention of going through this property.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, if The
Department of Highways is shying away
from the pipe line, how do you expect the
individual farmer to fight for his rights, if the
department will not?
Fortunately, after some negotiation, the
department did agree to negotiate with the
pipe line company, and made partial pay-
ment, but as of today this widow is still not
paid and it is certainly a disgrace to this
government.
It is not fair when pipe line company
officials encroach on land owners, approach-
ing them on negotiations before they have
had a chance to consult with an authority on
pipe lines. It is most essential that they have
representation appointed by either the gov-
ernment or themselves, but certainly under
government jurisdiction. The companies must
stand good for all damage which may take
place in years to come, such as damage to
drains in particular and other crop damage.
It is most unfortunate that the government
did not step in and set out a definite path
for pipe lines across the province; instead
they run in every possible direction, cutting
drains in every possible way.
Company inspectors, buyers and surveyors,
in many cases receive more money than do
the farmers themselves. Since the fuel board
has the right to expropriate, the land owners
should not have to hire expensive lawyers to
defend them, which may cost them more
than the compensation they receive. This is
totally unfair.
And may I suggest that all easements
should be settled and paid for before any gas
or oil, as the case, may be, flows through the
pipe line.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that
I have tried to bring honest, constructive
criticism before this House today, and trust
that this government will also try to be
realistic and consider some of these problems
which the people of this province have a right
—and a fair right— to expect.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Mr. Speaker,
as is customary, I would like to add my words
to those of the other hon. members who have
made complimentary remarks regarding the
fair, good tempered and unbiased manner in
which the Speaker has conducted the affairs
of this House.
I would also like to congratulate the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) who had the
honour of moving the motion in reply to the
speech from the Throne.
I recall earlier days in my youth, Mr.
Speaker— some 20 or 25 years ago— when I
haunted the halls of this assembly for quite
a lengthy period of time. I used to watch
the debates in this assembly, and I had a
great respect and admiration for the hon.
member for Peel then, and I must say that this
is one case where familiarity has not bred
contempt. He is a great citizen and, in my
opinion, is the personification of everything
that is best in democratic life.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Peel introduced a bill before the committee
on private bills last week, having to do with
the township of Chinguacousy. Now this was
a new name for me. I did not know there was
such a township in existence. Surprisingly
enough, over this weekend I was poring
through some old books in my library and
came across a book which was about 70 years
old and which contains the maps of most
of the important cities of the world and maps
of the provinces as they existed at that time,
and I noted on the map of the province of
Ontario, Chinguacousy was printed in very
bold type and was apparently a very important
centre at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the
privilege sometime, like some of the other hon.
members— particularly the last one, the hon.
member for York West ( Mr. Rowntree ) , I be-
lieve, the other day— of taking hon. members
on a tour of my riding. On such a tour of his
riding, the hon. member for York West spoke
of going so many miles to the west and so
many miles to the south, and I, to some extent,
envy some of the hon. members when they
are able to take us on such a descriptive tour.
Some hon. members I think even have
ridings which, in terms of distance, can be
expressed in hundreds of miles and so on.
Therefore, I am afraid I would not be very
impressive nor very descriptive, nor find very
much interest, if I tried to take the hon.
members on a descriptive tour of my riding,
because I think from east to west in a brisk
walk, one could cover my riding in about 3
minutes, and by motor car I think one could
go from east to west in a matter of about 30
seconds. That, of course, is if the motorist is
driving at about 4 o'clock in the morning;
488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
when traffic is heavy it might even take as
long as 15 minutes.
I must say, however, that while it is a
very small riding, it is, and was at the begin-
nings of this city, the heart of the city. The
best people in the world live in that riding,
and I might also add they are from all over
the world.
I would like, at this time, to pay tribute
to our great civil service. The people of this
province have much to be grateful for in
their civil service— this fine group of people
which keeps the machinery of government
running smoothly and efficiently. I, and I
am sure most of the hon. members in this
House, have experienced their many kind-
nesses and their great understanding.
Mr. Speaker, I have been increasingly con-
cerned about the problem faced by persons
who are handicapped by physical disabilities,
and by that I do not mean just crippling dis-
abilities, but those weakened by heart con-
ditions, heart disease, heart failure and just
plain old age.
I have been constantly approached by
many people who are able to do some kind
of work, full-time or part-time, and who have
found it a very difficult task to find their
proper sphere in our economy. They would
like to retain, and in many cases restore,
their self-respect. They want independence
through self-support.
There is machinery now in existence to
look after these people. I would like to point
out to the hon. members that the national
employment service, under the unemploy-
ment insurance commission, has what is
known as a special placements division.
This is a division which is established to
find jobs for the handicapped, and is sup-
posed to get employers interested in finding
some place in their business for this type of
people to which I am referring.
If they find, upon interviewing an appli-
cant, that in their opinion this applicant could
benefit from some vocational training, they
are referred to the Ontario Department of
Public Welfare, and if this department
decides that they can get some vocational
training which would do them some good,
they arrange for the same, and share in some
of the costs with the federal government.
I have lately been looking into this prob-
lem, end I have done some research on it.
I find that the existing programme does a
great deal. I am pleased with some of the
results, and would like to put on the record
one or two case histories of what happens in
some of these instances.
Case No. 1: Until the onset of a severe
attack of arthritis, this 35-year-old man was
steadily employed as a truck driver and able
to support his family of 5 children. Follow-
ing his illness, it was necessary for him to
give up his job and spend 4 years in a
Toronto hospital receiving treatment for his
condition. During this period, he and his
family were maintained by unemployment
relief.
For many years this man had been inter-
ested in radio and television, and when he
had recovered sufficiently from his illness,
arrangements were made to provide him with
a formal course of training in radio and tele-
vision repair. When I say arrangements were
made, I mean, by The Department of Public
Welfare of Ontario.
Following a successful completion of his
course, this man obtained employment with
a radio and television supply company as a
stock-keeper, and also developed a repair
business which he operated from his own
home.
Case No. 2: A 23-year-old man had planned
a career in teaching. His parents were in
rather poor financial circumstances and were
unable to finance his education. He therefore
found it necessary to earn his way through
university by working in the summer and
during the evenings.
His health suffered, however, and he de-
veloped tuberculosis just after he obtained his
Bachelor of Arts degree.
Following a period of treatment in a pro-
vincial sanatorium, arrangements were made
to pay for the cost of a course at the Ontario
College of Education, and he is now success-
fully employed in a secondary school in
Ontario.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have many, many such
examples of what the existing facilities are
accomplishing. And to the extent that this
work is being done, much credit is due, I
would like to point out, to the Deputy Min-
ister of Public Welfare, Mr. J. S. Band, and
his very, very hard-working staff.
I know that many hon. members of this
House have found a sympathetic approach
to these types of problems which they have
brought before the hon. Minister ( Mr. Cecile )
and the Deputy Minister, and the only reason
I am not mentioning the hon. Minister himself
is because I would hate to feel that, by my
omission, it was implied I had not received
the same type of co-operation by the other
hon. Ministers of the cabinet.
However, the plan at the present time still
falls far short of what is required. There are
MARCH 3, 1958
489
some people, for example, who are unable to
accept formal training for employment.
For example, a person who has been a
labourer all his life, with no education, gets
a heart condition. Now, this man could do
some light work. There are examples where
people are perfectly healthy but employers
will not employ them because they are not
interested in employing someone who, in their
opinion, has passed the age group which they
are interested in employing.
Some employment is being found for many
of these people through this special place-
ments division to which I referred, and who
are, as I say, doing a fair job to the extent
they are doing it.
But it is on too limited a scale. There are
too many handicapped and older people left
on the shelf to deteriorate in idleness. In some
instances, we have found, they contract some
mental instability because of their idleness.
Now many of these could prove their worth
if given a chance, and many do not require
any formal training. They merely require a
job, and many jobs require no particular skill
and very little physical effort.
What should be done, Mr. Speaker? Some
private organizations engaged in rehabilitation
work serve to strengthen and support the re-
habilitation service branch of our Department
of Public Welfare. This rehabilitation work
generally requires the partnership between
these private organizations and public en-
deavour.
At this time, I would like to pay tribute to
these organizations which deserve our highest
praise for their work in this regard. I am
thinking particularly of the excellent and de-
voted work being carried on by such organiza-
tions as the Canadian Paraplegic Association,
the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism So-
ciety, the Society for Crippled Children, the
Society for Crippled Civilians, the Jewish
Vocational Service, the Canadian Hearing
Society, the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind, Variety Village, Canadian Goodwill
Industries, and many, many others.
Mr. Speaker, too many employers are failing
to recognize that people, even over age 45,
are, generally speaking, more reliable than
younger people. Many of these people have
no young families requiring their time and
attention. Their only interest is in their job,
they are more settled in their habits. I am
sure that if employers gave many more of
these people an opportunity, they would find
that, generally, they are a more stable type of
employee.
Incidentally, in discussing this matter with
many employers, I find that some of them
fear employing people over 45 because of the
so-called effect on their pensions plans. I am
hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the announcement
by the Rt. hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr.
Diefenbaker), that his government is studying
the United States sociaL security scheme, will
result in correcting this situation so that em-
ployers will not fear employing people over
45 because of the effect on their pension
plans.
Now to go back to the special placements
division, Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter
is that their services are too limited in scope.
They are too limited in their numbers of staff,
and therefore too limited in time, to give the
type of special and personalized attention re-
quired for this kind of people.
They are supposed to seek out prospective
employers for individuals and, of course, while
employment cannot be found for all of these
people, there are far too many who could be
employed if a more personalized service were
given to them. The division must have ade-
quate staff, they must have the energy and the
drive and the zeal to do the job. I appeal to
the federal hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr)
to review this situation as soon as possible
with a view to instituting a dynamic pro-
gramme to meet the problem.
I realize that the present employment situ-
ation does not lend itself to the placement of
those referred to here, to the extent that it
might, but this is a good time to reorganize
and expand the facilities, and embark on a
programme of vocational guidance service,
training and rehabilitation in a real dynamic
manner.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we must give more
intensive attention to those who cannot find
their way into the normal stream of economy
without help and guidance of people with
sufficient time to give them the specialized
attention they require in their problems for
employment.
Another subject I would like to touch on
at this time is the matter of government
commissions. I have always believed that
there is a great danger in our complex society
of placing too much power in the hands of
commissions and boards. This has been my
concern for many years, and I was pleased
to hear the hon. member for Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) raise this question. I was very
much interested in it, and if I may be privi-
leged, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read
just a small excerpt from an address I made
in the city of Chatham a year ago.
490
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. member for Bruce might find it
interesting unless, of course, he read that
speech, which I think I would be flattering
myself to suggest.
At that time I said:
Of course, one could argue that indirectly
the taxpayer controls the commission
through his elected representative, who
does the appointing of the commission.
In theory, that is correct, but not in prac-
tice. The whole machinery of government
is so complex that very few of the elected
representatives ever know more than a
fraction of what is going on in the adminis-
tration of the commission.
Now, this is true of most commissions. We
now have the harbour commission, transporta-
tion commission, hydro commission, racing
commission, fuel board, transit commission
and others. In some instances, commissions
are set up— I would like the hon. mem-
bers to pay attention to this please— set up
with added insulation against the so-called
whims of the taxpayer by clothing that
authority with a beautiful little rider added
to its powers which reads, "there shall be
no appeal against the ruling of the board
or commission." Mr. Speaker, if anything
was ever a clear case of stripping away the
rights of the citizens, that rider is it.
Now, I do not argue for one moment that
we can operate our complex governments
today without what I call the necessary evil
of the board or commission. What I do say,
however, is that we should give some serious
thought to protecting ourselves against that
fateful day when everything we do, own
or operate, will be "by authority of" a small
group of commissioners, so far removed from
the people that we will have lost completely
what freedom or liberty we ever had.
Now, the next remark from the speech I
made at that time is what led me to believe
that perhaps somebody had handed the hon.
member from Bruce a copy of that speech:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to
elect, along with every board or commis-
sion that is appointed, a committee which
would act as a sort of official opposition
to that board or commission, a committee
which would scrutinize, comment, and re-
port to the people on any aspect of its
respective board or commission which it
deemed would be of interest to the people.
I think that this is a matter which is very
worth while looking into, and at the same
time, I think that the committee which is
reviewing and considering this matter might
also look into the matter of this business
of requiring citizens to obtain fiats to sue
the Crown. That is particularly important,
I think, because many of the commissions as
mentioned are also now, because they are
considered Crown bodies, protected in the
same way, and I think it is very, very im-
portant that we review that.
The safeguards that have been built into
our system of government over decades, most
of the time, are not transferred when the
assets or powers are transferred and delegated
to the boards. Some even have powers of
expropriation.
One of the safeguards, a very important
one built into our system, is the safeguard
of the assembly and, of course, the official
Opposition. This is a very important function
in keeping alive our democratic state. Per-
haps the standing committees could serve
as some sort of official opposition.
I also would like them to consider the busi-
ness of the right of appeal. I think it is
unfair and unjust, generally, that a citizen
should have no right of appeal to a ruling
of a board. I think it is basic to our free-
dom to have the right to appeal, and there
should be no such thing, unless someone
can prove a very good reason for it— and
it would have to be very good— that there
shall be no appeal from the ruling of a board
or commission.
However, I will not go into this in any
further detail because I think we could quite
properly await the report of the committee
on government commissions which is to study
this matter. However, I do welcome the
action of the government in asking that this
matter be reviewed and, incidentally, the
hon. Prime Minister's action in regard to
the reviewing of the commissions is an ex-
ample of why things are somewhat difficult
for the Opposition.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the government does
not wait for criticism if it becomes aware
of a situation needing attention. Generally
speaking, it proceeds to take action.
I have watched the proceedings of this
assembly for the last two years with a great
deal of interest, and I looked over at the
hon. members of the Opposition and asked:
"Why are they having so much trouble all
these years increasing their representation?"
I think that I can honestly say, as objec-
tively as one can when one is a member of
a party supporting the government, that gen-
erally speaking the problem of the Opposi-
tion is that they are facing a government
which is giving very good government.
MARCH 3, 1958
491
Now I do not think the coming Liberal
convention is going to solve that problem.
I think that the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Oliver) is very capable, and I
repeat, it is not the fault of their leader,
it is the fault of the government in power.
The government in power is making it just
too difficult for them to pick holes in its
armour. I think a good example of this is
to use their own words.
The hon. member for Essex North (Mr.
Reaume) and others use this expression from
time to time. They have said: "If you lose
hon. Mr. Frost, you will fall to pieces."
Well I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that that is
an admission that we are getting good gov-
ernment, because we could not have good
government and a poor leader, and we could
not have a good leader and poor government.
One cannot have it both ways. If you have
good government, you have a good leader;
if you have poor government, you have a
poor leader, so in effect, they are saying that
we have good government and that is their
problem.
Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. member agree
with them?
Mr. Grossman: There cannot be good gov-
ernment with a poor leader.
I would not have said what I did about
the hon. leader of the Opposition except that
I seem to have read somewhere that he is
planning to relinquish his leadership of the
party. I do not know whether or not that
is true.
The reason I say I would not mention it,
is because I would not want anyone at the
Liberal convention to say: "Well, if a Con-
servative thinks he is a good leader of the
Liberal party, why I guess he is not so good
for us." That is, the Liberals. I would not
want to give him the kiss of death.
It is the Opposition's duty to oppose of
course, and oppose wherever they see any
weakness. In fact, perhaps they oppose some-
times when they do not see any weakness
in the hope that they might expose some
weakness. But the hon. Liberal leader has
been charged quite often with being too
much of the gentleman because he will not
make rash charges with tongue in cheek,
to oppose legislation which he generally sees
is good legislation.
I have seen him here disagreeing very
strongly, very capably, very ably and very
eloquently when he disagreed with what
the government was doing.
Surely, the Liberals are not seeking a
leader who makes very rash charges, like
the hon. leader of the CCF (Mr. MacDonald).
It is too bad he is not in the House,
I would sooner he were here to hear this.
I think that the hon. member for York South
makes too many careless and vicious charges
and too many personal attacks.
Of course, this government is by no means
perfect. All governments leave much undone.
There is generally in our complex society
today, so much to be done by governments
that they must do first things first and this
government, generally speaking, is doing a
good job on first things first. Of course, only
the CCF socialists would leave nothing un-
done. They have the perfect answer for
everything.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): That is
right. The hon. member has made a point
there.
Mr. Grossman: He agrees. The hon. mem-
ber of the CCF party agrees that they have
all the answers.
What I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker,
about the Opposition's difficulty in finding
any weaknesses in the government's armour,
was exemplified by this business of govern-
ment commissions. The hon. Prime Minister
read the auditor's report and immediately took
action on it. I think, as a matter of fact, if
I recall, the hon. leader of the Opposition that
day said: "The hon. Prime Minister must be
reading my notes, because I meant to mention
that, to make some comment on that today
in the House."
Mr. Oliver: Oh, he remembered a speech I
made last year, I think.
Mr. Grossman: Well, that may be and I
think that it is a good thing.
Mr. Oliver: Hear, hear!
Mr. Grossman: I think we can say that a
leader of a party, a leader of a government,
who sees these things that need to be cor-
rected, which need some attention, and
without too much prodding goes ahead with
the job of doing it is a good leader.
On the question of unemployment, his un-
employment relief measure is a perfect
example of this. He immediately took some
action to help the situation.
Now, of course, there are complaints that
it is too late, that is too little, that it is too
conditional, that it is too this, too that. Well,
I mentioned in the House the other day, these
were exactly the same complaints that were
492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
made two years ago and incidentally, there
was lots of unemployment then. I think there
were some 500,000, and no depression resulted
from it. There was no disaster. We were
able to come out of that very, very well.
The same complaints were made in 1955
and incidentally, I repeat, at that time the
grants were unconditional, but the uncondi-
tional aspect of it, as a matter of fact,
created just as many complaints, just as many
probems, and just as much so-called delay.
For instance, in the city of Toronto, as
I mentioned in the House the other day,
some wanted to use the grant to reduce the
tax rate. Some wanted to use part of it to
reduce the tax rate. Some councillors wanted
to use it for direct relief with no works pro-
gramme. They said it could not work. A
member of the city council said: "The hon.
Prime Minister's letter is too ambiguous. We
will never accomplish anything with this."
As a matter of fact, I remember that day
in city council. We argued for hours, I think
it was 12, and there were about 10 or 12
motions presented and, when we finally de-
cided to use all of the $500,000 for an
unemployment works programme, we failed
to get a two-thirds majority because at that
time, I think, it was a question of overruling
the board of control, and it required a two-
thirds majority because it was a money
expenditure. But we voted 5 or 6 times and
we finally approved of the plan.
The result? There was immediate action
taken, it was a good programme, and it was
not just so-called raking leaves.
Incidentally, that programme as well as the
one in existence now in the city of Toronto
is doing one good job at least in that it is
picking the wheat from the chaff. Those who
do not accept this kind of work and are
able to do it are being cut off from relief.
So we are at least finding out the people who
are entitled to get some relief assistance.
Everyone then was happy with the results
and the same thing will apply now.
As a matter of fact, last week the Opposi-
tion was claiming that it was taking too long
to put it into effect. That same day, it was
last February 21, the same day the headlines
said: 400 on City Relief to Start Works
Programme Monday. That was the same day
the charge was made, incidentally.
As a matter of fact, I heard his worship
Mayor Phillips on the radio yesterday, and
his remarks were somewhat along thq follow-
ing lines. He said:
A magnificent job is being done in that,
in the few days we have instituted this
plan, over 800 have been taken off direct
relief and are doing a productive day's
work.
So I do not think the Opposition should
make disparaging remarks about this business
of raking leaves and filling potholes and so
on. I do not think that is a nice thing to say.
I do not think they should put people, who
are working for a day's pay, in the category
that they are doing a menial and contemptible
type of work. It is a good, honest day's work
and is doing a wonderful job for the city of
Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose this is a
perfect programme. There is no such thing as
a perfect programme because, as I mentioned
before, only the CCF have perfect answers
to everything. It will probably need some
changes, but so far I have heard no practical
suggestions offered by the Opposition as to
how they would change it. Not one.
And let me again repeat, Mr. Speaker, the
principle of sharing costs on a situation or
project of this nature is a very, very prac-
tical one.
I think anyone with any municipal experi-
ence—and I am sure the hon. leader of the
Opposition with all his experience when he
was a member of the government— knows that
it is not a good principle to hand any other
jurisdiction a blank cheque. It has always
been a good principle in government that if
we are going to give someone some money to
spend, that we make certain they have an
investment of their own in that expenditure
so that they will deal wisely with someone
else's money.
I repeat, it is the job of the Opposition in
its function to oppose, but I do not think
they should hamper this plan by giving the
excuse to some municipal politicians to avoid
any initiative to help make it work, or also to
give some an excuse not to take the work,
because some people in reading the remarks
made in criticism of this plan— some people
who are not interested in doing a day's work
for a day's pay— will take some sort of moral
support from the idea that it is not a good
plan, and therefore they need not give it any
attention at all and need not concern them-
selves about doing a day's work.
In respect of this, there has been some sug-
gestion that we hand this money out as direct
relief— and incidentally, some of these sugges-
tions have been made by one or two socialists
—and not bother to make people work. Of
course, this is the philosophy which eventually
destroys the moral fabric of the people. And
if I may be privileged at this time, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to quote—
MARCH 3, 1958
493
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. member would permit a
question?
Mr. Grossman: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. member made a
very sweeping statement. It is in the form
of a generalization. I wonder if he could give
particular instances of that?
Mr. Grossman: Of socialists?
Mr. Thomas: Yes.
Mr. Grossman: Well, as a matter of fact,
Mr. Speaker, I could and if pressed I will.
Mr. Thomas: Why does the hon. member
not do so?
Mr. Grossman: Well, the only reason is that
the man who made this statement, the one
I have in mind at the moment, is a very
good friend of mine and I have a high regard
for him, and I do not like engaging in per-
sonalities. But if the hon. member insists I
will tell him.
Mr. Thomas: Why repeat it then?
Mr. Grossman: I think I am privileged to
repeat it-
Mr. Thomas: No, the hon. member is
not—
Mr. Grossman: —if I point it out as being
part of the philosophy of the CCF?
Mr. Thomas: That is not a philosophy.
Mr. Grossman: The gentleman in question
was a member of the CCF party, who is a
member of the city council of Toronto, and
it is in the records, it is in the newspaper
reports of a meeting of the city council. He
did not want it to be used for a works pro-
gramme, he said "give it to them in direct
relief."
Mr. Thomas: I will check on that.
Mr. Grossman: Now, I wish the hon. mem-
ber for York South were here because I know
he is a great reader and a great philosopher,
and I would like to read something from a
philosopher for whom I think he has the
highest regard. It concerns this business of
giving people something for nothing, and lay-
ing out a programme, a planned programme
for their whole lives from the cradle to the
grave. This is an extract from the Condition
of Man by Lewis Mumford, a very able
writer and philosopher. I think everyone will
agree. Amongst other things he states:
As with other organisms man is subject
to arrests, fixations, lapses into inertness.
In the desire to avoid physical danger he
may imitate the errors of the armoured
reptiles. In trying to achieve a stable social
order he may be tempted to imitate the
ants which have achieved complete social
harmony at the price of going no farther
in their development.
In his desire for an easy physical life he
may resort to parasitism, and in his effort
to overcome pain he may deliberately
choose insensibility which is a living death.
All these temptations are vices because
they are denials of the essential nature of
the living organism; denials of its capacity
for variation, in which it differs from insen-
sate matter; its capacity for experimental
life play, seeking a fuller mastery of its
circumstances and its very self; and finally
its capacity for insurgence, its unwilling-
ness to take things lying down.
Variation, experiment, and insurgence
are all of them attributes of freedom; and
though all organisms seem to make a bid
for freedom, it is man who has strained
hardest to achieve it and to keep it as an
essential attribute of at least some part of
his society.
Now again, Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon.
member for York South were here because I
would like to take him to task for his con-
stant disparaging remarks about back-bench-
ers. I wanted to remind him that two-thirds
of his party in this House are back-benchers,
and as a matter of fact, the hon. member for
York South is only a front-bencher by the
good graces of the hon. Prime Minister, who
had the courtesy to put him in the position
of a front-bencher even though he is leading
only a party of 3 here.
As a matter of fact, any one of the back-
benchers in this House, by the mere process
of getting 3 or 4 hon. members together, could
say: "We will call ourselves the X-Y-Z
party, and one of us will be the leader and
we will be in the front benches."
Mr. Thomas: Is this brought on because
the hon. member is a back-bencher? Would
he like to be a front-bencher?
Mr. Grossman: I would like to be a
front-bencher, of course, but what I do not
like are disparaging remarks. I think the
CCF has some good hon. members in the
back benches— or hon. member, I should say.
Mr. Thomas: I agree the hon. member
for St. Andrew is very ambitious.
Mr. Grossman: I would have liked to
quote for the benefit of the hon. member for
York South, an old Chinese proverb. It
494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
refers to someone who thinks he is big be-
cause he has not much of a field in which
to operate. It runs something like this:
When there are no fish in the pond,
Even a shrimp is great.
Now, if I were an hon. member of a
party of 3, it is quite possible I could be
in the front benches.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I think I would
like to make some reference to some of the
remarks made by the hon. member for Ox-
ford (Mr. Innes). He made a statement
which was meant to be very startling. I
think he said that this government has in-
creased the debt of this province to the
extent where it is now increasing at the
rate of $12,000 per hour every day. Am
I correct in that?
Well now, that could scare the dickens
out of a fellow who is working for $50 a
week. He would read the paper and say:
"$12,000 every hour of the day. Those fel-
lows are breaking me." It depends on how
one looks at it.
If we want to take into consideration that
there are 6 million people in this province,
the debt is rising, according to the figures
of the hon. member, at the rate of less than
one-fifth of a cent per person per hour or
about a little less than 4.5 cents a day. I
do not think that is anything for the average
citizen and taxpayer to concern himself about.
Mr. Innes: May I ask a question? Would
the hon. member think it right that we give
every baby, who is born in the province,
a nice little debt, and hand it to him on
a plate? Is the hon. member happy because
he can give that baby a litde debt, and thus
think that it is going to alleviate the hon.
member's situation and. clear him?
Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think
the answer is fairly obvious. I do not intend
to pay for everything for my children and
grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I
will pay my share and I expect they shall
pay their share.
The hon. member knows perfectly well
that is the principle of financing today,
because we would never get any projects
completed if we planned on paying for them
out of current revenue. We would still be
living in the dark ages.
Mr. Oliver: Then the hon. member dis-
agrees with the hon. member for Riverdale
(Mr. Macaulay)?
Mr. Grossman: I disagree that no debt
should be handed on to posterity. Of course
I do, that is logical. I have a house and I
have a mortgage on the house and like most
people I do not intend to pay that mortgage
off. I pay so much into that house and I
say to my children, "You want to take that
house over later. I have given you a good
equity in it, now you can pay some of that
off yourself." There is nothing wrong with
that at all. They will pay their share.
Mr. Oliver: As long as they pay it off.
Mr. Grossman: Well, of course, Mr.
Speaker, we agree that the debt should not
be overbearing or overburdening, we agree
that it should be within a reasonable level.
I did not intend to quote this, but now that
the question has arisen, I will quote from
an organ which is hardly considered a Con-
servative one. The Toronto Daily Star of last
Thursday, in speaking of the "Frost" house-
keeping and the shadow of the slump, starts
right off:
Back in his old role of Provincial Treas-
urer, Prime Minister Frost yesterday deliv-
ered to the Ontario Legislature his house-
keeping accounts for the fiscal year which
began last April 1 and ends on March 31.
The accounts and the forecast look, on the
whole, pretty good.
I would like to make mention of another
matter which has concerned me, and that is
the necessity for public men to watch their
language, in making references to personalities.
It is good, I repeat again, to have a forceful
Opposition, but it is not necessary to engage
in character assassinations. There is a smug
feeling on the part of some people, particu-
larly again I refer to the hon. members of the
CCF, they have a perfect answer for a per-
fect world, and also that everyone is a thief
who makes a profit.
I suppose they exempt from that those CCF
lawyers who charge fat fees for representing
labour in certain instances. They take the at-
titude that no one cares about the little man
except the socialists.
Mr. Thomas: Why does the hon. member
not say those things outside?
Mr. Grossman: There is a constant appeal
to class warfare.
Mr. Thomas: Why does the hon. member
not say those things outside?
Mr. Grossman: What is that? Say what
things?
MARCH 3, 1958
495
Mr. Thomas: About these lawyers thieving
and stealing.
Mr. Grossman: Now, now. Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Thomas: About CCF lawyers taking
fat fees.
Mr. Grossman: Now I certainly am not
going to engage in what I am just disparag-
ing. This is one remark I made verbatim from
my notes, and I said: "They have the smug
feeling that they have the perfect answer
for a perfect world. Everyone is a thief who
makes a profit—"
Mr. Gisborn: That is the hon. member's
statement. That is not the CCF statement.
Mr. Grossman: "—except the CCF lawyers
who may charge fat fees for representing
labour." As a matter of fact, I say the CCF
have even excused them from this general
charge.
Mr. Thomas: I never said that they were
thieves.
Mr. Grossman: Certainly they are not
thieves, of course they are not thieves merely
because they make a profit or charge fees
whether they are fat or slim.
Mr. Gisborn: The hon. member suggested
that.
Mr. Grossman: I am deprecating the con-
stant appeal to class warfare. Now am I
wrong? I read from Friday's Daily Star, of
February 21, a week ago Friday:
Says Business Interest Prevents Aid For
Jobless
Liberal and Conservative parties have
failed to do anything to stop unemploy-
ment because "they do not dare offend
their friends" so-and-so CCF nominee for
St. Paul's riding said.
I do not like mentioning names in the first
place, I do not like giving them free pub-
licity. This woman explained that business
interests which support the two main parties
with funds would not permit them to under-
take constructive measures to end unemploy-
ment. What utter rot, what absolute "balder-
dash". Imagine suggesting that there is any-
one, particularly business men who have
everything to gain from a thriving economy,
who will not let the two parties, Liberal or
Conservative, do anything about unemploy-
ment.
Talk about self-righteous snobs, Mr.
Speaker, who sit there in their smugness and
because they have read the prescribed num-
ber of books have decided that they know all
the answers! Only they have the milk of
human kindness in them, and everyone else
is out to step on the little man. That is utter
rot.
Mr. Speaker, I will wager that there are
more people on this side of the House, and
more people in this party, who suffered dur-
ing the depression, who suffered the pangs
of hunger, who worked like the dickens to
get wherever they are today and who have a
great regard for the necessity to do some-
thing for the other man who may be suffer-
ing, than there are, generally speaking, in the
socialist CCF party.
Because, generally speaking, those people
who are spokesmen for the socialist CCF,
have learned all they know about life from
books. While it is a very good thing to
read books, it is very enlightening-
Mr. Thomas: What books does the hon.
member read?
Mr. Grossman: —and certainly I would
do everything possible to encourage the read-
ing of books— I would not think of telling
my children that they are going to learn all
about life from those books. I would tell
them to read the books, but also tell them
to get out in the world and find out what
is going on.
Mr. Thomas: Surely the hon. member is
not the only one who is working for a living.
Mr. Grossman: I am trying to tell the
hon. members opposite that they should not
try to give the impression that they are the
only people who work for a living or ever
worked for a living. That is all I am trying
to do. Now I am sure that the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa would not agree with his
colleague in his party in the statement that
she made.
Mr. Thomas: I guess we work just as hard
and just as honestly.
Mr. Grossman: I do not doubt that for
a moment, but I would not for a moment,
Mr. Speaker, tell anyone that the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa or for York South, or the
hon. member for Wentworth East, have no
regard for the unemployed; that they would
not let someone do something to help the
unemployed. I would not for a moment, and
I do not think that anyone should suggest
that any political party is not interested in
helping the unemployed.
Mr. Gisborn: This government is not doing
much for them now.
496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Grossman: That is just an appeal to
class warfare. Now, the hon. member can
disagree with what the government is
doing, and it is his privilege to disagree.
As a matter of fact, it is his duty to disagree,
if he thinks they are not doing the right
thing, but I deprecate this sort of statement:
"All this will do will be to undermine the
people's faith in the democratic system." I
suggest to the hon. members that they them-
selves will suffer—
Mr. Thomas: The hon member is talking
a lot of nonsense.
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, speaking of
personal attacks, one of the hon. members
—for Essex North, I think it was— made ref-
erence to the chairman of the Toronto metro-
politan council the other day, and stated:
"That man— he is the man who calls him-
self Supermayor."
Well, I took the hon. member to task on
that occasion, and I pointed out that Mr.
Gardiner never referred to himself as the
Supermayor. I am sure that it is not his
fault that people refer to him as such.
Another statement was made, something
to the effect that he, Mr. Gardiner, said:
"Officers should be well armed and start
shooting people all over the place." Now,
this is a sort of statement which, I repeat
again, undermines the faith of the people
in their public officials. He, Mr. Gardiner,
of course, never said any such thing, and
I repeat, it is anyone's right to disagree with
any position this man takes, or any state-
ments he has made. I have done it often
enough. But we should not make personal
attacks, and we should not put words in
anyone's mouth, because, like many here, Mr.
Gardiner is a wonderful public servant,
serving at great sacrifice to himself.
Now again, Mr. Speaker, with the House's
indulgence, I am going to quote from the
Toronto Globe and Mail, of February 27,
last Thursday. In the article, Ronald Hag-
gart is speaking of Mr. Gardiner:
As the hands of the clock on the tall
green wall of the metro-council chamber
slanted at a minute or so past 11, on Tues-
day night, they were haggling over whether
to continue beyond their automatic adjourn-
ment time.
"We are adjourned right now," Ford
Brand cut in. Metro-chairman Gardiner
plumped back heavily in his big chair.
"Okay", he said, "We are adjourned."
"No, no!" said Mr. Brand, "I did not
mean it that way."
I will miss one or two lines here, as they
are not pertinent Mr. Speaker. Further on-
Few of them around that big horseshoe
of desks knew of the pain that throbbed in
Mr. Gardiner's legs, or the deadening drugs
he had taken to keep going. Only a few of
them knew that his doctor had ordered
him to bed for the rest of the week, that
he faced the prospect of an uncertain
operation.
Mr. Gardiner is constantly lecturing to
24 men and women who are the council-
lors of Metropolitan Toronto, that when
the time comes to make decisions, they
must face it squarely, and make the
decisions. They were stumbling through
the first of the subway decisions this night,
and Mr. Gardiner kept their noses pressed
to it. It was after 1.30 a.m. when he was
able to walk slowly from the metro build-
ing, from Adelaide Street, leaning heavily
on a cane, and lift his painful legs to the
polished footrest on the back seat of the
municipal Cadillac. A small swelling was
pressing on the nerve, his face was ashen,
and he hardly spoke all the way home to
Forest Hill. "He was," a friend said later,
"a man completely and utterly spent."
I will miss some of this, Mr. Speaker, I do
not think it is pertinent either.
One councillor fell over himself trying
to withdraw a motion he had made. After
that remark from Mr. Gardiner, it would
have failed anyway. Such is the feeling of
Mr. Gardiner's indispensability.
Mr. Gardiner had little to say during the
long day and night, but he was determined
to keep them at their job. At one point
they were involved in ludicrous hassle
over procedure. How to take a vote on
whether a question should now be put on
the motion to refer back to the executive
its recommendation that Metro seek per-
missive legislation from the province to
make capital grants to the TTC. It has
become as tangled as it sounds. Alderman
Donald Somerville slipped over to Mr.
Gardiner's side and whispered "For God's
sake, bail them out." "Oh, leave it alone,"
Mr. Gardiner said, hoarsely, "I am still
awake."
Mr. Speaker, I am not a hero worshipper.
I am anything but. Some people think I am
a little too cynical. What I am trying to point
out is, that here is a man, like many other
men in public life, who has sacrificed a great
deal to do a good job. He works at it 24
hours a day, and I do not think an hon. mem-
MARCH 3, 1958
497
ber should poke fun at him from a personal
point of view.
As I say, "disagree with him if you must
but do not malign a man personally, particu-
larly when this man has made a great sacri-
fice to give public service." I repeat again,
and it is worth repeating, "let us not destroy
people's faith in their public men," because
if we do, we will have no good public men
to do a job for us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been some
indication that the sputniks have caused the
desire, on the part of many people, to want
the governments to go all out to develop a
so-called "scientific elite," a sort of nation of
technicians. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that
there will be a great danger of neglecting the
humanities or the social relationships and that
there will be some desire— there probably is,
on the part of many— that we engage in this
type of educational system, so that in the final
analysis we will become a nation of robots.
I do not think that we should ape Russia,
and become totalitarian to stay up with the
totalitarians, otherwise we may as well save
ourselves the trouble and give the country to
the Communists.
Now, there has been some talk that we do
not respect our teachers in the western world;
we do not respect our teachers here; we do not
respect our intellectuals. I do not know where
people get that impression. I have never had
occasion to experience any lack of respect
for our teachers or our intellectuals. But when
such people talk about respect there is a
suggestion; in fact, it has been stated in so
many words, that the Russians— that the Com-
munists—respect their intellectuals, and their
teachers.
It is a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. They
do no such thing. May I read from an article
in a local Czechoslovak newspaper called
Nase Hlasy, "Our Voices." It is an article
written by George Skvor, a former deputy
member of Parliament of the Czechoslovakian
government.
Amongst other things, he is speaking of
the educational system in Czechoslovakia
under the Communist regime. He states:
Soon after the Communist coup d'etat
the following instructions were enforced,
reflecting the pattern of the Soviet educa-
tional system:
1. In all schools, priority must be given
to party influences, political and ideologi-
cal teachings.
2. All schools must support the so-called
"socialist" [i.e., Communist] reconstruc-
tion of the state.
3. All education curricula and extra cur-
ricula must be performed in accordance
with Soviet pattern.
4. Priority— in many cases exclusively—
in registration is given to children with
proletarian background, mainly to children
of party members.
Among others, the principles of the Com-
munist educational system are: The un-
critical admiration of the Soviet Union;
inciting hatred towards the western world,
or at least its ridicule; the elimination of
the pre-war democratic tradition in the
educational system; elevation of the im-
portance of the working class, and of a
technical education at the expense of
humanities; inciting hatred towards reli-
gion and family; against traditional patriot-
ism and national pride, which the Com-
munists supplement by working-class in-
ternationalism and so on.
Farther down, and this bears putting on the
record I think, Mr. Speaker, it states:
According to the Soviet manner, Czecho-
slovak writers [this is as far as intel-
lectuals are concerned] enjoy material priv-
ileges and rights, denied to members of
other social classes. In return for this, the
Communist regime demands from them the
absolute surrender of their creative free-
dom and individuality. A number of
Czechoslovak writers and other artists were
still in prison. Those who do not sub-
ordinate to the Stalin-Zhdanov restrictions
of personal and creative freedom were
silenced by various means, their literary
works not published, they were or still
are imprisoned, persecuted and socially
restricted.
The Communist party "prescribes" not
only WHAT but HOW to write, in answer
to the spirit of the working class. Thus
in practice, not only the literary theme is
chosen, mainly working conditions, in fac-
tories, and farm collectives, but the Com-
munist party also assigns the manner in
which the literary material is to be pre-
sented in the spirit of social realism, as
defined by dialectic materialism.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who tries to make
the point that the Communists are respecting
their intellectuals and teachers, needs to learn
a lot more about what is going on in the
educational system of the Communists.
Of course, that is not to gainsay the fact
that there is a greater need for greater stress
on some aspects of our educational system,
498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but let us not go overboard. There may be
a greater need for making certain that those
who have an aptitude for engineering are
given more encouragement. Perhaps we need
more engineers, and to that extent the gov-
ernments should do what they can to en-
courage more into these classes.
But I think we are helping the Communists
in their propaganda when they are able to
repeat all over the world the remarks of
people who should know better, that we
in the western world do not respect our intel-
lectuals and teachers, as they do.
Mr. Speaker, many hon. members of this
House have engaged to some extent in the
federal election campaign. Now, in the first
place, I do not believe that, as a general
policy, the hon. members of this provincial
or any provincial Legislature should engage
in a federal election campaign.
However, there is no doubt that what
caused the interest of the hon. members of
this Legislature in a federal election before
last June was the lack of concern of the
former government regarding the plight of
the provinces and the municipalities. There
is very little doubt about that.
Now, this was part and parcel of the general
arrogance of the party which had been in
power so long. They showed their arrogance
in their lack of regard for the problems of
the municipalities and the provinces. They
showed their arrogance in their contempt for
the rights of Parliament: for example, when
the Speaker was forced to bow to government
Ministers; for their actions in closure; and also
for their contempt for the rights of private
members.
I have spoken to some of the gentlemen
who were members of the Liberal party in
the former government, and they have told
me some great stories about how little atten-
tion or respect they were given by their own
government.
Now am I wrong, or are we wrong, when
we say the federal Liberal government was
arrogant? Well, I am sure no one will say
we were wrong, because they are convicted
by their own words.
Here, at a meeting on February 12, a
couple of weeks ago, one of the Liberal
nominees, a candidate for election who was
defeated at the previous election, stated that
his party had "ceased to be Liberal before
its defeat in the June election last year. The
Canadian people threw us out on our collec-
tive ears." He told this to about 300 persons
attending the nominating convention.
Then there was another prominent Liberal,
who said during his address: "We thought we
were so good, prior to the election defeat, that
the people of Canada thought it was time the
Liberals learned a lesson." Now let hon.
members think of the arrogance involved in
even that statement.
They say: "Yes, we were arrogant, and you
citizens thought it was time we were taught
a lesson, but you did not really mean to
throw us out of office for so long. All you
meant to do was give us a little slap on the
wrist and say— now, naughty, naughty— and
put us back into power again."
In other words, it is only 7 months and
the idea is that they are telling the public
that "we are sorry, we were arrogant, we were
rude, we were inconsiderate, but we have
been out of office 7 months and we were
only in for 22 years before that. Now you
should put us back, we have learned our
lesson."
Utterly ridiculous, and incidentally, there
could be some people say: "Now wait a
minute, after all, in your Ontario Legislature,
you have a government with an overwhelm-
ing majority."
Well, contrast the actions of this govern-
ment with the way the Liberal government
was conducting itself.
In spite of the fact that we have a large
majority here, the government— and particu-
larly the hon. Prime Minister— has always
insisted that any time any hon. member of
the Opposition wants a bill held up for fur-
ther consideration, he has never refused to
comply. Not once since I have been here. I
have seen bills go back to the committee
after we thought they had been finally decided
on by the committee. Numerous times. All the
bills go to the committee. Any time an hon.
member of the Opposition has asked for any-
thing of this nature to be done, the hon.
Prime Minister has always done it.
I also have seen you, Mr. Speaker, rule
against hon. members of the government
here. I watched you, last year, call the hon.
Prime Minister out of order, a thing that was
unheard of prior to June 10 in the federal
House.
As a matter of fact, since then, the Speaker
appointed by the Diefenbaker government
ruled the government out of order a number
of times, ruled the Rt. hon. Prime Minister
out of order, ruled hon. members of the cabi-
net out of order and, as a matter of fact, a
private hon. member, as a chairman of the
committee of the whole, ruled the govern-
ment out of order. This is democracy in
action.
Most important of all is this. While I was
very happy, of course, to see the Conservative
MARCH 3, 1958
499
party get elected on June 10, more important
—believe me, sir, more important than that—
was that it reaffirmed my faith in human
nature, in the democratic system, because
prior to that we were all concerned with the
apathy of the elector. We said: "So long as
conditions are good, so long as there is a
thriving economy, the people will never vote
against a government." But they did, Mr.
Speaker.
To all of their credit, they said, finally,
"we have had enough and out you go" and
this is a very, very good thing.
Incidentally, too, this was one of the mis-
takes, one of the few great mistakes I can
find that the Ontario Liberal party made.
They became apologists for the federal party,
and the federal party gave them absolutely
no support at all. They considered them, at
all times, as "small potatoes." The federal
Liberal party always considered that the
Ontario Liberals were not worth 10 minutes
of their time.
Speaking of that, this was quite in line
with their treatment— their contemptible treat-
ment, Mr. Speaker— of the former Rt. hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I think it
was disgraceful the way they shoved him into
the shadows. I watched the proceedings of
the Liberal convention that night on tele-
vision, and it was shameful how they pushed
him into the background— those wise, bright
boys that he brought from obscurity into the
cabinet treated him shabbily.
Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent is a great Cana-
dian, and while many of us disapproved of
his policies quite often, he is still a great
Canadian who has done a great service for
the people of Canada.
Again, if I may, let me contrast this with the
way the Conservatives do these things. We
have always highly honoured all of our lead-
ers. Rt. hon. Arthur Meighen is always an
honoured person and statesman in our party.
The late Mr. Manion, while he was alive, even
after he was defeated, was always a great
man to us. May I refer to Mr. Bracken and
Mr. Drew.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this party since
I was 16 years old, and I have attended every
convention of this party. All of our leaders,
with the exception of Mr. Meighen, who held
office only a short period of time, all of them
led us to defeat but they were still highly
honoured, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gisborn: The Conservatives are not
doing much for them now.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, may I remind my
hon. friend that so far as Mr. Manion was
concerned, he was almost starving to death
when he was picked up by the Liberal govern-
ment and given a job at Ottawa.
The Conservatives certainly did not look
after him, I will tell the hon. member that.
Mr. Grossman: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are
not talking about monetary recognition in
the first place. I do not know enough about
that, I cannot remember that. But in the
first place, the hon. leader of the Opposition
is speaking about looking after them finan-
cially or something of that nature. I was not
referring to that at all. It may be that the
fortunes of our party were so dark; it may
be the people who were in charge of party
fortunes were not able to do anything for
him. I do not know that. I am not talking
about monetary reward or anything of that
nature.
We have always given them respect. I
notice every session here, we have the
former Prime Minister, hon. George S. Henry,
a great Canadian, always honoured by our
party, always honoured by our leader, and
this is what the bright boys of the Liberal
party in Ottawa have yet to learn.
I would like to see the Rt. hon. Prime Mini-
ster of Canada offer Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent
some great honoured position, whether it be
the Governor-Generalship or a high ambassa-
dorial post or a High Commissionership; any-
thing that the Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent would
care to accept. I do not know that he would;
he may feel that he is deserving of a rest.
I do not know. But it would be a fine gesture
on the part of the Rt. hon. Prime Minister
of Canada, and certainly worthy of the
former Rt. hon. Prime Minister of this country,
and if he will accept it, I think that he
should be honoured that way.
As a matter of fact, in spite of the fact
that the senate is overwhelmingly Liberal,
if Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent were prepared
to accept a senatorship, I would like to see
the Rt. hon. Prime Minister offer him that,
and I am sure that he would get the support
of every member of the Conservative party.
Now I want to close on another matter
which concerns me a great deal, and that
is that the fear, my fear, that the unemploy-
ment situation might tend to prejudice peo-
ple against, not only future immigrants, but
immigrants recently arrived. It is human
nature for people to seek a scapegoat. That
has been one of the problems in life from
the very first day of recorded history— that
when people are in difficulty, they never go
to a mirror and say: "It is my fault."
500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They never— I think the story went some-
thing like this— when a man saw one of his
good friends with whom he had been brought
up all his life, doing very well, and saw him
driving away in his Cadillac, and he was
not doing so well, this was one of the few
people in the world who was ever fair with
himself and honest. He said, "There but for
the grace of me, go I."
Now generally speaking, people are not
like that. They look for a scapegoat. Now
that is what I am a little concerned with,
that people, during a period of unemploy-
ment, may be trying to blame the immigrants.
Now, I am quoting rather copiously from
the Toronto Daily Star, Mr. Speaker, because
I am a little concerned that, if I quote from
any other newspaper, I may be charged with
quoting only papers which agree with my
outlook. Here is what the Star had to say
a week ago Friday about immigrants, and
I think I would like to put this on the record
because it bears repeating. It seems to be
elementary— it seems to me to be fundamental
and basic— but sometimes these elementary
things bear repeating. The Star states as
follows:
Immigration in Canada has virtually been
cut off since last summer. This is a natural
reaction. If people already here are out
of jobs, why in the name of common sense
encourage more people to immigrate? As
a temporary measure it is sensible to put
the brakes on immigration at such times
as the present. Unfortunately the new
disposition against immigration becomes a
prejudice, even hostility to immigrants
who have already come.
Now despite any short term views, on
the whole and over the long haul, large
immigration is not only healthy for Canada,
it has been, and continues to be, essen-
tial for her development and welfare,
and while the large number of people who
came in the first half of last year may
now seem, to some Canadians, a hazard
and a pain to the economy, there are very
good reasons to be thankful for them.
It is hard to believe, when times are
hard, that both the 282,164 immigrants
who entered Canada last year, and the
people whose life they came to share, are
advantaged by that stream of newcomers,
the largest immigration year since 1913.
But these new people really are an asset
of estimable value. Consider what they
bring with them.
First, Manpower: not in demand now
but it will be again.
Capital: in 1956, for instance, immi-
grants brought in $100 million in cash
and $32 million in settlers' effects.
Skills and Ingenuity: They start new
kinds of business and industry creating
new employment opportunities and adding
to the country's productivity.
If I were ever going to take the hon. mem-
bers on a descriptive tour of my riding, I
would like to take them up Spadina Ave.
and Bloor St. and College St. and Bathurst
St. and Queen St., and there they would see
the ingenuity of the immigrant. Hundreds
of them, hundreds of them, barely off the
planes, off the boats, off the trains, here one
year or two years, are building up from little
businesses— from scratch— a good living for
themselves and creating a thriving merchan-
dising area in the whole of my riding. Now
look at the editorial:
New Markets: the less dependent on
foreign trade Canada becomes, the better
the country's economic fluctuations can be
managed. Immigrants increase the domestic
market for manufactured and agricultural
produce. They spend on houses, food, cloth-
ing, equipment, cars and they pay taxes.
Talents: the newcomers increase the
variety, colour, and yes, the quality of
Canadian life in every town, city and parish
they touch. They have intellectual gifts
which they bring to the new country.
Take this one instance. In the period
1951 to 1956, a total of 3,318 immigrants
with one or more university degrees and
professional qualifications in science and
technology came to this country. (The
figure does not include doctors of medicine
or persons of special qualifications in the
liberal arts, law and the like.) In this
one field alone— science and engineering—
the newcomers have come to play an im-
portant part in Canada's development.
Prejudice against immigrants is narrow,
harmful and deplorable. They create jobs,
not grab them. The prejudice is under-
standable in a native Canadian now un-
employed. But if sensible, adequate,
unemployment insurance were adopted in
this country, as this newspaper outlined
last Saturday, to cover everybody, there
would be an end to back-biting and
rancour.
Mr. Speaker, I know the immigrant and
I understand the immigrant. While I am
not an immigrant myself, I come from immi-
grant parents. I have lived with immigrants
most of my life and my riding is probably
MARCH 3, 1958
501
one of the most cosmopolitan in all of
Canada.
As an example, we have in my riding,
Ogden school, Ryerson school and King
Edward school, and I think each one of
these schools can lay claim to having pupils
who originate from more countries than any
other school in the United States or Canada.
Each one of them, I believe, has over 20
countries represented.
Those young children will grow up to be
a great asset if not made to feel like for-
eigners. I regret the use of the term "new
Canadian," I regret to have to use it, but it is
necessary to define the point I was making.
The sooner even that terminology is forgotten,
the better. They are all Canadians, and may
I close with this, Mr. Speaker:
Immigration sometimes must be handled
with the heart and sometimes with the head,
but most of the time, with both.
Mr. H. J. Price (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I
have rather a lengthy address, and if it is
your wish to carry on, I would be glad to
do so, otherwise I can wait until later.
Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that you
move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Price moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment
of the House, I would say that as I think my
hon. friend knows, it is intended to go on
tomorrow with the budget debate and the
hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Win-
termeyer) is the first speaker in that debate.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House was adjourned at 5.50 of the
clock, p.m.
No. 22
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, March 4, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 4, 1958
Fourth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Maloney 505
First report, standing committee on agriculture, Mr. W. E. Johnston 505
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 505
Mining Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 505
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 506
Milk Industry Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 506
Farm Products Marketing Act, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 506
Storage of Farm Products in Grain Elevators, bill to regulate, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 507
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 507
Public Service Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 507
Public Service Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 507
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 507
Tabling of hospital insurance agreement, Mr. Frost 509
Resumption of debate on the budget, Mr. Wintermeyer 513
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Root, agreed to 527
Ontario School Trustees' Council Act, 1953, bill to amend, third reading 527
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, third reading 527
Anatomy Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Beaches and River Beds Act, bill to repeal, third reading 527
Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
County Courts Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
General Sessions Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Interpretation Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Judicature Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Magistrates Act, 1952, bill to amend, third reading 527
County Judges Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Surrogate Courts Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Public Trustee Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Certification of Titles Act, 1958, bill to amend, third reading 527
Township of Tay Road Allowance Act, 1958, bill intituled, third reading 527
Provincial Land Tax Act, bill to amend, third reading 527
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, third reading 527
Corporations Information Act, 1953, bill to amend, third reading ' 527
Labour Relations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Daley, second reading 527
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Daley, second reading 527
Telephone Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, second reading 529
Provincial Parks Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Mapledoram, second reading 530
City of Waterloo, bill respecting, Mr. Wintermeyer, second reading 530
Royal Victoria Hospital at Barrie, bill respecting, Mr. G. G. Johnston, second reading .... 530
Town of Thorold, bill respecting, Mr. Root, second reading 530
City of London, bill respecting, Mr. Fullerton, second reading 530
Lakeshore district board of education, bill respecting, Mr. Grossman, second reading 530
Board of education for the township of North York, bill respecting,
Mr. W..J. Stewart, second reading , 530
Village of Long Branch, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 531
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to. 531
505
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 4, 1958
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney,
from the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's fourth report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 9, An Act respecting the city of
Chatham.
Bill No. 11, An Act respecting the village
of Port Perry.
Bill No. 13, An Act respecting the village
of West Lome.
Bill No. 32, An Act respecting the board of
education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Bill No. 35, An Act respecting the town of
Fort Frances.
Bill No. 40, An Act respecting the city of
Fort William.
Your committee also begs to report the
following bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. 1, An Act respecting Windsor
Jewish communal projects.
Bill No. 22, An Act respecting the city of
Windsor.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. E. Johnston
(Carleton), from the standing committee on
agriculture, presents the committee's first
report and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the following
bill without amendment:
Bill No. 98, An Act to amend The Stallions
Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
3 o'clock p.m. THE HOMES FOR THE AGED ACT, 1955
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Homes
for the Aged Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in section 1, two
changes are made. First, the population re-
quirement is reduced from 25,000 to 15,000.
Second, the right to establish a home or joint
home is extended to any municipality that
has the required population.
Section 3, subsection 1: a new method for
the payment of a provincial subsidy for the
operating and maintenance cost of homes is
provided. Instead of making the payments
annually to the municipality, they will be
paid monthly to the homes.
In subsection 2, this new provision will
enable two homes for the aged to be estab-
lished in one territorial district, each one serv-
ing the part for which it is established.
THE MINING TAX ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Mining
Tax Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in explanation of this
bill, under the present Act the profits tax on
a mine is based upon the annual profit of a
mine in a calendar year and accrued at the
end of each calendar year, and is payable for
each year on or before March 15 of the fol-
lowing year.
Also under the present Act, the tax on natu-
ral gas producers is on a calendar year basis
and is payable on October 1, following the
production year. This bill changes the basis of
the mine's profit tax by substituting a fiscal
year basis for a calendar year basis. It also
extends the time for filing returns and changes
the time for payment of the estimated mine's
profit tax and the natural gas producers tax.
These changes will lessen the amount of
work involved, not only in the administration
of the Act by The Department of Mines, but
also in the compliance with the Act by min-
ing companies and natural gas producers
concerned.
506
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Other sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker,
are complementary to the changes in the
basis of taxation from a calendar year to a
fiscal year. The bill will, of course, be pre-
sented before the mining committee for their
study and approval.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Mining
Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in explanation of the
suggester amendments, most of these amend-
ments are for clarification purposes and to
clear up some ambiguity between some sec-
tions of the Act.
One amendment confirms the practice
in most recording offices whereby the holder
on record of an option may group claims for
assessment work. Another amendment em-
powers the mining commissioner to use his
discretion concerning the granting of exten-
sions in very extenuating circumstances, and
these extensions may be permitted not only
for assessment work, but also for time for
applying for patent.
Another provision, section 7, is made so
that licences of occupation and leases may
be dealt with by the department in the same
manner as patented lands. The provision also
is in this bill, rather an important one, where
a severance of mineral and surface rights is
created by a public utility acquiring the sur-
face rights. The Minister may exempt the
mining rights from tax where he is satisfied
that the lands are not being held or used for
mining purposes.
Another section deals with documents
which include sketches. Those are copies of
documents required by certain persons or
firms, and they charge for these documents
on a folio basis. We are suggesting an amend-
ment to that. That is about the extent of the
important amendments proposed by this bill,
and this bill also will be sent to the mining
committee.
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT, 1957
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Milk
Industry Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. mem-
bers of the House are aware, last year, 1957,
we had a complete rewrite of The Milk
Industry Act which included many new
amendments with many changes in policy.
These are minor amendments which I am
introducing at the present time. They might
be classified more or less as refinements inso-
far as they are designed to correct some of
the shortcomings which were found in The
Milk Industry Act of last year through a year's
experience in its administration.
The change puts the milk industry board
of Ontario in a position to arbitrate a matter
in dispute whether arising from the failure
of negotiating committees to reach agree-
ment, or out of an agreement made.
The words added are for the purpose of
enabling, in the case of a marketing plan for
cheese, the inspector to inspect farms from
which the milk for manufacture into cheese is
produced. The amendment in another section
empowers negotiating committees to deter-
mine the commitments under which a new
producer may make an agreement with the
distributor for the supply of fluid milk.
Amendments here require every agreement
between producer and distributor to be filed
with the board and, when applied for, to
come into force automatically, and prohibit
the filing of an agreement, the operation of
which is conditional.
The new provision requires the declara-
tion by the board before the agreement takes
effect.
The last change in this section is to insure
that the amendment in section 4 of this bill
is not construed to invalidate existing agree-
ments.
THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING
ACT
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Farm
Products Marketing Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in some respects
these amendments are comparable to those
found in the bill which I have just intro-
duced. The first section is to include pulp-
wood as a farm product. Until now, pulp wood
has never been regarded as a farm product,
and we feel that it is important for the
so-called pulpwood farmers in northern
Ontario to be able to negotiate a price with
the companies in respect to their sale of their
product.
Another section is rewritten for the pur-
pose of improving the procedures for estab-
lishing plans, and for the revocation or
MARCH 4, 1958
507
amendment, and then there is the amend-
ment to insure the amendments relating to
the establishment of plans similar to The
Milk Industry Act may not be construed as
invalidating plans established under form
of provision.
STORAGE OF FARM PRODUCTS
IN GRAIN ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to regulate the
storage of farm products in grain elevators."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a new bill.
The purpose of the bill is to protect the
proprietory interest of farmers in farm produce
that is delivered to an elevator for future
sale, and is mixed with other produce owned
by the elevator operator or other persons. The
bill clarifies the time at which title passes,
regulates the accounting for stored produce,
provides safeguard for farmers against bank-
ruptcy, dishonesty and destruction, and pro-
vides for inspection to enforce the require-
ments.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Hon. J. N. Allan moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Highway
Traffic Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great
number of amendments to The Highway
Traffic Act this year, I feel it might be better
to have the bill printed before I go into any
detailed explanation of the various amend-
ments.
I might mention that, among those which
are most important, is one which would require
the charging of a driver of a car rather than
the owner. This is a complete change in
practice, and it really establishes the first
step in a driver control programme, which
makes possible a demerit system, or what is
commonly known as a point system.
As will be realized by all hon. members,
it is necessary to know definitely the person
who is driving the car, if an accurate record
of the driver is to be maintained. It is in-
tended that such a record will be maintained
of all drivers of motor vehicles in the prov-
ince. It is the feeling of the department that
it will be an exceedingly helpful step in
encouraging or influencing the drivers of
motor vehicles to become good drivers of their
own free will.
There is also legislation having to do with
The Unsatisfied Judgment Act, whereby the
department will handle the details in con-
nection with the paying out of the money,
after the judgment has been obtained, rather
than to proceed as has been done, and have
that handled by the courts. In case of a dis-
pute or misunderstanding it may still go to
the courts. It is felt that this will speed up
very greatly the settling of the claim.
There is a limitation of the height of loads
to be permitted, on the highway, of 13 feet,
6 inches, and a great many other amendments
which I would be glad to explain at the time
of second reading. I should add that these
amendments will go to the highway safety
committee.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Service Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is in case The
Public Service Act is ever changed. As it
stands today, the civil servants are retired
at the age of 65 or 70. Their services might
be required for certain purposes, at a later
date, or perhaps to continue at the time. The
amendment makes this possible without affect-
ing their superannuation. They could start
on their superannuation and be engaged at
any salary that his Honour the Lieutenant-
Governor would agree upon.
Prior to this, it was almost impossible to
have an expert, a civil servant with consider-
able experience, to return for a month or
two or whatever time was required. It worked
out that they would have to give up their
superannuation, and work for 30 per cent, of
what they had been receiving, because their
superannuation would be 70 per cent, of their
salary. As amended, the Act insures that,
if they return to work at any time, it does
not affect their superannuation, and they do
not have to contribute any more to it.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a
few amendments here, and I was just going
to mention a few of the more significant ones.
This bill will be going to the municipal law
508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
committee, and it will be discussed there,
and on the second reading an explanation
will be given of each of these in detail.
To mention just a few: The taking of a
vote of electors; receipt of a petition for
annexation; publication of notice of nomina-
tion meetings at a municipal election; pro-
vision for a member of council to act in the
place of the head of council whenever he
is absent, ill, or the office is vacant.
Amendments include the right to inspect
municipal records; granting of power to local
municipalities, with the consent of the county
council, to appoint the county assessor, as
the local assessor or assessment commissioner;
control of the expenditure of money paid to
a municipality by subdividers; the prohibi-
tion of parking motor vehicles on private
property without the consent of the owner
or the occupant of the property, and so on.
Then in addition there are many procedural
matters which will go to make that bill as
large as it is.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
May I ask the hon. Minister if there were
any amendments to the business tax provi-
sions of The Municipal Act?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: An amendment will
be coming along in another bill.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I should like to say a few words
by way of clarification concerning the assess-
ment situation in the Metropolitan Toronto
area.
Hon. members will recall that when the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) and the hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop) made
their remarks concerning the grants, an
equalization factor schedule was tabled. Now,
at that time, there appeared to be certain
discrepancies between the assessment, as
made by The Department of Municipal
Affairs, and the one made by Mr. Gray's
department. Mr. Gray is commissioner of
assessment for Metropolitan Toronto.
It would appear therefore, to some of the
municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto,
that some of those municipalities were being
taxed at a higher rate than others.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speak 3r, that
such is not the case. In order to find out
what actually happened, it should be ex-
plained that Mr. Gray and his assessors in the
metropolitan area are not assessing according
to the assessment manual of 1954, but accord-
ing to what I call the "Gray" system.
As a result, he is bound to consider fac-
tors, and he is bound to give weight to those
factors and others which our people would
not necessarily do. In assessing as he has
done within the Metropolitan Toronto area,
I should make it clear that he is doing it for
one particular purpose only, and that is for
the payment of municipal taxes, or the rais-
ing of municipal taxes, within the metropoli-
tan area. That is his prime purpose.
But in The Department of Municipal
Affairs, when we are doing our assessing right
across the province, and strictly within the
1954 assessment manual, differences do come
up, but it does not necessarily follow that,
because we are doing that for the purposes of
bringing about equity across the province and
for the purpose of provincial grants, there is
any inequity necessarily within the metropoli-
tan area.
I hope this explains the matter sufficiently,
but actually I am convinced that, having con-
ferred with certain people, having seen that a
certain yardstick is used within the Metro-
politan Toronto area for a certain purpose,
and on the other hand having known of the
yardstick used for the giving of provincial
grants across the province, there is equity in
both fields, and not necessarily any wrong
done to any particular municipality.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Before the orders of the day, I would
like to get from the hon. Prime Minister, if I
can, some indication of the pattern of things
to be, in respect to the debate and the esti-
mates that are presently to be presented to the
House.
For instance, I would like to know what the
government has in mind in respect to the
termination of the speech from the Throne
debate.
The other particular point I have in mind
is that I would urge upon the government
that, when estimates are being presented to
the House, sufficient notice be given to the
Opposition so we can make a proper exam-
ination of the particular estimate.
Last year we had the experience of being
confronted with estimates from various de-
partments without prior notice. I think all
hon. members agree that is not conducive to
good business management in the House, and
I would urge upon the hon. Prime Minister
that, when estimates of a certain department
are to come up within a day or so, he inform
the House, and let us have ample time to pre-
pare our position in respect to them.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I am very glad to answer that ques-
MARCH 4, 1958
509
tion. I may say that I had thought I was
always meticulous about letting the hon.
members of the House know the particular
estimates and order of business. Now, if that
became tangled on one or two occasions last
year, I can assure my hon. friend that it was
not the pattern, nor was it the intention.
On the other hand, I think that his request
is entirely proper and entirely logical.
I would say that, concerning the Throne
debate, I think it might now be terminated
for the reason that the speakers who would
be discussing matters in the speech from the
Throne can do that equally on the budget
debate. Therefore I would hope, within a
day or two, perhaps this week, to terminate
the Throne debate and get that off the order
paper.
It has, and I think my hon. friend will
agree, served a useful purpose from the stand-
point that, since the introduction of the
budget, it has enabled hon. members to speak
with the usual scope which goes with the
budget and with the Throne debate, and the
business of the House has not been held up
because we have had the period between
Wednesday and today in connection with the
budget debate.
I will discuss with the hon. leader of the
Opposition a suitable time, so that the gov-
ernment may have the opportunity of getting
sufficient votes to assure its continuance in
office.
The other point is this. Concerning the
order of business, I was going to mention,
before the orders of the day, that I would
like to proceed tomorrow with the estimates
of the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
which would include The Department of
Insurance. There might possibly be a night
session tomorrow night. No, I am sorry, we
cannot have a night session tomorrow night—
that is the Speaker's dinner. There would be
a night session on Thursday, and on Thurs-
day, as I see it now, we could proceed with
the estimates of The Department of Labour.
A suggestion has been made by some hon.
members, and I leave this for the considera-
tion of the House at the moment, that on
Fridays, there should be a session of the
Legislature in the morning. Now that is a
very considerable change, but nevertheless it
has been pointed out by many hon. members
that, on Friday mornings, there is seldom
vital business, so that we might have a ses-
sion of the Legislature in the morning. Now
that would not apply on this coming Friday,
as I see it, but might on the succeeding
Friday. I leave that to the hon. members
of the House.
I might say today, if it is possible, and
on the other hand I do not thrust this point
at all, that if it is possible to deal with
a supplementary estimate following the speech
of the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr.
Wintermeyer ) , we might dispose of that par-
ticular item.
As a matter of fact, the passing of the
supplementary estimates will not affect the
debate and discussion on The Departments
of Education, Health, Highways, Planning
and Development, and Treasury. These are
specific items which we might get out of
the way today, if that is agreeable.
HOSPITAL INSURANCE
Now, while I am addressing the chair,
might I take this opportunity of tabling the
agreement between the government of Can-
ada and the government of Ontario dated
yesterday, together with the regulations under
sections 15 and 13 of The Hospital Services
Act as amended, which were passed on Feb-
ruary 18 and have since been promulgated.
In doing that, may I give this very brief
explanation to the House, that we are taking
a very advanced and historic step in tabling
a copy of the regulations, made in accord-
ance with those sections I have mentioned,
The Hospital Services Act as amended, and
the agreement between Canada and Ontario
providing for federal contributions to the
Ontario hospital insurance programme which
comes into effect on January 1, 1959. These
documents that are tabled are very important;
indeed, they are historic documents and an
historic agreement. It is the first agreement
in Canada, and it provides for a programme
that constitutes, beyond doubt, a most notable
advance in the field of human betterment.
From the standpoint of its broad implica-
tions and benefits it is the most outstanding
achievement in the history of public health
ever witnessed in this province. The agree-
ment we have concluded will enable us to
develop our hospital insurance programme in
accordance with the complex and varied con-
ditions in this province.
Inevitably we will encounter problems and
difficulties which, at present, cannot be fore-
seen. The programme will provide hospital
insurance for persons living in both urban and
rural areas, to members of small as well as
large firms, to self-employed persons and to
professional and others groups in Ontario.
Experience can be a wise teacher. Thus, we
have sought and obtained an agreement which
has flexibility and that can be modified as the
programme develops.
510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Under the agreement, the commission will
be able to adjust its operation in accordance
with changing conditions. I may say that
this understanding has been worked out over
the last 2 years and 10 months, since April
26, 1955. It is one of the very important
points of issue. If we were to enter an agree-
ment which was very rigid in its form, and
rigid in its conditions, then it would be very
difficult indeed to adjust to the problems
which lie ahead of us.
It is within the ambit of the federal Act
that we must do business. If we get outside
of the area of the federal Act then, of course,
we make ourselves ineligible for contributions.
Therefore, one of the first conditions that we
are met with, is to stay within the circumfer-
ence, or the ambit, of that Act.
However, subject to that, we have through-
out sought to retain our freedom in doing
business and implementing the insurance pro-
visions which will be universally available to
everyone. We have sought to assure our-
selves of freedom and flexibility on that point,
and I would say that this agreement enables
us to do so.
In achieving this, we have assisted other
provinces to arrive at similar agreements.
Their conditions are different from ours. The
problems they have to meet are different from
ours. Still, the Act or agreement is flexible
enough that, within the ambit of the federal
Act, they can arrive at agreements or make
arrangements that are in line with their
problems and the conditions they have to
meet.
Of course, no one could stand here and say
that all of the problems to be met have been
anticipated, because they have not. But I
will give an illustraton of the agreement's
flexibility in the enumeration of the hospitals
in Appendix A of the Act. This list indicates
the type of approved hospital, but, of course,
does not pretend to be a complete list of
the hospitals that will be participating in the
programme. Any hospital, whether it be a
large public general hospital, or a Red Cross
hospital or a company hospital, which meets
a satisfactory standard, will be able to partici-
pate in the insurance programme. Accordingly,
Appendix A will be amended to incorporate
these hospitals and, in addition, new hospitals
that will be built from time to time.
Amendments to the list of approved hos-
pitals as well as that for drugs, biologicals
and out-patient services and many other mat-
ters can be made with the mutual consent of
the two governments. Thus, within the ambit
of agreement, the federal-provincial Acts and
the related regulations, the commission will
have ample opportunity to mould its pro-
gramme in accordance with the varied and
changing conditions that it will encounter.
Now I may say this, that in drawing up
the agreement, the suggestion was made at
one time that we omit all the names of hos-
pitals, but again it was felt that there were
certain hospitals, some 150 or 200, that
beyond any question of doubt would qualify,
and that they might just as well be included
in the original agreement.
The signing of this ageement is a further
step in the series that is making hospital
insurance in this province a living reality. It
was at Ontario's insistence that hospital insur-
ance was placed on the agenda of the federal-
provincial conference in April and October
of 1955. After several meetings, the govern-
ment of Canada on January 26, 1956, two
years ago, issued a statement setting out, in
general, the terms on which it would
participate.
These were more fully outlined at the time
when The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act was placed before Parliament—
that is, the federal Parliament— in March and
April of 1957.
The first Ontario Act which established the
Ontario hospital services commission was
passed, as hon. members will recollect, in
1956. At the next session, that is last year,
1957, the Act was repealed and legislation
was enacted extending the powers of the
commission and authorizing the government
to enter into an agreement for hospital insur-
ance services in accordance with certain terms
and conditions.
This Act has been amended at this session,
and assent has been given by his Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor (Mr. Mackay) which
has made possible the signing of the agree-
ment which I have tabled.
This agreement thus marks the culmina-
tion of nearly 5 years of study and analysis
of almost every conceivable hospital insurance
plan.
When Ontario first initiated its studies back
in 1953, it had, at that time, no precon-
ceived views. It was not wedded to any
specific plan. It was, however, conscious of
the need of providing a comprehensive plan
which would overcome one of the major
hazards and sources of human suffering,
namely, inadequacy of existing hospital insur-
ance for the self-employed, the unwell, and
the aged. In the end, Ontario reached the
conclusion that a basic hospital insurance
programme, available to everyone, was best
for Ontario.
MARCH 4, 1958
511
The system will come into effect on Jan-
uary 1, 1959, and will provide that, on pay-
ment of a small premium, basic hospital care
and treatment will be available to everyone
irrespective of age, occupation, disability, or
condition of health. Coverage is also auto-
matically made available to all recognized
social assistance cases who cannot pay a
premium. Benefits will include the care and
treatment of the mentally ill and tuberculosis
patients. The new hospital insurance plan
absorbs crippling catastrophic burdens which
arise from prolonged illness in hospitals as
well as the expense of short-term stays.
I may say that the hon. member for Bruce
(Mr. Whicher) has mentioned the matter of
catastrophic illness before, a matter which
I must say I was very much interested in
myself, as was Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent when
he was Prime Minister of Canada. But in the
end, when we get down to it, there is only
one practical way of handling it, and that
is an all-duration coverage which is available
to everyone.
It also means the development of a pro-
gramme with which our people are familiar,
for which a body of administrative experience,
drawn from Blue Cross and other organiza-
tions, is available.
Finally, it permits the development of a
plan which harmonizes with a national pat-
tern of hospital insurance services.
It is a pleasure to table this agreement. I
would not attempt to go into the details or
regulations of it, but I would say that it
might be referred to the committee on health,
and there be subject to discussion on the part
of the members and Mr. Ogilvie, the general
manager of the plan, the members of the
commission, and others who are close to the
problems in which hon. members would be
interested in a varying degree.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I want to address
my first remarks to what the hon. Prime
Minister said, which was unrelated to the
hospital insurance scheme, having to do with
the tabling and the asking for approval of
the supplementary estimates.
I do not think there is any real rush for
having those approved this afternoon, and I
would say to the hon. Prime Minister that,
in these supplementary estimates, there is a
principle involved in respect to the whole
system of supplementary estimates voted at
this time. We want to be in a position to
discuss that principle. I would think we
should not proceed with the supplementary
estimates this afternoon if this meets with the
approval of the hon. Prime Minister.
Regarding the hospital insurance scheme,
I have just a few words to add to what the
hon. Prime Minister has said. All hon. mem-
bers—I think all parties in the House— have
welcomed the progress which has been made
toward the implementation of hospital insur-
ance for the people of this province.
I want to direct the attention of the hon.
Prime Minister to one particular matter for
a moment or so, and to get his reaction and
explanation in relation thereto. That is in
respect to mental and tuberculosis hospitals.
Last year he was quite insistent that
any scheme entered into with the federal
government should and almost must include,
as shareable items of cost, the tuberculosis and
the mental institutions. Now he has signed
on behalf of Ontario an agreement yesterday,
I understand, which does not include mental
and tuberculosis hospitals as shareable items.
The hon. Prime Minister should explain
to the House the reason for his weakening
insistence on the inclusion of these two items.
Last year he was quite sure that they should
be included, and now he has signed an
agreement which does not include them.
Is it related by chance to the federal-
provincial conference and what emanated
therefrom? Has it anything to do with the
ultimatum— almost— by the federal govern-
ment that, if those costs were shared, it would
mitigate against the size of any payments to
the province under the federal-provincial
taxation agreement? Is there any relation
between those two?
If not, what is the reason? Mr. Speaker,
this is important in view of the position of
the hon. Prime Minister today as contrasted
to his position of a year ago.
Before I sit down, I want to say one other
word.
I think it is important that the regulations
and the agreement as such be discussed by
the hon. members of the Legislature before
this House adjourns, and I welcome the sug-
gestion of the hon. Prime Minister— and I
think it should be more than a suggestion—
that this whole matter should be referred to
the committee on health, where the fullest
opportunity could be provided for hon. mem-
bers to question the organization in charge
of hospital insurance, and to get from them
the answers to what are presently questions
and doubts in their minds in relation to it.
The only other thing I want to ask the
hon. Prime Minister is this: Has the organ-
ization for health insurance been such that
there is any possibility of bringing the scheme
in prior to January 1?
512
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Before the hon. Prime Minister rises the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) has
suggested that the hon. Prime Minister should
inform the House whether he has any inten-
tion of asking the Legislature to validate
the agreement. Now those are the questions
which are in my mind.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I will an-
swer them from the bottom up if I may.
Concerning the bringing in of hospital
insurance before January 1, 1959, I frankly
do not think that it is feasible in any way.
I think the date of January 1, 1959, which
was set some time ago, is the earliest prac-
ticable date to bring this plan into effect.
If the plan were brought into effect before
that time, it could only be done by sacri-
ficing efficiency and good administration.
I have no objection, nor did I ever have
any objection, to the federal government sub-
sidizing the plans of other provinces before
our plan. Our business, as I see it, is to do
the best thing for our province adminis-
tratively, and from the standpoint of effi-
ciency.
I understand from our advisors, who I
think are the very best in the province, that
the earliest sensible date is January 1 next
year, 1959, and I might say there has been
no intention of varying or altering that par-
ticular date.
For elaboration on the reasons I have given,
hon. members might ask Mr. Ogilvie and the
members of the hospital services commission
about that when the matter comes up before
the committee on health. There, all of the
problems of administration will be open for
the consideration of hon. members, and I
can assure them they are very great ones.
Concerning the question relative to vali-
dation: As a matter of fact, the Act of last
year, as amended this year, The Hospital
Services Act, gives the power to the govern-
ment to enter into an agreement and therefore
in my view validation as such is not necessary.
We have discussed that with our solicitors.
For myself, I have no great reason for not
agreeing to validation, and as a matter of
fact, if it became necessary to validate we
would, but it would have to be validated on
this basis.
If the Legislature validated it, then it
would have to contain very wide provisions
for alterations and changes, otherwise if by
the Act of validation we were put in the
position that the House froze into very
straightened and hard lines what we could do,
it might be necessary to call the Legislature
together every time we ran into these adminis-
trative changes which I have mentioned.
I think there are going to be very many
administrative changes. As a matter of fact,
the regulations which have been passed are
ones which meet the situation now, but as
Mr. Ogilvie and others in charge of the
administration of the plan will say, in all
probability there will have to be changes
from month to month, and perhaps oftener
than that, in order to meet the varying condi-
tions which we have.
I would say that the Legislature is given
the powers, under sections 13 and 15, to
enter into such an agreement, once the
agreement is tabled and is here, and is sub-
ject to discussion.
All the benefits which might come from a
validation by the Legislature are there.
Now again, if there was an Act of valida-
tion, its scope should be wide enough so
it would not be necessary to call the Legis-
lature together every time there was an
alteration. As I say, there are 150 hospitals
included in the list at the present time. Now,
next week there may be an addition of 10
hospitals. I could probably think of 50 hos-
pitals now— Red Cross hospitals and others—
which will come into the plan.
Actually, there is the agreement made, by
an exchange of correspondence with Ottawa,
that they be included. I think it would be
very undesirable to have a validating Act
which would make it very difficult to carry on
that kind of administrative work.
The other point which I have been asked
about was about mental and tuberculosis
illnesses.
Now, I want to say to the hon. leader of
the Opposition that his premises, his time
is a little out. It was not last year that I
said that, it was the year before.
Mr. Oliver: Time passes quickly.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, time goes quickly.
What happened was this: I always felt, as
did my colleagues, that mental and tuber-
culosis illness should be included. How could
we deal with the problem of catastrophic ill-
ness if we left out the two items that were
the most devastating in their effects? Now,
that was our position. I always took the view
that such was the case.
However, a year ago at this time, as the
hon. members will recollect, by way of
correspondence between the heads of the
Ontario and federal governments, we arrived
at an agreement— hon. members will recollect
that.
MARCH 4, 1958
513
At that time, we agreed not to insist upon
mental and tuberculosis illnesses being in-
cluded, but we said we would include them
in our plan. Now that is the situation.
Since that time, I have seen no cause to
change that. We entered into that agree-
ment with the federal government, as I
say, by correspondence, in its general terms
a year ago at this time. At the conference
my position, I think, was made clear. I do
not think it was mentioned in the plenary
session, but it was mentioned afterwards,
and I mentioned it to the hon. members of
this House. I felt that we were not anxious
at all to get into further matching grants
with the federal government. All I want,
and I think all the government wants, is
very simple. It is the 15, 15 and 50 formula
which added up means about $100 million.
With that we will run our own show.
I would say to the hon. leader of the
Opposition that two years ago I felt no plan
could be evolved which would meet the
requirements of ihe excluded mental and
tuberculosis illnesses. But we have that, and
we have what we agreed upon a year ago,
and we are satisfied.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
May I ask the hon. Prime Minister a ques-
tion in this respect? He informed us that
the agreement, as between the federal and
provincial governments, incorporates the
terms which were agreed upon some time
ago. Now, is there any disposition on the
part of the provincial government to extend
the provisions of health insurance to adminis-
trative costs and out-patients, as was dis-
cussed at varying times?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, yes. The De-
partment of Public Welfare is engaging in
work in connection with home nursing. Those
things may provide the foundation for our
going ahead into other fields.
I think the hon. member will agree that
everything possible should be done to keep
people out of hospitals, and provide in many
ways cheaper and perhaps a less disturbing
experience than they have when they become,
as it were, disestablished by leaving their
homes and their occupations and going to
hospitals.
Now, I would say that our thinking is to go
surely and cautiously in this matter, if we are
to do a good administrative job and not bite
off more than we can chew. We feel we
should take the time that is necessary to do
a good job with what is already outlined, and
extend that in a sound way, as and when we
can do it.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
The House, on order, resolved itself into
the committee of supply.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I have
had the pleasure and the honour to lead off
in this debate. I assure you that I consider it
as such, and I hope that I will do the job that
has been assigned to me by the hon. members
of the Opposition.
At this time, I would like to say that I am
very appreciative of the confidence that my
hon. leader and my hon. associates in the
Liberal party have shown by giving me the
opportunity to do what, I can assure the
House, is a rather difficult job. I want to say
that I appreciate that very much, and that I
have had their assistance and their guidance
in the preparation of my participation in this
particular debate.
If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay particular tribute to one of our
hon. members who, I think, did me the great
service, 3 years ago, of stepping aside and
giving me the honour of undertaking this
work. I refer, of course, to the hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon).
The hon. members opposite have their elder
statesmen, and they refer constantly and very
affectionately to the hon. member for Peel
(Mr. Kennedy). I can assure them that we
would not trade our hon. member for Brant
for any hon. member in the House.
And now, Mr. Speaker, it affords me a cer-
tain, and I should say, a real pleasure to
speak of one who is not with us today,
namely, hon. Dana Porter. He has been taken
outside the jurisdiction of this House and, I
am sure, is independent of politics, so I can
speak quite freely of him. I want to say of
him that we all knew him as a gentleman, as
a real student of fiscal affairs, as a scholar,
and as a good administrator. I can say for
myself and all hon. nersons on this side of
the House, we wish uim the utmost success
and we hope that his work will be enjoyable
and give hm* ^appiness for a long time.
Now, I must be a little more careful. I
would like to pay some real sincere tribute
to the work, the preparation and the presenta-
tion of the budget that was made last Wed-
nesday. In this respect, I must be a little
more careful than I was of hon. Mr. Porter
514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for obvious reasons. The hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost), in introducing the budget, said it
was not a political instrument, but I think he
was "kidding" a little bit, Mr. Speaker, or
else was exercising poetical licence because
there were parts of it that flavoured of politi-
cal influence and suggested political actions.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): But a
very good budget.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now, may I assure
the hon. member that, certainly, the people
of Ontario did a very good job. The question
is whether it was administered properly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this I can certainly say.
We all respect the person of the hon. Prime
Minister, and I make my congratulations to
him in that respect without any reservation
whatsoever. We are in opposite camps in a
democratic forum, in a democratic Legislature
where we have our respective jobs to do.
But that does not preclude us from congratu-
lating what, I think, was a masterly exposition
and explanation of the budget last Wednesday.
Who, Mr. Speaker, will ever forget the hon.
Prime Minister as he stood opposite last
Wednesday afternoon in that patriarchal
fashion, with his hands extended, ready and
anxious to distribute the bounty of the realm?
To the hon. member for Simcoe Centre (Mr.
G. G. Johnston) he gave a hospital, to the
hon. Minister of Planning and Development
(Mr. Nickle), assistance for the Hotelview—
Mr. Maloney: That is an illustration— for
everybody in Ontario.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, yes, one for me.
But to the hon. member, I would say, I was
in the unfortunate position that I did not
know that I was going to get $ 1 million in
my area for a school.
Mr. Maloney: But he did, for Waterloo
College.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, and now I express
my thanks for it, as all were required to do
on that day.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we can now pro-
ceed to the practical work of the job that
has been allotted to me. We can get down
to the business of criticizing this budget.
If I were asked what the fundamental
criticism of the budget is, I would suggest it
is in the fact— and this transcends the entire
budget, it is a transcendent form of criticism
—a failure to recognize, if you will, the
fundamental economic and fiscal problems that
face this nation as it passes rapidly and
dynamically from an agricultural to an indus-
trial economy.
Nobody will deny that our economy is
changing, and has changed, to that of an
industrial nation. The question is, have we
led in our fiscal programme, the revenue and
the expenditures of the province, in such a
way as to dynamically accept the challenge
that our economy has given us?
What have we done about the municipal
problem? Have we done anything of realist
fashion? What have we done about hous-
ing? What have we done about the numer-
ous things that were required by the people
of Ontario, to show some leadership?
This, I think, is the question for deter-
mination today. This is the question we
have to answer. What has the budget done?
Granted, it spent a lot of money. I would
remind hon. members that we spent more
money last year, than we have ever spent
in our history. A year ago, sitting together,
we agreed that we would spend $475 mil-
lion, and now I say that, before the end
of March, we will have spent $580 million,
or more than $100 million more than we
agreed on a year ago.
Now surely that is not good planning.
Surely that is not good administration and
management. $475 million is a lot of money,
and one would expect the government to
sit down and determine exactly what that
expenditure would be in some real detail,
instead of coming along 9 months later and
saying: "We are sorry but we under-
estimated the expenditures. We are sorry
that we underestimated them slightly." And
the slight amount is $100 million.
On the revenue side, what has happened?
This year we have received from the people
of Ontario $120 million more than in any
time in history. In 1956, we received approxi-
mately $120 million less than we did this
year, and yet with that buoyant revenue—
$120 million more than last year— we have
overspent ourselves by $100 million, gone
into debt by $100 million which is twice
as much as we have ever gone into debt
before, and we are told that next year we
will go into debt by something like $150
million.
Now I ask, is that good management?
Is that good budgeting? Is that foresight in
leadership and determination?
The simple fact of the matter is that this
government is more interested in spending
money than in managing money. It is more
interested in spending on physical things that
people can feel and see, because it knows,
and it is committed to, a political philosophy
that nobody shoots Santa Claus.
MARCH 4, 1958
515
Everybody knows that some political advan-
tage is gained by spending. This government
will spend more than it receives no matter
what it receives, and I repeat that this is the
fundamental criticism that I want to make
today.
May I emphasize the budget's failure to
appreciate the real significance of good com-
mon sense in our economy. Sure, we have
changed from an agricultural to an industrial
economy, but that does not abdicate the
common rules of good sense. One should not
spend more than he receives, except under
unusual circumstances, and we, here in On-
tario, have overspent ourselves continuously
for the last 10 or 12 years, in the best years
of this province's history. If that be the case,
when in the world are we going to stop?
Now I said that this government is com-
mitted to spending and I believe it. I be-
lieve that the political philosophy of this
government is that "y°ii stay in power by
spending money," and I believe this govern-
ment is more interested in winning elections
and staying in power than in good administra-
tion.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
the test of a political party is not winning
elections, it is not staying in power, it is not
spending money, but that when in power,
the good administration that it is required to
give is the real test. That is the final and the
acid test, and that is the test that we are
going to be required to make of this govern-
ment this afternoon.
Now, I would like to refer for just a few
minutes in a little more detail with respect
to this question of spending. Hon. members
will recall that last year, on the occasion of
the budget and the debate, the former Pro-
vincial Treasurer got up and said that a new
policy had been devised whereby capital
expenditures would be controlled to a degree
and a new day had arisen. He suggested that
he realized it was an undesirable thing to
continue to go deeper and deeper in debt,
and he suggested that a line would be drawn
whereby a certain portion of the total costs of
capital expenses were paid out of ordinary
revenue and that determination, he said, was
65 per cent.
He told us that, hereafter, the government
would make it a policy to pay 65 per cent,
of all capital expenditures in each fiscal year.
Now that was a year ago. You will recall it
well, Mr. Speaker. I merely remind you of
that now and ask you to look to the record
for this particular year.
Hon. members will have examined the
budget, I am sure, and on page A5, the fifth
schedule of the first portion of the schedul-
ing of the budget, they will see a statement
of current operations, and at at a moment's
glance they will detect the fact that, instead
of keeping its promise to pay 65 per cent, of
its total capital expenditures, the government
has decided now that it can pay only 45
per cent, and— worse than that, Mr. Speaker,
—if you look at its current forecast for 1959,
you will find that in that year, they antici-
pate that they will pay for only 33 per cent,
of the government's total capital expenditures.
Now I ask again, where in the world are
we going? Certainly, we should have some
plan, certainly we should have some pro-
gramme, certainly we should have some
determination of what portion of our capital
expenditures we are going to pay for.
In this respect, I know that the hon.
Prime Minister will get up shortly and remind
me that any good business man pays for
a capital expenditure over a period of time.
Building, for example, lasts a stipulated
number of years, and what business man,
what industrialist, would think of paying for
a building in one year?
But is the government in the same posi-
tion? Are we ever going to cease to put up
buildings? The probability is that we will
build more buildings next year than we have
this year, and more the year after, and so
on ad infinitum.
The fact of the matter is that this govern-
ment is entirely different from a private indus-
trial concern. The capital expenditures are
ordinary expenditures to a government, and
unless it can be demonstrated that our capi-
tal expenditures are not going to continue,
unless it can be demonstrated we are not
going to need more buildings, more schools
and more institutions in the future, I find no
validity whatsoever in suggesting that we
should mortgage the future and mortgage
those persons who, as somebody said, are
yet unborn, for our folly today. We must
make a determination.
We of the Opposition went along with the
hon. Provincial Treasurer last year when he
said, "I have come to the conclusion that I
will hold the line at 65 per cent." Frankly we
criticized even that. But we took it as estab-
lished policy that the line would be held in
that respect, and now, what chagrin we have
when we come back a year later and find that
is not the case at all, that instead of holding
at 65 per cent., we have paid only 45 per
cent, of our capital expenditures and next
year we hope to pay for only 33 per cent.
And, Mr. Speaker, you will remember the
fuss we have had over capital and ordinary
516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
expenditure and revenue. What did we do?
In that respect, we spent $108 million more
than we agreed on a year ago. Is that good
management? Is that fiscal leadership? Is
that planned economy?
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it is the duty
of the Opposition to demonstrate this fact in
a realistic form. I know it is a serious prob-
lem, I know it is difficult, but certainly we
could take some imaginative leadership, cer-
tainly we could take some steps forward. In
this respect, I refer particularly to the esti-
mates of The Department of Highways.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that at the
present time about one-third of our total ex-
penditures, ordinary and capital, are expended
in that department. Any man with a bit of
red blood in his veins knows and is deter-
mined that more money is to be spent in the
future. We need roads in northern Ontario,
and in my section of the country we have
been patiently waiting from year to year for
the development of highway No. 401.
The hon. Minister (Mr. Allan) will recall
that a year ago we invited him to attend a
gathering, and we were even generous enough
to give him cuff links as a reminder of the fact
that we were hopeful that, sooner or later, this
road would be built.
Now, I think, we are told that 10 years
from now it will be completed in all
respects. We certainly hope it will not be 10
years, and I hope before 10 years we will have
other roads which will serve the basic econ-
omic purpose that we all require, and that is
the decentralization of our metropolitan popu-
lations and the industrial concentration of
industrial activity in certain localities. Roads,
good roads and highways can serve this pur-
pose in a realistic fashion if we have a plan.
Last year hon. members will recall that we
made the same criticism. I well remember, in
this same debate, making the same complaints
and I was then told: "Be patient, my good
boy, the time will come, and it will come
shortly, when we will present to you a great
deal, a 20-year plan that will more than meet
your expectations."
So we waited, and hon. members will recall,
in one of the last days of the session, that
a magnanimous document was brought in,
dolled up, printed and nicely bound in
expensive covering.
We examined it, and some of us thought
that maybe it had the merits of some real
genius. But the more we looked into it, the
more difficulty we found with it, and it was
not long before we all realized that it was
jiot a master plan, that it was nothing more
than a dolling up of plans which have been
on the board for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, that plan was conceived in
haste and born prematurely in the last ses-
sion of this Legislature, and then was per-
mitted to die a natural death, all to the great
satisfaction of the government.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
May I ask a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: I will permit the hon.
Minister to ask a question, but certainly not
to make a speech, and if he will ask a simple
question I certainly will make an effort to
answer it. But in fairness to my presentation,
I do not want him to take advantage of the
sort of thing the hon. Prime Minister con-
stantly does, rise and, in a very magnanimous
way, put that cloak of personality and kind-
ness over this House and stifle all further
discussion.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Would the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I am just wondering if he
would like someone from this side of the
House, who finds that plan easy to under-
stand, to take some time to explain it to him?
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would be delighted,
because I am not the only one, Mr. Speaker,
who fails to understand that plan. I think
many persons other than myself, other than
hon. members on this side, many persons
vitally interested in the highway programme
itself, realize its inefficiences, and I think the
hon. Minister himself has said that he has a
new plan, or that he is working on a new plan,
and I suggest to the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is a municipal plan.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the
fact of the matter is that that plan was, as I
have said, hurriedly prepared for presenta-
tion prematurely in the last session. And I
doubt that it meets the imaginative leader-
ship that we require of a highway scheme
throughout this province.
We need, in regard to budgeting, Mr.
Speaker, a plan, an imaginative plan, of
course. But over and above that, we must
finance that plan in a practical way, and I
suggest that the time has come when we in
this House should determine to take the high-
way budget out of the regular budget and
do what has been done in many states of
the United States, treat it separately and dis-
tinctly from the overall budget. Finance it
separately.
MARCH 4, 1958
517
What is wrong with making a plan, a
good plan, an overall plan, for 10 or 15 years,
determining how much it is going to cost
and carry out that plan, borrow the necessary
money, and determine to raise enough
revenue from the operation of those same
highways to pay for that plan in an abun-
dant manner over the same period of time?
It has been done elsewhere, and there they
did not take 10 years to put through a thru-
way— I speak of the Pennsylvania turnpike—
and the other projects of more or greater
significance and constructional difficulties
than our own plans.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the time has
come for some real imagination and, in a fiscal
respect, we must divorce the highways pro-
gramme from our overall budgeting.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Would the hon. member
permit another question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: A question? Yes.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Do I take it from the
remarks of the hon. member that he favours
a toll road programme?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Not necessarily, Mr.
Speaker, I feel this way about toll roads.
Obviously, we are not quite ready for toll
roads, obviously they are coming at some
time in the future, but I do say that we have
such matters within our jurisdiction, or within
our control, and within our power. If we
have the confidence and the faith in the
people of Ontario that this government would
suggest they have, I say that the people of
Ontario are ready to pay for a realistic pro-
gramme of highway expansion that will serve
their economic and social requirements.
I do not suggest that we inaugurate a toll
road system today or tomorrow or next year
or the year after. What the future will be,
I do not know, but we do have at the
present time facilities to borrow sufficient
money to undertake a real programme and
pay for it out of highway revenue over a
stipulated number of years.
This would prevent what has been hap-
pening in these last few years, that is the
gobbling up, if you will, of all the revenue
or the ordinary revenue of this province by
the terrific demand of The Department of
Highways, thus precluding realistic and
needed advancement in education, welfare
and in the other obligations that this gov-
ernment has to the people of Ontario.
I know that it is good to carry on with a
programme, such as we have, from the point
of view of the government. They are spend-
ing a lot of money on highways, and high-
ways in many respects in the local areas are
a desirable political exigency. What better
can they do for any area than tell them that
they are going to give a highway? I realize
we have in this a political expedient which is
of great advantage.
But the fact of the matter is that if we want
to be statesmen about it, we will divorce this
from our overall budgeting, and be deter-
mined, once and for all, that the highways
programme must stand on its own feet. And
we will not continue to spend in an unplanned
fashion, and an undetermined fashion, millions
and millions of dollars more than we planned
on at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Oh, we know it is a good thing to hitch old
Dobbin to the sled or to the wagon or what
have you— to the shay— particularly when they
have $400 million or $500 million worth of
oats in the back porch. They can do a lot
with that. You know, Mr. Speaker, that $400
million or $500 million worth of oats certainly
"ain't hay."
But the fact is that we have gone beyond
the time when we can just spend in an un-
planned fashion. We have come to the time
when we must determine exactly what our
expenditures are. The hon. Provincial Treas-
urer can tell the House right now what his
revenue will be within 5 per cent, next year.
There is no question about it, there is no
mysticism about it. His Department of Econ-
omics can do it effectively, they are doing it
in other jurisdictions.
I had occasion just a few days ago, in
making the preparation for this debate, to
communicate with some of the officials in
Pennsylvania, and they advised me that for
years they have estimated their revenue within
5 per cent, and they have constantly of course
kept their expenditure within the same limita-
tions.
Mr. Speaker, the next subject upon which
I would like to touch is the question of debt.
You will recall that, at the outset, I stated
that our debt had gone up by $100 million
this year. I said that last year it went up by
$52 million. That was the record in all the
history of the province of Ontario up to last
year. This year we have doubled that record.
And yet next year we are going to treble it,
when our estimated debt will be in the prox-
imity of $150 million.
Now just think of it, this is the condition of
affairs. News lines and bylines and headlines
for 10 years have been telling the people of
Ontario that we have had a surplus, and what
in effect have we had? Not one single surplus
in all those 10 years. Not on one occasion
518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have we had a legitimate surplus. Is this
intellectually honest?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I might say to the hon.
member that—
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would permit a ques-
tion, yes, but no explanation.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is not what I said.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We might as well get
this— a question, yes.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The swollen surpluses were
talked of by the hon. leader of the Opposition
and those associated with him.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am coming to that, Mr.
Prime Minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact
of the matter is this, that we have gone into
debt in a manner that everyone agrees is un-
desirable. And we have gone into debt in the
best years of economic development of this
province.
I believe in cyclical budgeting, and I sup-
pose others who look at the thing realistically
and understandably do. It is true, maybe,
that in this particular year there is a reason in
difficult times and recessive times to do some
deficit financing. But our deficit financing has
never been planned, real deficit financing.
Counter-cyclical budgeting presumes that in
good times we build up a surplus, presumes
that in good times we prepare for the bad
times, but we have done nothing of the sort.
For 10 consecutive years, in an unplanned
fashion, we have gone into debt deeper and
deeper. Now I will agree—
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): May I
ask a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, a question but no
speech.
Mr. Wardrope: What does counter-cyclical
planning mean? I am not very well educated.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am not an economist,
but I can tell the hon. member for Port
Arthur what I presume it means in the man-
ner in which I am using it. It is this: That
in good years you build up a surplus to avoid
inflationary processes, to take money at a time
when it is convenient to be paid, in bad times
you deliberately spend more money than you
take in to buoy up your economy, to put
buying power in the hands of the little
people, as the hon. Prime Minister would say.
That is the counter effect of your normal
process that is building up surplus.
Mr. Wardrope: Make a little and spend a
little less.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Milk the cow in the
proper season.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes. There is an old war-
rior with a better explanation than I had.
In simple dramatic homey fashion, that is
exactly what is done, exactly, and then when
times get a little difficult and in recessive
periods the economy is helped by deliber-
ately putting into its bloodstream some
enthusiasm and energy to carry on.
Now I say if that is what this government
was doing, fine, but it has had no such pro-
gramme. It has, in a deliberately unplanned
fashion, gone about deficit financing in the
best years of this province. Surely the time
has come when we must make some realistic
determination that this cannot continue. Hon.
members will recall the hon. Prime Minister
saying: "Twelve or 14 years ago it was an
intolerable situation, we did not have $250
million of debt. It must be stopped. From
now on," he said, "we will expend more
money than we receive only in those instances
where we undertake capital projects that have
some revenue producing sources. In other
words, those capital projects which, of their
very nature, produce revenue, those we will
undertake in excess of our revenue, but in
no other instance— this must be stopped."
That was at the $250 million mark.
Now, we are approaching the $1 billion
mark. Now they talk in terms of per capita
debt, now they talk in terms of something
that, I say to the hon. member for Port
Arthur, I do not understand.
Mr. Wardrope: Neither do I.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I agree, and I do not
know who in this world does. All I know
is that we are going into debt in an unplan-
ned and uncontrollable fashion, at the rate
of $12,000 an hour, as the hon. member
for Oxford (Mr. Innes) said yesterday. A
quarter of a million dollars a day, and that
is a lot of money every day of the year we
are going into debt— not paying out by way
of expenditures, but are actually going into
debt.
Now surely, the time has come when
something must be done about this. I know,
as I said, that explanations will be made
in terms of per capita debt; but I am re-
minded of an old saying in regard to statistics
—statistics make good arithmetic but bad
logic.
Now in my simple way, no matter what
statistical references are made, no matter
what statistical explanations are made, it is
MARCH 4, 1958
519
not good logic to continuously and persis-
tently go into debt year after year.
Now I approach the subject that I presume
the hon. Prime Minister was waiting for in
his reference. Hon. members will recall that,
in the budget, reference was made to the
fiscal arrangements as between the provincial
and the federal governments, and they will
recall the explanation that the hon. Prime
Minister made about the so-called $22 million.
There is no need in this House to define what
we mean by $22 million— we talked about it
so much— when everybody knows exactly
what the subject matter is.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, too, that
the hon. Prime Minister, on the occasion of the
presentation of the budget, complained of a
speech that I made in Kitchener. He com-
plained that I should not have said there what
I did say, that I would be better advised to
make my statements in this Legislature. Well,
Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I did not say that.
I said "The hon. member would be better
advised to be at home doing his homework,
than attending Liberal meetings."
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, well—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is what I said.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the situa-
tion is this, that in that speech at Kitchener,
1 do not recall all this reference to $22 mil-
lion. What I was referring to, on that occa-
sion, was a rather humorous incident, I
thought. I was referring to an article that
appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail at
approximately that time, something about a
"love feast" as between the hon. Prime Minis-
ter of this province and the Rt. hon. Prime
Minister of Canada (Mr. Dief enbaker ) .
Something about discussing politics over cold
lobsters, and eulogizing one to the other.
Now, I said in that speech I made in Kit-
chener, the thing that amused me is that,
when those two outstanding and distinguished
men would get together and eulogize and
make references back and forth about who
they thought the other resembled most, it
had seemed to me that, in view of their
determined policy with respect to the diver-
sion of trade from the United States, they
would certainly not import their heroes from
that great country.
From my recollection I would have ex-
pected that their heroes would come from
England, or better still, from this good old
province itself.
But, I ask the hon. Prime Minister, what
did I say in regard to $22 million?
I said in this House, and I said it on a
day on which, unfortunately he was not
present— and for the debate at the present
time, I am prepared to repeat and sum-
marize what I said at that time.
As I recall, I said something not in these
exact words but to this purpose. I said that:
"A year ago, the hon. Prime Minister of
this province took the position that he needed
more money, and that money should and
must come from the federal treasury. He
took the position, together with other hon.
members of this house, that it was grossly
unfair and inequitable for Ottawa to refuse
to divulge, to refuse to repay, to the province,
funds that it had accumulated by way of
surplus, when as he said: 'One-half of all
you have in Ottawa belongs to us. I, the
Prime Minister of Ontario will settle for $100
million, not a penny less than $100 million."
You will recall that, Mr. Speaker, and then
the hon. Prime Minister took up cudgels for
the Conservative party at the expiration of the
Legislature last year, and went about this
province.
I said a few weeks ago that he personally
did more to defeat the federal Liberal gov-
ernment in Ontario than any other man alive,
and he did it because the people of Ontario
believe that, when he said he needed $100
million and that they were holding it back
unlawfully and inequitably from him, they
believed him, and they supported him, and
voted a government out of power.
A new government took over on June 10,
and I suggest that was at a price even to
our hon. Prime Minister.
And then I said that it seemed to me
wholly inconsistent that he should come back
to this Legislature at the expiration of one
year and say: "Gentleman, I have made an
arrangement, I do not know exactly what the
arrangement is, but it is an instalment or
interim payment on what I still say that
government owes."
That is not what he said a year ago. A
year ago his words were: "We will make them
disgorge, if necessary, that $100 million. It
is ours, it is owing to us."
In the year 1957, not one red penny of
that $100 million was paid to us. In the year
1958-1959, there has been a promise of some.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much, what faith
has the hon. Prime Minister of this province
in the promise of the Rt. hon. Prime Minister
of Canada?
In that, I am not criticizing the Rt. hon.
Prime Minister of Canada, I am simply asking
him what basic promise he has for the receipt
of any money in the subsequent years.
520
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Certainly it can be very little, because when
we examine this budget carefully, we note that
in our expected revenue, from the federal
government by way of income tax rebate,
we are not to get $22 million more next year
than we received this, but only $12 million.
Now I ask the hon. Prime Minister, did he
settle for 12 cents or for 22 cents on the
dollar?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Where did the hon. mem-
ber get the $12 million from? I do not know
anything about it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, if the hon. Prime
Minister will permit me, I will refer specific-
ally to the budget. In the ordinary revenue,
in schedule Al and A2 of his budget, he will
note that in his anticipated revenue from in-
come tax rebates from the Dominion of
Canada, his estimate of revenue is only $12
million more for next year than this year.
Now, I say to him, one would surely have
expected that there would be at least $22
million more, because he has told us con-
stantly that he brought an interim payment of
$22 million, and yet in his budget he suggests
that he will get only $12 million more this
year. Now, he will find, in the forecast for
1959, in the ordinary and revenue forecast
from the Treasury Department for the year
1959, that figure is up by only— I think it was
$82 million last year if I recall, and $12
million more for next year. Now I say to you,
surely that should be $22 million more at
least. Either he is deliberately underestimat-
ing or he has no promise whatsoever.
Now the hon. Prime Minister shakes his
head. Well I say to the hon. Prime Minister
that he has been a good Prime Minister, we
all acknowledge that, but the one thing that
has really brought him close to the hearts of
the people of Ontario is the fact that he has
acted in an honest and upright manner. He
has said to the people of Ontario: "People of
Ontario, forget party politics, forget all except
the welfare of the people of Ontario."
He will recall that he challenged us to stand
up and be counted last year, the count was
for or against the federal fiscal agreements,
the proposed agreements, and he criticized
and chided us to no end for standing up and
protecting and defending, if you will, the
federal fiscal policy.
I ask him: Now that the government has
changed, now since going off one year ago,
and proclaiming from the hilltops and chim-
ney tops, that he would never give up, when
he demanded $100 million, why is he not part
of this campaign today, why is he not out
using the mediums of communication that he
used a year ago— the press and the radio and
all the rest— demanding of Rt. hon. Mr. Dief-
enbaker a non-qualified promise to pay him
$100 million at the present time?
A year ago, he did not talk about 1959, and
1960, interim payments; he talked about the
payment in the year 1957-1958. In that year,
he did not get a red nickel. He got a few
concessions, I will acknowledge, in regard to
unemployment, and in regard to definitions of
the unemployed, unemployable unemployed,
and the like. In terms of dollars, I doubt that
he got $10 million.
He knows very well that, a year ago, the
Harris budget allot/ 1 *>im something in the
neighbourhood of $50 million more than the
previous year. But that was "peanuts". The
hon. Prime Minister was not going to have any
part of it, it was "$100 million or fight." Why
is he not fighting now?
Surely I will acknowledge that he rises
in this Legislature, surely I will acknowledge
that, in the book of the federal-provincial
conferences that he sent to me, he said that
he wanted $100 million, but a year ago he
more than wanted it, he was prepared to fight
for it, and the people of Ontario now want
him to stand up and be counted. Is he for or
against what he said a year ago?
Hon. Mr. Frost: For.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is he going to stand on
the side of principle or political expediency?
Well then, let the hon. Prime Minister do
something about it, because I assure him
that thus far he has not done a thing, except—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that I came home with the bacon to the
extent that I brought home $22 million.
An hon. member: He did not bring it with
him.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right, he did not
bring it with him. The fact of the matter
is that the hon. Prime Minister knows very
well that he did not get what he wanted,
and I say it is his duty to fight for it. Either
he is with the people of Ontario, or he is
with the Conservative party, either he is or
is not more interested in the people of On-
tario than in the Conservative party. The
determination is for him to make, and he
must make it in an unqualified manner, and
not in the quiet, reserved, peaceful fashion
that he has done thus far, by saying with his
tongue in his cheek: "Yes, I still want
$100 million. But, gentlemen, you know
how things are, they cannot just see it right
now, things are not as good as they were,
and I have accepted $22 million for the time
being."
MARCH 4, 1958
521
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I suggest—
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Prime Minis-
ter may ask a question, but certainly give
no explanation.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right then, I will put
it in form of a question.
Has the hon. member read the statement
made by the Rt. hon. Prime Minister of
Canada in announcing the $22 million, and
the other amounts, because if he has not read
that, and if he would read it, it would give
the full explanation to the question.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is typical of the
explanations we have had. It is a great
thing, the hon. Prime Minister takes us on
a merry-go-round, right around the issue
two or three times, and then the problem is
supposed to majestically disappear. The
simple fact is he did not get, and he is not
going to get, and does not hope to get,
anything like $100 million in either this year
or next year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member will
be surprised.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I think the hon. Prime
Minister will be surprised, too.
Mr. Oliver: If he is surprised at $22 mil-
lion, what would he be at $100 million?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Speaker, one
thing that I did want to make reference to
at this time, in conjunction with fiscal policy,
is this. We have had a lot of debate, I
acknowledge, in last year's and this year's
session. We have taken different stands, it is
true, but I think that we are all prepared
now to meet in some realistic fashion and
decide what the course should be for the
future.
I do not think there is anything inconsis-
tent with what I am now going to suggest,
and what I suggested a year ago. I suggest
that the only realistic programme for the
future, in regard to fiscal programme and
fiscal policy, is this, that we acknowledge,
and sincerely do so, the need to subsidize cer-
tain of the less fortunate economic provinces
of this Dominion. I suggest that the federal
treasury is responsible to see to it that those
provinces are in a position to exercise their
responsibilities, and that the money be made
payable directly and as a subsidy.
But over and above that, Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that we have enough pride in our-
selves, enough faith in the people of Ontario,
to raise the funds and pay our own way. We
can do it, and let anybody tell me that what
I am advocating is double taxation. It is
nothing of the sort.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that during
the budget debate the hon. Prime Minister
and Provincial Treasurer sent to me the notes
of the federal - provincial conference in
November, and I took the opportunity to
study them carefully.
I recommend to the hon. Prime Minister that
he support the position of hon. R. Stanfield.
It is a good position. It is an understandable
one, and I do not think it is wholly consis-
tent with anything that has been said in this
House. It is something slightly different I
think, but it is analogous to what I am now
saying, and I suggest to him that he support
likewise the determination of the hon. Prime
Minister of the province of Quebec, that some
practical way be devised whereby we have
a more efficient and uniform and sole collect-
ing agency for all income and direct taxation,
but that each province be required to deter-
mine the amount of its individual taxation.
If we go on forever in the determination
of how the pie is to be divided, we will never
be satisfied, and we will never carry on
with the programmes that are required of
this province, and I say that, Mr. Speaker,
in the hope that it will be a contribution to
this debate in this particular respect, without
becoming embroiled once again in all the
myriad arguments, back and forth, that we
had a year ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the
matter of education and municipal affairs.
I lump them together for the simple reason
that we will all agree that the two problems
are interrelated fiscally.
Hon. members all recall the statement of
hon. Mr. Porter a year ago in his budget,
when he said in effect that the programme
and the policy of this government was to
assist municipalities by way of absorbing
more and more of the cost of education.
He said that, being a dominant cost at the
municipal level, much assistance would be
given to these municipalities from the pro-
vincial level if a definite portion of that
total cost was assumed.
One would gather that the government
has done much in the course of the last
number of years to solve this problem, but
I ask, have they done anything except to
pay more dollars? Have they maintained any
stability? Have they effected any stability
in the portions of money that are required to
be paid by the municipalities for education?
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, all I am
required to do is refer again to the budget.
522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the 29th schedule, hon. members will see
in quick fashion a summary of the respec-
tive portion of total monies paid by the
municipalities for education in any given
year.
In other words, and in simple language,
the chart demonstrates the proportion of total
municipal expenditures in any given year
related to education. For example, in 1929,
32 per cent, of all municipal financing was
related to education, and then it increased to
35, 36 and eventually it got up to 41
per cent., and one would expect that as a
result of what had been termed the historic
advances to education from this province, that
that portion would dramatically fall.
Yet, judging by this schedule, in the year
1957, 43 per cent, of the total cost of all
municipal expenditures in the province of
Ontario will be paid for education. In other
words, they are using more of their budgets
now than they have ever used before.
That is the problem that must be solved.
That is the problem that we must direct our
attention to. I agree with the former Provin-
cial Treasurer, that is the real problem.
The real way to assist municipalities to
exercise their responsibilities, in a realistic
fashion, is to assume a definite portion of the
total cost of education. But has this govern-
ment done it? I suggest that it has done
nothing more than keep pace with what was
a bad situation in 1929, what continued to
be a bad situation throughout the 1930's and
something that was still a bad situation in the
year 1943.
What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with assuming
the total cost of teachers' salaries? In that
way we would assume, and stabilize at least,
the total cost of education at the municipal
level. If teachers' salaries went up or down,
sure it would vary. But in terms of budgeting,
the municipalities would know exactly where
they were at, something they do not know at
the present time.
The need, the desire, the purpose and the
imagination that is required is certainly to see
to it that we stabilize, in an effective, realistic
and understandable way, the cost of education
that must be borne at the municipal level.
All we are doing is giving more inflated
dollars and we think that we are solving the
problem. We are making no real solution to
the problem. I suggest that in all the past 13
years, we have made no inroads in the actual
relative position that the municipalities are
required to carry in respect to education.
I suggest that the time has come when this
government has got to do more than merely
give dollars and pat itself on the back. The
thing it has got to do is determine a policy,
either by assuming the total cost of teachers'
salaries in this province, or there may be other
solutions that may be brought to the fore. But
certainly some solution must come to the fore,
certainly a programme must be advocated.
What is the matter with this great leader-
ship that we hear so much about? Where is
the imagination? Where is the faith and the
confidence that we hear extolled day in and
day out, confidence of which people yet un-
born, as somebody said, will be appreciative?
They will not be appreciative of the fact that
the burden of property and municipal taxation
is coming to a point where they cannot, in all
fairness and equity, be expected to pay the
portions of the cost of education that they are
required to bear at the present time.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that other jurisdictions
have done it. I mentioned a few moments ago
that, in the state of Pennsylvania, they had
made some real progress in this respect, and
if I might just deviate for a moment, it was of
great interest to me to note that in the state
of Pennsylvania over 50 per cent, of the total
regular budget is devoted to education. Over
50 per cent., not merely 50 per cent, and in
terms of dollars, in the vicinity of $400 million
each year. That is what they think of educa-
tion, of higher education, in that jurisdiction.
Hon. members will recall the hon. Prime
Minister rising before us and telling us that
no other jurisdiction on this continent is
challenged with the dynamic development
that this province is challenged with. That is
a good thing and I hope it is so, but others
have real challenges too and they are meeting
them, and meeting them in a realistic way.
In Pennsylvania, they have assumed a defi-
nite portion of the total cost of education.
There they related it to assessment and they
have said, on a uniform assessment basis, that
the municipalities will be required to levy
only a stipulated number of mills for educa-
tion, and all costs over and above that levy
will be borne by the state government. That
is leadership. That is policy, but where is it
in this Legislature? Where is it in this
budget? Nothing of the sort has been sug-
gested or devised.
Now I will acknowledge, in one respect,
that in this particular budget, what appears
to be a great concession to overcoming cer-
tain inequalities in the distribution of grants,
has been or might be made. I agreed with
what the hon. Prime Minister said. He said
that, in effect, the grant system would be
completely revised to the extent that the
MARCH 4, 1958
523
rural system of grant allotments would be
applied to the urban centres.
That I agree with, and I think it will over-
come inequity. But let us remember it has
nothing to do with the problem I am talking
about. It merely overcomes some inequitable
situations existing at the present time, in
regards to particular school boards.
And then I heard the explanation of the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop),
and I became a little doubtful whether the
problem and the policy was as simple as was
enunciated by the hon. Minister. I will be
interested to hear his explanation in the
ensuing and completing portion of this Legis-
lature.
If it does what the hon. Prime Minister
says it is going to do or should do, I com-
mend him in that respect. But I say that he
still has not tackled the municipal problem.
He still has not stabilized the responsibility
of a municipality in regard to education, and
that is the key to this whole municipal-
provincial fiscal policy.
I say to the hon. Prime Minister that it is
a disgraceful thing when we see municipal
mayors and reeves banding together to go to
Ottawa to ask for assistance. Not that I blame
them for going to Ottawa, but they are
creatures of this Legislature, creatures of this
province. Why should they be required to go
to another jurisdiction? Their place is here
in this Legislature. It is here that they have
a right to look for assistance. Why must
they go to Ottawa instead of here, where they
would expect— and can and should expect-
to be treated in a fashion that is under-
standable and realistic in these dynamic
times?
Mr. G. E. Jackson (London South): Would
the hon. member tell me. or perhaps tell
the House, whose responsibility he thinks
the question of education is? Is it that of
the municipality, or the legislative body or
those higher up? Where does he think the
responsibility rests?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, that
certainly is a justifiable question. There is
no question that, from a technical or legal
point of view, The British North America
Act makes it specifically the responsibility
of the provincial government, and until that
Act is amended, my position always will be
that this is where the responsibility lies.
The hon. members will recall that the
budget made some great promise of things
to come in regard to higher education. Much
ado was made, indeed, about the revolving
fund. Some $3 million was to be set up to
assist students in higher education.
Now what I would like to do, Mr. Speaker,
is draw to your attention some factors that
I think have a bearing on this overall situa-
tion. Do you know, for example, Mr. Speaker,
that at the present time, students pay $97
million each year for education? I am not
talking about administrative costs, I am mere-
ly talking about tuition and costs of board
and lodging and the like. The sum of $97
million is paid for this purpose in the
Dominion of Canada.
It is estimated that approximately $50 mil-
lion is paid for that purpose in the province
of Ontario.
Now of that $50 million, how much do
hon. members think the government contri-
butes by way of bursaries, by way of loans,
and so on? Well, hon. members would be
ashamed if I told them. The total contribu-
tions amount to less than 8 per cent. In
other words, if a total of $97 million is
spent in this respect, $92.5 million is con-
tributed by the individual students and their
parents. The families of these students
together with the students pay $92 million of
the $97 million.
Now, who in the world, in view of those
facts, can say that we do not have a privileged
system of higher education? What overall
opportunity is there for the average child to
get a university education? Who, reading
those figures, can contend that all have an
equal opportunity to attend at higher levels
of education? They do not.
The realistic fact is that we are just toying
with this problem. We are meeting it in a
hesitant way; what we should be doing is
getting out ahead, leading and directing
youngsters in their efforts to pay for and
attend university. The $3 million that we talk
about is little or nothing.
I do not want to be so silly as to stand
before you, Mr. Speaker, and say that we are
not grateful for it, I am not so silly as to
say that it is not a good thing, but it is
wholly unrealistic.
In terms of the lack of leadership I simply
point to this government. When the bill was
introduced in this Legislature the government
did not know the interest rate, the terms,
nor who would be eligible for these par-
ticular loans. What interest has been taken
in higher education? What preparation had
they made for the introduction of this par-
ticular sum of $3 million? Nothing more
than, in a hesitant fashion, to suggest to
the Legislature that now, at long last, they
were willing to do something.
524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What were they willing to do? They said
that 2 per cent, of the total cost in this
province would be made available to students
at this Legislature's expense— no, not at their
expense, they would loan them the money,
and it would be repaid.
Mr. Jackson: The hon. member voted
against any aid to students last year.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I grant
that some hesitant step has been made, but
where is the programme for the future?
How are we going to encroach on the $50
million that I speak about? What will be
done for the youngsters who cannot pay
now? I agree with the hon. Minister of
Education the loans should be given to the
senior students, but what about bursaries,
what about doing something to encourage
those youngsters in high school who at the
present time are completely discouraged
because they do not know how in the world
they will finance their time in school?
It seems to me that this government must
show some real leadership in that respect,
and regretfully I say that, up to the present
at least, they have shown no leadership except
to suggest $3 million by way of a revolving
fund which in some manner will be made
available to students at some time in the
future.
I would like to refer briefly to the unem-
ployment problem. Hon. members will recall
there has been much discussion about the un-
employment problems both in this debate, in
the presentation of the budget, and in the
Throne debate proper.
They will recall the great suggestions of
the good that is being done by this govern-
ment in regard to unemployment by the
references to 215,000 people who were
directly, or indirectly, employed by this gov-
ernment. That, it was said, was a wonderful
thing. That, it was said, was a real effort
to solve the unemployment problem. But in
the computation of the 215,000, did hon.
members ever stop to think that the govern-
ment included all Hydro employees, all
teachers, all persons employed by any public
body in the province, whether at the provin-
cial or municipal level? How many new peo-
ple were employed by this government directly
or indirectly in a deliberate and calculated
fashion to relieve the unemployment situation?
I suggest, none. These people are employees
who would have been employed whether or
not there was a recessive period in our
economy.
It is simply the fact that, as we progress
economically from an agricultural to an in-
dustrial age, of course we employ more
people. We put up more buildings and the
like. But what did we do in regard to un-
employment itself? We contributed $5 million
under certain conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I often think that this govern-
ment must feel that it solves the unemploy-
ment problem by buying an apple at the
street corner. It certainly is not done in that
fashion. The fact of the matter is that, in
terms of realistic leadership, nothing has been
done in regard to unemployment except a
contribution of $5 million under certain
stipulations.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever thought of the
inconsistency in respect to the $5 million? For
years we have been preaching the theory that
more and more responsibility should be
assumed by the province and less and less at
the municipal level. We have said that, at
the municipal level, they should be required
to pay more towards roads and streets, sewers
and so on, but nothing in regard to public
welfare. Our objective has always been to
relieve the municipalities of those respon-
sibilities.
Yet, in respect to the conditions applying
to the $5 million, a retrograde step has been
taken, a step that we all agreed was bad a
year or two ago. What in the world did the
government have in mind when it stipulated
that the municipalities would be required to
raise substantial sums of money by additional
taxation of their overburdened properties in
order to participate in this particular project?
Mr. Wardrope: Would the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Mr. Wardrope: Would the hon. member
care to mention the access roads and parks
programme doing such a great job in my area,
would he mention that?
Mr. Wintermeyer: We had those last year,
the year before, and as long as I can remem-
ber.
Mr. Wardrope: No, we did not.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Speaker, surely
the hon. member for Port Arthur is not going
to be misled—
Mr. Wardrope: I see it with my own eyes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: —in thinking that every
bit of work that is undertaken is done and
designed, and intended to help the unemploy-
ment situation? I will tell him what he could
have done, this- hon. member up in that
MARCH 4, 1958
525
district. What did he do when they imposed
the logging tax a year ago? He sat there. He
did nothing.
Mr. Wardrope: I voted for it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And the hon. member
for Port Arthur knows better than I that noth-
ing would have helped the unemployed
up in his area more than to relieve the pulp
and paper industries from that burdensome
tax.
Mr. Wardrope: Balderdash; balderdash. It
has nothing to do with it at all.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, let him talk
to any of the executives; let him talk to the
employees; let him talk to management which
I have done. They will all tell him that at
this particular time, and for the last few years,
they have had a difficult time exporting pulp
and paper into the United States. It is an
understandable situation, there is real com-
petition in the southern States, and added to
that there is an adverse exchange rate, as
a result of which this industry has been
depressed for some time.
Then, let the hon. members add this yoke,
this extra cost of operation in a manner that
is wholly unjustified.
Thev say they are interested in helping
expand the north. The thing for them to
do is to encourage these people, show them
confidence, give them the assurance that
this government is interested in them. The
one thing that would have helped their em-
ployment up there, more than anything else,
is a full pay cheque, and the one way to
get a full pay cheque is to have full produc-
tion, and the way to get full production is
to instil confidence in management and cap-
ital, in that area, that they are not going
to be trampled on every time they attempt
to expand—
Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member is not
doing it with his talk, I will tell him that.
He is not creating confidence.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, that may-
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River): May
I ask a question? Would the hon. member
not call 6 days a week full employment?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, of
course people will present this sort of thing,
but let me ask this, in the simplest fashion:
Does the hon. member agree with me that
the pulp and paper industry has been handi-
capped by competition from the southern
States? Why, certainly it has. Has it been
handicapped by adverse exchange rates? Why
certainly it has. Then why, of all the indus-
try in this province, was it picked as that
industry required to assume an extra 2 per
cent, tax in view of those circumstances?
That is my proposition in the simplest form.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, may I point
out to the hon. member that I understood him,
a moment ago, to say that the 235,000 jobs
that are contained in this budget included
teachers and provincial employees. May I
assure him that that is not the case? It does
not include teachers nor does it include the
civil service. The 235,000 jobs are entirely
attributable to the capital programme of the
government and its subsidies. All the others
are additional to that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, to that
extent I stand corrected. However, the point
I am trying to make is this, that they were
not added as a deliberate effort to—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, yes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, then, Mr. Speaker,
what specific employees were added for the
purpose of relieving the unemployment situa-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Frost: 235,000 jobs.
Mr. Thomas: What jobs?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now, Mr. Speaker,
that is a better demonstration than I could
ever make of the fact that this government
did not deliberately set about to add more
people to its payroll to relieve the unemploy-
ment situation.
Hon. Mr. Frost: On our payroll, but stimu-
late jobs.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right, or stimula-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Where did the hon.
Prime Minister stimulate?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out to the hon.
member that last year we deliberately
budgeted for a huge programme because we
disagreed with the Ottawa policy in treating
inflation as the first enemy. We thought un-
employment was the first enemy.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now, Mr. Speaker,
what is the ratio— how many people were
employed last year as compared with this
year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Last year was a big year,
about 215,000. It is in the budget.
526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wintermeyer: Just about the same
as this year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: 235,000 this year.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And, Mr. Speaker, surely
we all agree our economy is expanding, cer-
tainly the government is going to have more
work each year. I suggest that this argu-
ment the government has been using has no
basis in fact. Certainly more jobs are com-
ing about as a result of big expenditures,
but I certainly take issue with the argument
that the money has been spent for the speci-
fic purpose of relieving the unemployment
situation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make refer-
ence to succession duties for one moment,
and in that respect I was one, I am sure,
of many who were very much disappointed
that the government did not, in any way,
relieve particularly the smaller estates from
the burden of succession duties.
You well know, Mr. Speaker, that in
Ottawa and at the federal level, an estate
of $50,000 is excluded in its entirety.
In the province of Ontario, depending
on who receives the estate, it can be up to
approximately that amount. But under cer-
tain given circumstances, an estate in On-
tario can be taxed at $5,000. Now I ask
you, Mr. Speaker, is this fair? I suggest
that today, given the cost of living, given
the inflated dollars, that no estate of less
than $100,000 should be taxed by the
province.
And I suggest further that we take into
consideration the fact that, by and large,
in the normal instance, an estate passes from
husband to wife. I would think that in all
equity, one-half of such an estate should
be exempt immediately. And it should be
considered that a wife has assisted to the
extent of one-half in the accumulation of
these smaller estates. Now this is not going
to be a burden to the government, this is
not going to be a loss of great revenue,
but this is going to be the sort of thing
that will demonstrate that the government
is thinking about the problems of the so-
called little people, and I suggest that the
budget in that respect is wholly lacking in
the suggested solution.
Now in conclusion, I would say, as I said
at the outset, that the basic problem we
have, is to meet these challenging times,
to meet them in a realistic fashion, to plan,
to determine what our revenue is going to
be and what our expenditure is going to be.
I would challenge the hon. Prime Minister
at any time to ask of any hon. member of
this side of the House what our total expenses
were last year, what they are this year, what
our total revenue was last year and what it
was this year. And I suggest that we have
intelligent hon. members on this side, that
we have people who are interested, and if
the hon. members in this House cannot
answer those simple questions, then how in
the world are the people of Ontario expected
to do so?
The fact is that we should treat both
ordinary and capital expenditures as ordinary
expenditures each year, so that the people
have some simple understandable way of
analyzing our financial progress.
The reason that we have continued to use
ordinary and capital accounts separately is
solely the fact that we can thereby demon-
strate a surplus of ordinary revenue over
ordinary expenditure. But in terms of the
overall picture, we have not, as I said, shown
a surplus for the last 10 years, and these were
the best years of this province's economy.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my first and basic
criticism, and then I suggest to you that we
should and must alleviate the burdensome
encroachment of The Department of High-
ways on our overall budget. Certainly we
must segregate this portion of our total cost
from the overall cost, so that we can and
will be ready to do something about the
challenging problems in welfare and educa-
tion. And I suggest that, in these respects,
this budget wholly and completely lacks
imagination, completely lacks solution.
What did it do, as I have asked, about the
real municipal fiscal problem? In this respect,
municipalities are required to spend just as
much of their total revenue, of their total
levy, as ever before on education, but when
listening to the government one would think
that they have done wonders to relieve that
burden. Therefore, in conclusion, may I read
the following amendment to the resolution:
That the motion that Mr. Speaker do
leave the chair and the House resolve itself
into committee of supply be amended by
adding thereto the following words:
But this House regrets that the budget
does not, in any wise, recognize or solve
the fundamental fiscal problems of the
province of Ontario in its rapid evolution
from an agricultural to an industrial
economy, and in particular, lacks imagina-
tive leadership in the solution of:
1. The municipal-provincial fiscal rela-
tions;
MARCH 4, 1958
527
2. A long-range programme for highway
construction and financing;
3. A failure to devise a plan for manag-
ing the ever-rising debt.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin) moves
the adournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions:
Bill No. 47, An Act to amend The Ontario
School Trustees' Council Act, 1953.
Bill No. 48, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954.
Bill No. 50, An Act to amend The Anatomy
Act.
Bill No. 51, An Act to repeal The Beaches
and River Beds Act.
Bill No. 52, An Act to amend The Condi-
tional Sales Act.
Bill No. 53, An Act to amend The County
Courts Act.
Bill No. 54, An Act to amend The General
Sessions Act.
Bill No. 55, An Act to amend The Deserted
Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act.
Bill No. 56, An Act to amend The Inter-
pretation Act.
Bill No. 57, An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act.
Bill No. 58, An Act to amend The Magis-
trates Act, 1952.
Bill No. 59, An Act to amend The County
Judges Act.
Bill No. 60, An Act to amend The Surro-
gate Courts Act.
Bill No. 62, An Act to amend The Public
Trustee Act.
Bill No. 63, An Act to amend The Sum-
mary Convictions Act.
Bill No. 64, An Act to amend The Mech-
anics' Lien Act.
Bill No. 66, The Certification of Titles Act,
1958.
Bill No. 67, The Township of Tay Road
Allowance Act, 1958.
Bil No. 68, An Act to amend The Provincial
Land Tax Act.
Bill No. 71, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act, 1953.
Bill No. 72, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Information Act, 1953.
Bill No. 73, An Act to amend The Teachers'
Superannuation Act.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do
now pass and be intituled as in the motions.
THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
Hon. C. Daley moves second reading of
Bill No. 93, "An Act to amend The Labour
Relations Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, these bills, both this
one and The Workmen's Compensation Act
amendments, are to go before the labour com-
mittee.
In connection with these bills, there is not
too much of great importance in them, yet
there are a couple of sections here that
describe the administration and there is a sec-
tion that establishes a change in the labour
legislation in respect to a collective agreement
that is made between the union and the
employer, for a period longer than one year.
The Act presently requires that, when an
agreement is made, it shall be deemed to
be for one year, and that at the end of 10
months they have what is termed an open
season when there may be a contest during
the last two months of the agreement for
another union to replace the existing one
or some changes to be made.
Formerly the length of agreements was
to a great extent, one year, but it has
changed and now it has become so that the
one year is exceptional, and most agreements
go for two, three, or even more years.
Now, under this amendment, an agree-
ment where the employer and the employee
mutually agree upon a two-year agreement,
there shall be no open season until the
twenty-third and twenty-fourth month of that
agreement. If the agreement is for more than
two years, say three years, it would be open
on the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth months.
By these amendments, we eliminate the
continued unrest of industry and the em-
ployees agreeing on a definite two-year agree-
ment, for which they have received certain
conditions, and then at the end of 10
months the thing is thrown open and there
is trouble in the plant, and someone is trying
to replace somebody else and so on. I think
it is a very desirable piece of legislation, it
528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is really a protection for longer term agree-
ments than one year.
Another section simply corrects a typo-
graphical error; and section 6 has to do with
appointing alternate members of the labour
relations board. We have found year after
year that the business of the board increases,
and that they are confronted with more
and more problems. Last year, as hon. mem-
bers will recall, we established a system of
having the vice-chairman and the chairman
each able to conduct a panel. That has
helped out a great deal. We have split the
members of the board in two parts, on occa-
sions when it was deemed necessary and
advisable. WTe can have two panels running.
But we still find that so often that one or
the other member, either the employer's repre-
sentative or the union representative, cannot
be there and it disrupts the programme.
Now, what we want to do is appoint some
alternate members who would be active only
at the call of the chairman, but who would
be able to take their places on the board
when required.
In that way, I feel, we would be educat-
ing some new people, because from time to
time we have to make changes in the board,
we have to bring in an entirely new man. It
takes at least a year, I would say, for a man
to become fully conversant with the activities
of administering the board, and this section
simply permits us to appoint some alternate
members.
Mr. Oliver: How many does the hon. Minis-
ter expect to appoint?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Oh, I would say prob-
ably 4 or 5, and they would simply be on
call, they would be paid a per diem rate
when they served. We would get a couple
from the employers and a couple from organ-
ized labour, and we would have them avail-
able and they would be learning in the mean-
time. I have no set number, Mr. Speaker, it
could be more, and we might survive on
less. But we should have some, and this
would enable us to appoint alternate mem-
bers. I believe that is the principal thing in
connection with this bill.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Wentworth East): Might I
ask the hon. Minister a question in regard to
amendments of application for decertification?
Do I interpret the amendment to apply in any
term other than a straight one year or two
years— say, two years and three months, or
two years and six months? Would it then
apply to the last two months of the termina-
tion of the application for decertification?
Or is it set only on a one-, two- or three-year
basis?
Hon. Mr. Daley: The last two months of
the agreement, yes.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, may I advise the House, as chairman
of the select committee on labour relations,
that the intended amendments were brought
to the attention of the committee by myself,
as a result of information given to me by
the hon. Minister, and it was the unanimous
opinion of the committee these amendments
should be permitted.
Mr. Gisborn: Might I ask the hon. Minister
if the bill is going to the standing committee
on labour?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Yes, I said at the outset
I intended to take these before the committee.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Daley moves second reading of
Bill No. 92, "An Act to amend The Work-
men's Compensation Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will also
go before the committee on labour. It has
some questions in it that are pretty
much administrative. The first one is
to make legal something which has been
done for years. Municipally-owned hospitals
have been included as if under the
Act, but it has been discovered that they
could have been under schedule 2, being
municipally-owned. And the procedure has
been for several years now that they are
assessed just like any other hospital, and this
legalizes our procedure.
Section 2 has to do with the cutting of
timber. If the timber is cut by a person other
than the licencee, it is the duty of the licencee
to see that the person engaged in the cutting
of such timber, if liable, contributes to the
accident fund.
Suppose that a licencee for cutting timber
sublets to somebody else. If that "somebody
else" does not pay the assessment, the worker
is affected, and if he is injured the work-
men's compensation board have to look after
him, but sometimes they cannot find the fel-
low who was responsible for this.
This amendment makes the original licen-
cee responsible. He will actually benefit,
because payment for these accidents which
occur, for which the board has to pay and
cannot collect, just eventually falls on the
MARCH 4, 1958
529
shoulders of the great companies who are
doing business, and increases their assess-
ment. With this we have the power to
check and collect from the smaller sub-
contractors. I feel this would in some way
reduce the actual assessment.
Another section here, which I think will
certainly meet with the approval of all, is
that we are presently paying on the death
of a workman. As soon as the compensa-
tion board is acquainted with the fact that
a man has been killed, it immediately sends
$200 to the surviving widow, or whoever
may be next of kin, I imagine. That is to
have cash on hand for emergency.
Then they have been paid $200 for funeral
expenses, and it has been realized that it
is quite possible in these days that $200 is
not sufficient for a proper funeral, and a
request was made to raise the funeral pay-
ment up to $400. But we decided that it
would be better to give the widow an addi-
tional $100, making it $300, and increase
the funeral allowance to $300, so that a
person would have the opportunity, if she
wished to spend more than the $300 on the
funeral, she would have this $300 cash which
she could use.
On the other hand, if we made the ex-
penses for a funeral $400, well, every funeral
would cost simply $400. So we think that
is a very good amendment, and I am sure
we all approve of greater assistance to these
people in their time of trouble.
Another amendment is rather a peculiar
thing that we have to do. The Act claims that
where there is an accident, the person must
be injured. But we found at least one accident
where, in the woods, a tree fell on a worker
and broke his leg, but it was not his leg, it
was a wooden leg. Now, it might be asked:
"Well, why would you pay him?"
Well, investigators found that this man,
away up in the bush, with his wooden leg
broken, could not get around. He could not
work, and he could not get another leg until
he could reach some place where he could
get one. He lost two or three weeks' work
because he could not get the leg. We felt
that if it had been his real leg, it would prob-
ably have cost us a lot of money, whereas
this would only cost us a couple of weeks or
a week. We are trying to clean that little
thing up.
An hon. member: Trying to give him a "leg
up."
Hon. Mr. Daley: Another section deals with
first aid. We have certain authority in regard
to people who violate the safety rules and
precautions, and are found to be negligent in
protecting the welfare and safety of the
worker. There is a section now which per-
mits the board to penalize these people who
consistently refuse to follow the regulations
in connection with safety.
It was admitted, when this Act was
amended, that it did not include safety first
precautions. Now we think it is desirable
that people equip themselves with first-aid
kits, particularly in situations where somebody
takes a dozen men away into the bush, and
some man gets cut and probably is bleeding
very badly. They should have proper
materials and facilities to take care of him.
Now, we think it should be a requirement
that they have these things.
It might save a man's life to have some
bandages and some material there to look
after him, and we want that safety equip-
ment regulation included in there, because
we find that some people, in spite of the
small cost, will not have these things avail-
able.
I think Mr. Speaker, that about completes
my explanation. At any rate, we will be
discussing, I am sure, these matters in greater
detail in the committee.
THE TELEPHONE ACT, 1954
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves second
reading of Bill No. 97, "An Act to amend
The Telephone Act, 1954."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a few
observations to make in respect to these
amendments.
The Telephone Act was passed by the
Legislature in 1954, and the telephone auth-
ority was established to administer the Act.
It was the intention of the government, at
that time, that the authority serve the inde-
pendent telephone systems across the prov-
ince, of which there are a great many.
I might say that I have received some
complaints from the board of governors of
the independent telephone systems in this
province, that they should have representa-
tion on the authority. I agree, in view of the
fact that it was established as a service to
be used by these small independent tele-
phone companies across the province.
The purpose of these amendments is to
permit the reconstitution of the telephone
authority by including representatives from
530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the independent telephone companies, and
it also provides for their remuneration.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, on the wider aspects of this bill,
as the hon. Minister said, this authority was
set up in 1955. I guess the bill itself was
passed in 1954.
The purpose of the bill was to set up
machinery which, it was hoped, would help
to correct the deteriorating situation insofar
as independent telephone companies were
concerned. And now the hon. Minister might
serve a real purpose if he could tell the House,
this afternoon, just what the picture is as of
now, in respect to these independent tele-
phone companies.
I would iike to know, for instance, how
many have been merged together so that they
might operate more efficiently. I would like
to know, in how many instances, the Bell
Telephone Company has taken over existing
telephone lines, and generally just what is
the picture in respect to these companies.
Are they in better shape, from the govern-
ment's point of view, than they were when
the authority was set up, and has the authority
served the purpose for which it was intended?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, Mr. Speaker,
the hon. leader of the Opposition has raised
the point as to what purpose has been served
by the telephone authority. It is my inten-
tion, Mr. Speaker, in presenting the estimates
for The Department of Agriculture, to go into
some detail in connection with the very
question which has been raised by the hon.
leader of the Opposition, in respect to what
has transpired since The Telephone Act, 1954,
was put into operation.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT, 1958
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 109, "The Provincial Parks
Act, 1958."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I
can give any more explanation than I did
on the first reading, except to say that this
bill will be going to the committee on lands
and forests tomorrow morning for full dis-
cussion.
CITY OF WATERLOO
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 7, "An Act respecting the city
of Waterloo."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL AT
BARRIE
Mr. G. G. Johnston ( Simcoe Centre ) moves
second reading of Bill No. 12, "An Act
respecting the Royal Victoria Hospital at
Barrie."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF THOROLD
Mr. J. Root moves second reading of Bill
No. 18, "An Act respecting the town of
Thorold."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF LONDON
Mr. J. A. Fullerton moves second reading
of Bill No. 19, "An Act respecting the city
of London."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
LAKESHORE DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION
Mr. A. Grossman move second reading of
Bill No. 23, "An Act respecting the Lakeshore
district board of education."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE
TOWNSHIP OF NORTH YORK
Mr. W. J. Stewart (Parkdale) moves second
reading of Bill No. 24, "An Act respecting
the board of education for the township of
North York."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
bill.
MARCH 4, 1958
531
VILLAGE OF LONG BRANCH
Mr. A. H. Cowling moves second reading
of Bill No. 38, "An Act respecting the village
of Long Branch."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment
of the House, I would repeat what the hon.
Prime Minister said earlier, that the calling
of the estimates of The Department of the
Attorney-General, and of The Department of
Insurance, will take place tomorrow. There
will be some Throne debate possibly, and
a number of bills may be called.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 23
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
Betiate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 5, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 5, 1958
First report, standing committee on lands and forests, Mr. Noden 535
Estimates, Department of the Attorney-General, Mr. Roberts 537
Estimates, Department of Insurance, Mr. Roberts 556
Separate school board of the town of Lindsay, bill respecting, amended 557
Huron College, bill respecting, reported 557
Township of Grantham, bill respecting, reported 557
Township of London, bill respecting, reported 558
Township of Chinguacousy, bill respecting, reported 558
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, bill respecting, reported 558
Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada, bill respecting, reported 558
Sudbury Young Women's Christian Association, bill to incorporate, reported 558
Queen's University at Kingston, bill respecting, held 558
Ontario Dietetic Association, bill respecting, reported 558
Township of Teck, bill respecting, reported 558
City of Belleville, bill respecting, reported 558
City of Waterloo, bill respecting, reported 558
Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, bill respecting, reported 558
Town of Thorold, bill respecting, reported 558
City of London, bill respecting, reported 559
Lakeshore district board of education, bill respecting, reported 559
Board of education for the township of North York, bill respecting, reported 559
Village of Long Branch, bill respecting, reported 559
Waterloo College associate faculties, bill respecting, reported 559
Windsor Jewish communal projects, bill respecting, Mr. Daley, second reading 559
City of Chatham, bill respecting, Mr. Parry, second reading 559
Village of Port Perry, bill respecting, Mr. Boyer, second reading 559
Village of West Lome, bill respecting, Mr. Robarts, second reading 559
City of Windsor, bill respecting, Mr. Davies, second reading 560
Board of education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie,
bill respecting, Mr. Lyons, second reading 560
Town of Fort Frances, bill respecting, Mr. Noden, second reading 560
City of Fort William, bill respecting, Mr. Wardrope, second reading 560
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 561
535
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by commit-
tees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. G. Noden, from
the standing committee on lands and forests,
presents the committee's first report and moves
its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the following
bills without amendment:
Bill No. 85, An Act to amend The Public
Lands Act.
Bill No. 109, The Provincial Parks Act,
1958.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to extend a very warm welcome
to the students from the A. N. Meyer collegi-
ate institute of Stamford; pupils from the
Parkdale public school in Burlington; Harm-
ony public school, Oshawa; and from Whitney
school in this city of Toronto. These students
are present to view the proceedings and we
welcome them very highly.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would
like to call the attention of the House to an
article that appears in today's Toronto Globe
and Mail, headed:
Tourist Industry in Slump.
I was concerned with the headlines, al-
though I do not want to criticize the article in
any way because I believe it serves to bring to
the attention of everyone the fact that the
tourist business does need assistance.
But, very definitely, Mr. Speaker, the
tourist business in Ontario is not in any
slump. From reports and statistics of The
Department of Travel and Publicity, there is
nothing to prove otherwise than that resort
owners, some hotel operators, and motel and
restaurant operators had a good year in 1957,
and there is no evidence to indicate that the
travel industry in 1957 even slipped.
Wednesday, March 5, 1958
On the other hand, reports indicate that
1957 was approximately 4 per cent, higher in
volume of business than 1956, and almost
equal to 1955, which was the record year.
Our reports are that Ontario continued in
1957 to receive about 60 per cent, of the total
tourist volume of business that entered
Canada; this average continues.
The reports are computed upon figures
prepared by the Dominion bureau of statis-
tics, Ottawa, based upon the number of
travellers' vehicle permits of those remaining
48 hours or more, and also the volume of
vehicles crossing into Canada.
In 1957, there were approximately 9 mil-
lion car entries in Canada, of which about
5.5 million entered Ontario. This figure was
higher, Mr. Speaker, by 4 per cent, than the
total for 1956.
Our competition for the tourist dollar from
various jurisdictions, including budget terms
for buying airline trips, etc., increases, and
to beat this situation The Department of
Travel and Publicity, in 1957, stepped up
slightly the volume of advertising and pro-
duction of travel materials. Now this competi-
tion is being met by an increased budget
for 1958-1959, which will provide a larger
amount of advertising to be done in the United
States and Canada as well as in Ontario,
where the "Know Ontario Better" campaign
is used in having our people get about
the province.
The department also reports to me that,
in 1957, the largest year in history was
experienced in direct mail increase, most
arising from their advertising campaign in
the United States. Total direct mail increase
was 164,000 compared with 150,000 in 1956,
or an increase of 10 per cent.
What I wanted to get across and intimate,
Mr. Speaker, was the fact that some of the
facilities for tourist operators need improve-
ment, such as making available loans of money,
and other facilities that would allow them to
increase their plants and make them more
congenial and happy for the tourists coming
into this province. With the completion of
highway No. 17 and other things, we are
going to get a tremendous tourist influx, and
our operators should be in a position to
increase the size and number of their plants
536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to take care of the many people who may
come.
That was what I was getting at: something
to improve these conditions. My remarks
concerned things that I felt should be under-
taken to improve the tourist business gener-
ally, and make it grow to be in the position
it should rightfully be in, to take care of
this tremendously increased business. But
certainly I did not want to leave the impres-
sion that the tourist industry was in a slump.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
intimated that the tourist business is booming.
I have read an article in the Globe and Mail,
I imagine it is the same one to which he
referred, and I would direct his attention to
a couple of paragraphs in that article. It said
that:
The committee instructed the depart-
ment to give leadership in creating an
Ontario tourist council which would co-
ordinate the efforts of all tourist associa-
tions ....
This action followed 7 briefs which
directed attention to declining revenues in
the Ontario tourist industry, and stressed
the difficulties of financing the operation.
Now either this article and the briefs that
were presented to the committee are wrong,
or my hon. friend's suggestion that the indus-
try is in a booming condition, and that
revenues are rising, is not according to the
facts.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add a few words to
the remarks that have been made about
the tourist industry. I do feel that this indus-
try, which is a lucrative and a large one,
should be given every assistance. I feel that
perhaps some fund should be set up that
would enable the operators to improve their
facilities.
There are other provinces, I understand,
that have such legislation. The tourist opera-
tors go to the United States on their own,
and they build up a clientele which affects
each and every one of us in this province.
My district is a resort area for tourists, and
many of my operators wish to improve their
facilities, but our financial institutions today
would not loan them the necessary money,
unless it is guaranteed.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
may I continue the discussion just briefly by
referring to the remarks of the hon. member
for Port Arthur, and the briefs which came
before the travel and publicity committee
yesterday morning.
In connection with the need which is said
to exist, and which I firmly believe does
exist for better credit opportunities for
tourist establishments, I would like to say
that I do not believe the people in the resort
industry have any wish to ask the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Frost) to give
them any grant, subsidy or gift.
There has been mention in one of the
briefs, of a revolving fund, yet it seems to
me that the resorts would be quite well satis-
fied with something in the nature of a guar-
antee for loans which would come through
a bank or financial institution.
As it is at the present time, long-term loans
are not forthcoming, because it is said that
a resort is not a stable business, not being
open throughout the year.
I cannot quite agree with that point of
view. There is a great investment in these
resorts which should be recognized. The
part which these resorts play in the economy
of our province is recognized and has been
spoken of in this House. It is said that the
tourist industry stands fifth among the indus-
tries of our province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I, without labour-
ing this, point out to the hon. members that
several years ago, in Canada, there was a
system worked out of home improvement
loans. These were for the purpose of giving
employment, and the Dominion government
guaranteed these loans. It seems to me that
some similar system could be set up at the
present time for the purpose of improving the
tourist accommodation we have in this
province.
Those who presented briefs yesterday had
nothing but praise for the work done by The
Department of Travel and Publicity in pro-
moting and advertising travel to Ontario.
But the facilities in the province should be
of the very best order. Now if there could
be some form of guarantee, which would give
better credit to the people who would borrow
money for the purpose of improving resorts,
that would in a sense create employment. It
would benefit the entire province, because
so many of the materials come from other
parts of the province than the actual resort
areas.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended to refer this
matter when I spoke in one of the debates,
and perhaps at a later time I can say more
on the subject. But, as this has been raised
today, I urge upon the government the
importance of improving the credit opportuni-
ties for the tourist resort operators of this
great province.
MARCH 5, 1958
537
Mr. Noden: I would like to have it placed
on record that, at the committee meeting
yesterday, I made the statement that I repre-
sent that part of northwestern Ontario where
the tourist industry is an important segment
of our daily life. I said that, in 1957, the
industry never had a better year where busi-
ness is concerned, and I felt that the indus-
try required assistance from some loan organ-
ization to help them take care of the business
expansion that is going to take place in the
years to come.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move you do now leave the chair
and the House resolve itself into committee
of supply.
Motion agreed to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Chairman, before speaking to the various
votes, I would like to state that this depart-
ment has been expanding, and this expansion
is reflected in the estimates. I would also
say that I hope the House will pass the
estimates, and if they do, I will say "thank
you" for the financial requirements without
which the contemplated expansion cannot
proceed.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): What if they
do not?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: May I also say, as this
is the third occasion when I have had the
honour to present the estimates of this depart-
ment, that where we have a strong hon.
Provincial Treasurer, as has certainly been
the case both with respect to the present hon.
occupant of the office (Mr. Frost) and in the
case of his hon. predecessor ( Mr. Porter ) ;
and with an inquiring treasury board; and
with the very competent, expert and advisory
group of public servants, consultants to that
board, I can assure the House that the depart-
ment whose estimates have run that gauntlet,
can come before the Legislature with some
reasonable assurance that everything it is
permitted to ask for has reasonable justifica-
tion.
If hon. members will permit me, I would
like to pay tribute to the hon. gentleman who
occupied the position of Treasurer of Ui?
province of Ontario for the last 2.5 years,
until a month ago when he assumed the
highly responsible and dignified office of chief
justice of Ontario.
Chief Justice Porter, better known to all
hon. members of this Legislature as Dana
Porter, entered the Legislature at the same
time as I did, and he maintained a continued
period as an hon. member of the Legislature
from October, 1943, until early in February,
1958.
A tribute has been paid to his years of
service by the hon. Prime Minister of the
province, both in this House and on the
occasion when the swearing-in ceremonies to
the office of chief justice took place.
But before proceeding with the immediate
business which I have to transact with the
House today, I wish to add my words of
respect and appreciation for the great service
which hon. Dana Porter has contributed to
the public life of the province and, of course,
when 1 do that, I include the great assistance
which he has received throughout that period
from his very attractive, capable wife.
The somewhat sudden "translation" of Mr.
Porter, a few weeks ago, has cast upon the
shoulders of our own hon. Prime Minister
the added duties of the office of Treasurer,
but he has once again demonstrated to this
House, and to the country, his almost un-
limited capacity for work and mastery of
provincial affairs.
Mr. Chairman, when exactly a year ago,
on March 5, 1957, I presented the estimates
of this department, sitting in front of me
was the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Clif-
ford R. Magone, Q.C.
Mr. Magone retired as Deputy Attorney-
General at the age of 60 in May of 1957,
after having been continuously in the employ
of the government, and in The Department
ol the Attorney-General, for no less than 45
years. He was appointed on June 12, 1912,
as a messenger in The Department of the
Attorney-General at the salary of $300 per
annum.
It hardly seems possible, and yet it is a
fact, that Mr. Magone was able to retire
at the age of 60 and yet to have worked in
this department for a period equal to half
the number of years from Confederation
through to the date of his retirement, and
to have served under no less than 12 Attor-
neys-General and 10 Prime Ministers.
I am glad to say that the great talent and
ability of Mr. Magone has not been lost to
the government, and his services are from
t'me to time employed in work, not only
arising out of matters within the department
which he served so long, but also in other
538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
departments such as The Department of
Agriculture and The Department of Labour.
Mr. Magone was succeeded by Mr. William
B. Common, Q.C., as Deputy Attorney-
General. Mr. Common has had a long and
a very varied career in the public service of
this province, and I am very fortunate indeed
to have him as Deputy Attorney-General
sitting here with Mr. Hugh Gourley, the
accountant, in front of me at this time.
I am glad also to say that, not only was
Mr. Common's appointment one of promo-
tion within the department, but there have
been several other promotions, demonstrating
a policy which I believe to be in the best
interests of the administration of justice,
namely, promotion within the service where
ability and devotion to duty and qualifica-
tions merit these appointments.
The department lost by death the services
of a devoted pubic servant in the person of
the late Clare P. Hope, Q.C., who, at the
time of his death, was director of public
prosecution, and that office has now been
filled by Mr. William Bowman, Q.C.
The net increase in expenditures, as
reflected in these estimates, over the estimates
for the current year, amount to some $1,393,-
000. This additional amount is required
mainly for the following:
First, for general salary revision effective
October 1 last, and also to provide for a one-
step increase, effective April 1, for members
of the staff who are eligible.
Secondly, authorized increase in strength
of the Ontario provincial police by 100 uni-
formed personnel and 15 civilians.
Thirdly, for 8 additional probation officers.
As the hon. members of this House know,
capital expenditures covering the purchase
of sites, and the erection of buildings for
strictly provincial purposes, is a matter solely
within the jurisdiction of The Department
of Public Works, and therefore, capital items
are not reflected in any statement presented
by me in connection with this department.
I think, however, it may be of some interest
to the hon. members to know that I have
endeavoured to obtain, in a general way only,
an approximate idea of the capital expendi-
tures involved in carrying out and maintain-
ing the services of this department, and also
in relation to buildings such as court houses
and registry offices in the counties, which
were-, over the years, provided by the
counties but which are occupied wholly,
or in part, by officials of this department.
In round figures, the amount of capital
invested is approximately $31 million, of
which about one-half is evidenced by the
37 county court houses and the various
registry offices and jails.
I might add that a recent rapid survey of
construction, proceeding under The Depart-
ment of Public Works on behalf of the
Ontario provincial police, reveals that there
are more projects involving construction going
on at the present time than ever before. Some
65 separate projects are scattered through all
of the 17 Ontario provincial police districts.
I have here a quantity of photographs
showing the stages of construction of these
projects, taken in the depth of winter, per-
haps without intending that these would be
taken as typical. These projects have been
proceeding in an orderly and planned fashion
and the pictures do illustrate how organiza-
tions can maintain a good level of employ-
ment throughout the year.
I do not intend to make any more extended
remarks now, with respect to the various
matters which this House is reviewing in
these estimates. Rather, with your permis-
sion, Mr. Chairman, I will make my remarks
as the various votes are called, as I have
done on previous occasions, and as I feel
some comments or explanations should be
made.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, before you start on the
individual items, will the hon. Attorney-
General permit some general questions that
are not applicable to any one particular
division of the estimates?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, subject to the fact
that I may possibly be going to deal with those
points later on.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Sure, that is true. I have
a number of inquiries that I cannot detail
under any particular item, and with your
permission, I might pursue those at this time.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Might I suggest to my
hon. friend that if he keeps track of what I
say as I go along, I would be only too glad to
pick up what is left over at the end, and in
that way perhaps I will anticipate some of the
accounts.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is fine, as long as
there is an understanding that we can make
the general comments at the end.
On vote 201:
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): On vote 201,
item 12, there are compassionate allowances
to the families of the late Judge J. McKitrick,
the late Constable N. F. Maker, and to
MARCH 5, 1958
539
others not entitled to superannuation allow-
ances as authorized by the hon. Attorney-
General.
Would the hon. Attorney-General tell us
who they may be, or the number, or at least
the names?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, I will be glad to
answer that. Judge McKitrick was judge of
the juvenile family court for the district of
Thunder Bay, and was shot and killed while
performing his duties. Constable Maker was
also killed in the performance of his duties.
The widows of both these men receive full
monthly allowance. The balance is used to
pay a monthly allowance to former employees
of this department who are not eligible to
contribute to the public service superannua-
tion fund. The allowance is based on one-half
the allowance they would have received had
they contributed to the fund.
Is that sufficient? There are 15 in all, I
believe, covered.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Chairman,
I wanted to bring to the attention of the
House a certain case, and possibly it would be
better done by the hon. member for Grenville-
Dundas (Mr. Cass).
Some time ago, there was a constable shot
in the town of Morrisburg in trying to prevent,
I believe, a couple of chaps from getting away
in a car. Now we realize that those smaller
towns do have difficulty in getting policemen
to take on those duties. Their financial posi-
tion is such that they cannot possibly offer a
wage that is comparable to what provincial
police are getting, and it is quite a hazardous
position.
Now, what is going to happen in the case
where a constable is shot in a small town,
where he is employed by that town?
In this case, this was a new Canadian who
was shot and taken to hospital. His wife and
family were on their way to Canada. Now it
was not a very nice reception when she came
off the boat. She was met by those people
from Morrisburg. Her husband was in hos-
pital at that time. He died a few days after-
wards, and of course, the people of Morrisburg
and surrounding districts went all-out to do
what they could to provide a home for her,
and collected a considerable amount of money
on behalf of her and her family.
I was wondering if this fund is sufficient to
look after cases of that kind, because I do not
think it is the duty of a small town or a
village to be placed in that position. They
have difficulty enough in getting a budget to
police their villages, but this man was going
beyond the duties of policing the village. He
was helping to capture convicts who had com-
mitted a crime outside of the village. I was
wondering if the hon. Attorney-General could
comment on that.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: May I say to the hon.
member for Stormont that it is my under-
standing—and I will check this if there is any
question about it— that this constable and his
heirs would be covered by provisions of The
Workmen's Compensation Act, and that there
would be provision in that way, which would
be a normal protection for all the police
officers. I think that is the situation, but if
there is any doubt about that, I will be glad
to have that checked for certain.
Mr. Manley: Further to the question, the
workmen's compensation board, I believe,
just pay according to a certain per cent, of
the wage. Now, in this case, as I said, maybe
the wage of that particular officer was not as
high as it possibly should be, and it is going
to penalize that family and that wife for their
entire lives, maybe.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I will look into the situa-
tion, now that the hon. member has drawn it
to my attention. I will look into it and find
out exactly what the arrangement is, what
the family are getting.
Mr. Manley: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member for Grenville-Dundas would
care to elaborate a bit more, he knows the
case better than I do. It was just an example
I had in this particular case.
Mr. F. M. Cass (Grenville-Dundas): I am
fairly well aware of the circumstances sur-
rounding that case, and I believe that it has
not been drawn to the attention of the hon.
Attorney-General because certain arrange-
ments were made through the workmen's
compensation board, as the hon. Attorney-
General has said, and presumably also there
is the allowance given normally to widows
and their children.
It is a most unfortunate case, to which the
hon. member for Stormont refers, and it is
a case that I think will not suffer by the hon.
Attorney-General looking into as he promised
to do, and insuring that whatever benefit can
be given to this lady and her children— who,
I believe, intend to remain in Canada, and
become good Canadians — should be given,
and I would be very glad to take the hon.
Attorney-General's assurance that he will look
into it, and give him any assistance which I
may.
I would also like to say that, so far as I
know, this matter was not brought to my
attention by any of the authorities concerned,
540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
nor by the widow and her friends, other than
to be advised that the matter was being taken
care of in the ordinary course by the authori-
ties concerned, namely, the workmen's com-
pensation board and The Department of
Public Welfare.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): I was going to
ask the hon. Attorney-General a question
with respect to item No. 4, Crown counsel
prosecutions— $28,000.
I am sorry I have not last year's estimates
before me, as to what the vote was then,
but I notice in the auditors' report the hon.
Minister asked for a treasury board minute,
and treasury board orders of $12,000 of
which $11,844 was actually spent.
I wonder if there has been any change in
the policy of the department with respect to
appointing special Crown prosecutors, just
what circumstances justify the appointment
of such a special officer, and how frequently.
Is it the gravity of the crime which neces-
sitates such an appointment?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would say very defin-
itely, it is the question of gravity. I think
all of the cases involved here— or practically
all of them— were murder cases and rather
difficult ones, and senior counsel experienced
in that field were engaged, and it was felt
that it was necessary. I think in all there were
only a small number, but they were rather
difficult cases. One of them, I think, was the
murder case at Sudbury which eventually
ended up by an appeal, and went through
the courts that way, and I think there was
one at Brock ville, and one in Pembroke.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Regarding
the workmen's compensation board awards
and costs, may I have an explanation of that
figure? It is a small amount of $1,000.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, that amount is
to reimburse the workmen's compensation
board for medical and hospital expenses, and
so on, awarded by the board to employees
of this department who have been injured
in the performance of their duty.
This department does not contribute to the
workmen's compensation board directly, as
in the case of other employers, and this helps
to make good the outgoings in that way.
Mr. Gordon: In the case that has just
been mentioned, of the constable who was
killed in Morrisburg, does that cover cases
like that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: No. This relates to
provincial matters, the other was a local
municipal matter.
Votes 201 and 202 agreed to.
On vote 203:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to make some remarks with your per-
mission. In view of the great interest that
everybody has in highway traffic safety, I
would think it appropriate for me to make
a few remarks here on what this department
has been doing and proposes to do under
this vote.
One of the fields which is certainly ripe
for expansion is the field of local safety
councils. Several councils have been formed
during the current year under the leadership
of the Ontario safety league, assisted con-
stantly by both The Department of Transport
and this department.
One of the ways in which this department
seeks to assist the work of the local safety
council is by supplying it with working tools,
so to speak, in the form of latest informa-
tion available on various subjects leading to
safety, and in this connection the Ontario
provincial police have a number of films and
projectors and officers trained to lecture.
This equipment is also available to indus-
trial and labour organizations having an inter-
est in safety, as well as home and school clubs
and other organizations. Above and beyond
this, we are presently engaged in the prepara-
tion of a 20-minute 16 mm. film to promote
the organization of community safety councils
across the province.
The institution of the traffic court clinic,
so important in influencing the driving public
in the matter of defensive and good driving
habits, has now reached the stage in Ontario
where it is a recognized factor in traffic
safety. There are now 32 actually in existence,
with a number of others in course of organiza-
tion.
Magistrate Johnston Roberts in Niagara
Falls has 3 separate clinics functioning. Those
in Hamilton and Kitchener still lead the way
in going beyond the normal functions of a
traffic court clinic and teaching safe driving
to various groups.
Every one of the almost 50 magistrates who
have attended traffic court conferences in the
United States have come back high in their
praise of the opportunity for studying traffic
methods and other procedures in other juris-
dictions, and exchanging views with the
traffic court judges who are their counterparts
in other parts of the world.
The magistrates of Ontario, at the sugges-
tion of this department, have formed a com-
mittee to study matters of common interest to
the magistrates and the public, and the first
one of these subjects, that of the application
MARCH 5, 1958
.
541
of uniform principles in passing sentence, is
under study by them at this time. Only last
Saturday the first regional meeting of magis-
trates at the instance of this committee took
place in Toronto, at which some 37 magis-
trates attended.
The next meeting will be held in Sudbury,
and subsequent ones in London and Ottawa.
In this way, all magistrates in the province
will have the opportunity of attending and
benefiting by addresses and discussions.
The Ontario provincial police checked over
650,000 cars last year, issued over 220,000
warnings, and laid some 100,000 charges.
They are spending more than 75 per cent, of
their man hours, which includes a substantial
amount of overtime, on traffic work.
The uniform traffic ticket is in force in all
provincial districts in Ontario except in Kenora
and Thunder Bay, and will be in effect there
before the end of this month.
I think the House will be interested to
know, under this question of safety, that a
very comprehensive test in a 31 -mile area has
now been proceeding since February 1,
with a view to ascertaining what constitutes
the model number of police personnel and
police equipment for a given heavily-travelled
area to obtain the maximum results in traffic
safety.
This experiment will be continued for many
months to come, and I am hopeful that we
will learn a great deal from it, and that the
number of accidents in this particular area,
which in the past have been high— 11 people
were killed there in last year— will be very
materially reduced.
The area was not picked, I hasten to say,
because of its bad record, but because of its
suitability for such a test.
New equipment, particularly for use at
night by the force, will shortly be "reflected"
so all can see. But most important of all
—to me I think it is the most important from
a long range viewpoint— will be the research
in the field of police contribution to traffic
safety which we propose to institute as a
permanent branch in the work of the Ontario
provincial police.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I am sure
we are all interested in the comments that the
hon. Attorney-General just made, and I do not
think there is any doubt in the world but that
it is necessary and desirable to carry on these
education programmes. On the other hand,
and separate entirely from that, is the leader-
ship that we should expect and can expect
from the hon. Attorney-General himself.
Now in this respect I would like to ask
the hon. Attorney-General directly how his
campaign has fared. Has the number of
fatalities in the province of Ontario been
decreased, in the course of the last year or two
during the campaign? Also, what does he
think of such things as have been suggested
in this House in strict adherence to a licence
suspension programme? Personally, I do not
like this idea of breathalators and radar and
unpainted police cars and the like. I think
that, in this respect, we are way off base, we
are not interested in catching people, fining
people, we are interested in stopping them
from speeding.
I think the best thing the hon. Attorney-
General can do is to paint the police cars a
distinctive colour so they can be recognized;
have the car designed as a police car, and
have them patrol the main thoroughfares. I
know myself I have often been on the road,
unconscientiously, I am sure the hon. Attor-
ney-General has too—
Mr. Auld: Subconsciously.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, nothing is more
disturbing than to have a police car patrol
at the prevailing speed limit. A driver auto-
matically lowers his speed. On the other hand,
however, nothing infuriates me personally
more— and I am sure it is the same with most
people— than to go along at something in
excess of the speed limit, even unconsciously,
and have somebody come up from the rear in
a car that is unidentified in any manner, and
follow for 10 or 15 miles. The driver gets
the impression: "Well, I am going along at
the prevailing rate," and all of a sudden he
hears a siren behind him, and he realizes that
the driver following is a police officer.
Now that is wholly undignified, that is not
the way to control traffic. I do not like it
personally, and I do not like the idea of other
methods that are being suggested, this use of
radar and the like.
The thing to do is to get out and help
people maintain their prevailing rates of
speed, and if they abuse that, to take their
licences away. Until the hon. Attorney-
General does this, I do not think his cam-
paign is going to be worth anything in
reality. I would like to hear some of his
comments in this respect.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I do not want to get
into a general discussion or debate on safety.
I would be glad to do that at some other
time before the House adjourns if neces-
sary.
But I would just say this, that this is some-
thing on which we are all on common ground,
542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we are all interested in the saving of human
lives, and the prevention of the maiming of
people. How it can be done, or how best
it can be done will, as long as human beings
carry on the way they do, be a problem
and a question mark.
I would point out to the House that The
Department of Transport was set up a year
ago, and when hon. members see the esti-
mates for that department, they will see
that there is contained an amount for a
strenuous and worthwhile continuing cam-
paign. In my view, it is The Department
of Transport which should have been given
the leadership as the governing department
with respect to a good deal of this.
So far as enforcement goes, that is within
the jurisdiction of The Department of the
Attorney-General. We have representatives
working in association with The Department
of Transport, who meet with them as fre-
quently as desired and needed. Those peo-
ple try to co-ordinate the work as much as
possible, and that applies also to education.
I have a number of ideas, and have given
them publicly from time to time, and have
spoken a good many times on this question.
I feel that we have got to constantly keep
studying it, and constantly injecting some
new thoughts and ideas into it, to maintain
constant attention.
Even after the campaign is all over, it
may seem that we have not attained what
we now hope in the way of end results.
The whole year that this campaign went
on, when I first took some part in inaugurat-
ing it, it did show some definite reduction
of accidents. The first month or two, when
a very intensive campaign took place, showed
quite a marked reduction. But you cannot
keep up tempo of that sort indefinitely.
People are keyed up to meet an appeal at
the moment, and we only hope that from time
to time the general public will gain by ex-
perience, and gain by the knowledge of the
dangers which exist, and do a good deal for
themselves.
I do not want to say any more than that at
the present time. I am certainly very much
alive to this problem and I might say that for
a long period— I am not doing it quite as much
now as I have for the last two years— I have
read in detail the death report of everybody
killed on our highways, and a person lives
with a lot of grief if he does that practically
every day of his life. So I am not in any way
aloof from this subject, I can assure the hon.
member of that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would not for a
moment suggest that the hon. Attorney-
General is aloof from it, and I am sure he is
personally very interested. But my complaint
is simply this:
Sure, we Want to educate the people and
sure we are all desirous of keeping down the
death rate. It is a platitudinous thing for all
of us to suggest that we are in favour of
reducing the number of accidents and deaths
—that, we are all agreed on. The question is,
how are we going to do it? And I merely
respectfully submit to the hon. Attorney-
General that thus far the campaign has not
been successful.
On the other hand, I took the opportunity
a few days ago to suggest that in Connecticut
they have succeeded. And I think the dis-
tinction between the two efforts is solely in
the fact that, in Connecticut, they have taken
an iron hand in this particular respect and
said what they mean. They said: "If you are
caught speeding, your licence goes." And
they have said that speeding is the cause of
accidents.
Now, I am not one who would say that just
because a motorist goes over 50 miles an hour,
he should be fined and have his licence taken
away. But the hon. Attorney-General knows
and I know that in certain areas it is dangerous
to speed, or go over a certain speed limit-
now, in those instances everybody with
common sense knows that.
What does the hon. Attorney-General think
about cancelling licences and suspending them
and meaning it in those respects? Why has
he not done something about it? It is all
right to talk about it, and we will talk about
it for another 10 years, but I do not think, in
all that talking, that we will carry out what I
think is an immediately necessary programme.
I can be wrong, I am not sure, but from my
personal investigation the answer is as simple
as 1, 2, 3. The hon. Attorney-General has to
get tough, and the only way to get tough is
to take away licences.
People will not stop speeding to save their
lives, unfortunately, that is human nature.
One can preach from now to doomsday, but
everyone thinks he is the exception, but the
one thing he does not want to happen is to
have his licence taken away. And until this
approach is made and is meant, and brought
about in an effective way, the hon. Attorney-
General will not make any substantial contri-
bution to accident prevention.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I appreciate the views of
the hon. member on that. I will say that
perhaps he was so preoccupied yesterday, in
MARCH 5, 1958
543
the preparation for his address, that he did
not hear the remarks of the hon. Minister of
Transport (Mr. Allan) when I think he indi-
cated action in the future and near future
along the very lines the hon. member has
mentioned.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The thing is, what does
the hon. Attorney-General think about it? Is
he going to do it?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, there is no ques-
tion about the enforcement end of what the
law is, and I am sure that nobody-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. Attorney-
General going to start suspending licences in
a realistic fashion?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Of course, any question
of suspension of a licence, so far as the
enforcement branch is concerned, is in the
hands of the magistrate.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But is the hon. Attorney-
General not the man who must give leader-
ship?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I can do nothing in
respect to that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But that is an acknowl-
edgment of defeat.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I said a few moments
ago that we were endeavouring to get the
application of uniform principles in sentences
studied very carefully by magistrates, but the
question of suspension of a licence under The
Highway Traffic Act is one on which, as the
hon. Minister here has already indicated, a lot
of work has been going on in The Depart-
ment of Transport. As I understood him
yesterday, he is coming along with some very
definite recommendations.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): I, too, have been
very interested with the remarks, not only of
the hon. Attorney-General, but of my col-
league for Waterloo North, and I would like
to approach it from a slightly different angle
as far as enforcement goes. Now, the hon.
Attorney-General has said this year they have
taken 100 additional uniformed provincial
police on the force—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: We have taken more
than that this year. We have the authority
to pass this budget for another 100 starting
April 1. I think the number who were taken
on this year was 160, or something like that.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I am not at all sure
that is enough by any means, because I think,
if we are going to have traffic safety, that we
need policemen to be sure that the traffic on
highways of this province is safe. And when
we think of the 100 additional uniformed
police, and realize that perhaps they only
work for approximately 40 hours a week or
thereabouts, why really it means there are
only an additional 25 policemen on duty at
any one time— 25 additional policemen on
duty across this whole province.
I suggest to the hon. Attorney-General
that this is not a great number by any means,
and I suggest in comparison to the per-
centage of automobiles and trucks in this
province, that instead of increasing the police
force on a percentage basis, we are going
behind.
Now I do not know how many policemen
he needs, but I do suggest that he does not
have enough.
And I am in perfect agreement with my
hon. colleague from Waterloo North when he
states that one of the primary reasons for
the automobile accidents and casualties in
this province or anywhere else is because
people drive too quickly. And until some-
thing is done by The Department of the
Attorney-General to make the penalty severe
enough so people will stop driving at a ter-
rific rate of speed, then these accidents are
going to continue.
I further suggest this. Perhaps hon. mem-
bers might think this would be said jokingly,
if it were not such a serious subject. But
there is one other cause for accidents in this
province, and there is no doubt about it at
all. The first one is speeding, and the second
one is that there are too many drivers who
are having alcoholic beverages while they
are driving cars. If we could eliminate the
speeders, and if we could eliminate drinking
drivers in this province, I suggest that the
automobile casualties would be cut to a
very, very small percentage.
It is all very well for the hon. Attorney-
General to pass the suggestion over to the
hon. Minister of Transport, and we are going
to hear what that hon. Minister has to say.
But the people of this province want to
know what the hon. Attorney-General is
going to do, because all of us feel there
are far, far too many accidents, and the
hon. member for Waterloo North and myself
are suggesting now that two of the primary
reasons for accidents in this province are,
firstly, that we go too fast; and secondly,
that there is too much driving done by
drivers who have been drinking.
I would like to see some teeth put into
the law because it may be, as the hon. mem-
ber for Waterloo North says, we all think we
544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are the exception, we are not going to lose
our lives, but the brutal fact is that there are
many, many people who are killed or severely
maimed on the highways of this province
over any one-year period, and we would like
to see something done— teeth put in the law
—so these drivers who are a menace to the
highways are forced to cease driving.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I do not want to
labour the point, but the question of putting
teeth into the law is not the whole question.
The whole problem is much broader and
much deeper than that. But to the extent
that any of us can do anything to help solve
it, why we are all on common ground.
An hon. member: Taking the beer out of
the bottles.
Mr. Nixon: May I ask the hon. Attorney-
General a question? A couple of years ago
he made some effort to find out what railway
crossings in the province were particularly
dangerous, and what might be eliminated by
grade eliminations, and also where warning
signals might be erected. I wonder how suc-
cessful his efforts in that regard were. Has
the hon. Attorney-General any records as to
the number of railway crossings that had
warning signals erected, and if there were
any cases of grade elimination?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I appreciate what the
hon. member for Brant refers to, because I
know he had several problems in his own
area. The hon. Prime Minister has given me
the information that there are 3 actively
under construction in the area of his home
town, so that there is some activity going on
throughout the province. But the fact of the
matter is that such efforts did, I think,
shake down the then Liberal administration
in Ottawa so that they made available several
times the amount of money— and I give them
credit for that— than they had been making
available before.
Subject to these people distributing that
across the country, I think we have been
getting a reasonable proportion of it in the
province of Ontario. But still the question of
catching up with level crossings is just one of
those further problems. With the growth that
is going on, and with the number of new
roads that are being built, and the number
of new crossings being constructed, it is a
pretty difficult job to get ahead of the game.
Mr. Nixon: Does the hon. Attorney-General
not think we should start out by laying down
the rule that certainly no new level crossings
on important highways should ever be toler-
ated?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could bring a little
light to this. I may say that we were so
energetic in our elimination of level crossings,
during the last year, that the entire amount
of money of the federal government was used
up. As a matter of fact, in Ontario we used
much more than our share. We used the share
that belonged to other provinces because the
other provinces had not gone along with the
work and did not require the money.
However, with that excellent government
that is now at Ottawa, the fund has been in-
creased from $5 million to $15 million, and
hon. members may be sure that in The
Department of Highways and in supporting
municipalities, we are going ahead with the
elimination of level crossings at a much
greater speed now than was possible before.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, we are all very
much interested in this safety programme
and the results that have been obtained over
the last few years.
Of course, for some comparison to see how
successful this campaign has been, I would
like to ask the hon. Attorney-General at this
time just how many people were killed in
each of the last 3 years on the highways of
the province of Ontario, and what the amount
of property damage was for each of the 3
years. That will show whether or not we have
been successful in this campaign on safety.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: In reply to that question,
I would say that I was not at all happy with
the 12 months of 1957. I forecast some 10
weeks, I think, before the end of the year, that
at the rate we were going we would end up
with a worse number of fatalities in 1957 than
in 1956. Actually, we did, and I think it was
something like— would it be 5 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Just the slightest bit above
the year before, and in comparison to the
traffic figures, I think it will be down.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, my hon. friend
and I have a difference of opinion on the
question of comparison with anything. I take
dead people and count them as dead, and I
say that, at least, we should have the objec-
tive to lower that number, I do not care how
many cars there are on the road.
My approach on that is to say I am sorry
we did not do any better than we did.
But I also want to say that nobody can
point the finger at anybody else in this
problem. That problem starts right at the
local municipality— and I think there is a
good one in Waterloo North and in Waterloo
South because I see my hon. friend showing
MARCH 5, 1958
545
attention at once— I would say equally good
in Waterloo South. Give the necessary con-
centration, give the necessary leadership at
the local level, and we will do a lot to scare,
if nothing else, drivers from doing anything
but what is proper in that area.
Now that is the grass-roots beginning of
it, and without that kind of co-operation, the
further we get away from the problem the
more difficult it is.
I only say that, in relation to this, that
just a few days ago one of the leading sena-
tors in the United States announced that
he was going to introduce, into the senate,
a resolution to start to form what he called
a "president's committee"— they have some
sort of a president's organization there already
—but a president's committee to take full
responsibility for co-ordinating this effort to
avoid all the duplication that is going on,
and thus get a real concentrated effort all
along the line. I have been advocating a
similar sort of thing for two years on this
side of the line.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Attorney-
General is the only man who can do it. Why
does he not?
Mr. Roberts: Well, I thought we made
progress last year when we reported that we
had this new Department of Transport, which
I think is going to show very definite results.
If it does not show definite results, I will be
the first one to start pointing a finger at it.
Mr. Manley: The hon. Attorney-General
has run all around my question. I asked him
how many people were killed on the high-
ways of the province of Ontario, for each of
the last 3 years, and what the property
damage was in dollars and cents. Now if he
has not got the information, I think the House
should—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I have that informa-
tion-
Mr. Manley: That is the only way he can
measure the success of this campaign.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is a question that
I think we would have to take time to get
the correct figures on. I know that the figure
was 856 on the highways over which the
Ontario provincial police had jurisdiction last
year, and it was increased, of course, by cities
and all the rest, up to over 1,000. But if
the hon. member wants the exact figures, I
would have to get them because I do not
carry them in my mind.
The question of property damage is one of
calculation and estimate, but it is substantial,
there is no question about that.
Mr. Manley: Well, Mr. Chairman, will the
hon. Attorney-General promise to give the
House this information? I think it is impor-
tant.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I gave it last
year and the hon. member will find it in
Hansard last year. I will get it again before
the House rises, and I will put it on the
record again, if he would like it, for this
year. I also think it is important.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I notice the
appropriation has been cut. Last year it
was $122,000, and this year it is down to
$60,000. Can we take, from those sums, that
this programme has not proven itself? That
it has not been effective in doing what it was
set up to do in the first place?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No. The Department
of Transport has the main carriage in this,
and we were handling only certain parts of
it, certain advertising, certain parts in con-
nection with local councils, certain parts in
connection with lecturing and providing peo-
ple to go out and demonstrate, and the other
things which I mentioned earlier in my sum-
mary. We found from experience that if we
kept to that work, and The Department of
Transport kept to certain other lines, we
would hope to get a better co-ordinated
effort. That is the reason for it.
Mr. G. Innes ( Oxford ) : Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Attorney-General stated most em-
phatically that he believes this safety pro-
gramme should start from the level of the
local municipality and, to some extent, I agree.
But I suggest most strongly that there is no
more deterrent to accidents than those white
and black cars that drive up and down high-
ways of the province of Ontario. Now I
would like to know this. How many pro-
vincial police has he, and how many of
them are actually patrolling the highways of
the province?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member will
get that in a few moments under provincial
police.
Mr. A. J. Reaume ( Essex North ) : I would
like to ask the hon. Attorney-General if they
are making any effort to make a survey of
the narrow bridges on these main highways
that are running throughout the province.
We have several in our county, one right on
highway No. 2, and another one north of
the county.
Now we have made wonderful progress on
the highways, and these bridges are still
there as they were originally, and the ap-
546
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
proaches to them are wide. The driver
comes up to these bridges, and only one
car can pass through them. Now I want to
know if there is any survey being made, any
study along safety lines. I ask because I
think it is most important.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I might
answer that question, and I might say to the
hon. member for Oxford, as I said to the hon.
member for Waterloo North, that if he would
read the plan that we have prepared so care-
fully and so diligently, he would have all that
information in that plan. We will tell him the
number of bridges that need to be replaced,
and we are replacing those as speedily as it
is possible to do so. Every person thinks that,
because he has one narrow bridge in his area,
that it is the only one in the province.
But I have forgotten the number. I do
not have my study here but I think it is
about 2,000 of those bridges in the province,
and it does take some time. The problem is
recognized, and certainly the bridges are
being replaced as fast as it is possible to
proceed.
A great many of those bridges, of course,
are on municipal roads.
Mr. Chairman: Let us stick to The Depart-
ment of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Innes: I think this concerns the hon.
Attorney-General's department. It has to do
with safety, and I think that safety is involved
in the existence of these narrow bridges in
this province. I would think that the accident-
prevention department has the figures on
how many accidents occur at these narrow
bridges, and it would be to the safety com-
mittee's benefit to inquire from this statistical
branch and find out which of these bridges
should be eliminated first, and not just take
them anywhere hit-and-miss across the prov-
ince. If there are 10 people killed at a certain
bridge, I think it should have a preference.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would say very defi-
nitely, in all the work that our police have
been doing in connection with accidents,
there has been a liaison right along with the
engineers of The Department of Highways,
and I myself on occasion, when I have been
out in the country, have noted certain things
that have been brought to my attention, and
I have taken them up at once with the depart-
ment, and asked them to send engineers out
there and take a look. I mean, that is going
on all the time.
Mr. Reaume: If the engineers are out
having a look, I want to say that it is pretty
near time that they were out, because up
our way about half of the accidents which
occur on our streets, or the highways of the
province, are actually caused by holes in the
road.
So that is fine. If the engineers are out,
tell them to come up to our part of the
country, and they will find up there that the
roads and highways of the province have not
been touched. Now, I have one road in mind
in particular. It is highway No. 39. I do not
think, now that the hon. Attorney-General is
speaking of The Department of Highways
along with his, that they have poured a
spoonful of tar on 15 miles of road since I
have been a member for that area.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We are waiting for a new
hon. member.
Mr. Reaume: I did not hear that.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We are waiting for a new
hon. member.
Mr. Reaume: There will not be a new hon.
member. I am coming back again.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We will put the tar on
then.
Mr. Reaume: Let the hon. Minister put it
on now.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. member is
going out with Paul.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I must say it is
nice to hear from the hon. member. I thought
he was held up, not by holes in the road, but
by snowdrifts.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I do not know who is
holding up the hon. Attorney-General. But
I will say this, that if it was not for the fact
that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) holds
him up, he would fall down.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the hon. Attorney-General if he has looked
into the possibility of having a more sure
answer to the difference between impaired
driving and drunken driving. Does he have a
prescribed definition between impaired driv-
ing and drunken driving?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Those both are offences
under the criminal code. Taking a look at the
statistics and the results, I do not have any
particular quarrel at the present time with
the wording of the two sections.
MARCH 5, 1958
547
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, under this
traffic safety programme, we all know what it
costs to advertise in our local newspapers, and
all the hon. members here know what it
costs to advertise when they are in an election
campaign. So I look at this amount for
$12,000. Just how much advertising does the
department do for $12,000 in connection with
a traffic safety programme?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I might say that
this, of course, does not represent the whole
advertising across the board on safety, by any
means. But it did represent the amount of
advertising that was done on certain special
occasions, 3 or 4 times, I think, in some of the
daily and weekly newspapers, in relation to
some special safety effort at that particular
time. I think the latest one was in connection
with rural safety week a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Chairman, almost all the relevant
questions have been asked, so I will ask what
might be termed irrelevant, the opposite to
that.
I wanted to ask the hon. Attorney-General
two things in respect to the vote itself. The
vote this year is for $60,000, last year it was
for $122,000.
Now, the hon. Attorney-General says that
much of this work is being transferred to The
Department of Transport. Now, what justi-
fication, I ask the hon. Attorney-General, is
there for a continuance of this vote under
the hon. Attorney-General's department? If it
is being transferred to The Department of
Transport, why should it not all be trans-
ferred there?
He said just a moment ago that certain
special programmes or certain special broad-
casts were under his department. Why should
they not all be under The Department of
Transport, because the way that this vote
has dwindled in the last year, suggests that
either he is not conscious of the work that
the traffic safety programme can do, or else
that he is, by a process, putting it over into
The Department of Transport. Now if he is
going to put some of it over there, why not
put it all over?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I do not think
that is quite the effect. Actually, when we
asked for certain funds we did not know
exactly what we needed, and we asked for
what we thought would be sufficient. Our
experience from what we did the previous
year, on the amount that was required, was
actually nearer what we are asking for now
than what we asked for a year ago.
We spent something like $65,000 out of
the amount that was voted last year. This
year we are asking for $60,000, but I am
quite convinced that the type of work that is
going on in the enforcement end of this safety
programme, does require financing along these
lines, and I think it would be a great mistake
to eliminate it. It is strictly in the enforce-
ment field, working in conjunction with The
Department of Transport.
Vote 203 agreed to.
On vote 204:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, in rela-
tion to this, it may be of some help to the
hon. members who are following the votes,
that votes Nos. 204, 205 and 206 were
formerly known as "supreme court of On-
tario," and they have been broken down for
a little more particularity.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I added
the 3 together, and there is a substantial dif-
ference between last year and this. Could
we have an explanation of that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think the difference
is made up chiefly in the amount of equip-
ment that has been purchased— some micro-
filming equipment to meet this new process,
as hon. members know, of keeping records
with much less space requirements than for-
merly, and dictation equipment.
I might say that the supreme court judges,
both in the appeal and surrogate courts, feel
that dictation equipment is a very great assist-
ance to them, and we have been adding a
quantity of units each year in the last couple
of years to make diose facilities available
to assist them in their work.
Votes 204 to 208, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 209:
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the hon. Attorney-General whether this
is a new office, is this an office that was
created by virtue of recent legislation?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I was just going to
say that the director of titles is a new office,
and he is charged with the responsibility of
administration of all land title matters
throughout the province, formerly adminis-
tered by the respective legal offices. It was
felt that the person who was in that field
exclusively could deal with the problems
in a much more intelligent and expeditious
manner.
Mr. Oliver: Whose $65,000?
548
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, it is distributed
amongst several. The master of titles— the
director of titles— gets a portion of it, and two
or three of his staff get parts of it. The staff
is actually at the main office of the master of
titles here in Toronto.
Vote 209 agreed to:
On vote 210:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I am
going to make a remark on vote 210. I think
the hon. members of this House will share
my satisfaction in the fact that the laboratory
of the Attorney-General ranks very high
among the laboratories of a similar type,
on this continent, with respect to space,
equipment, personnel, and application of
laboratory methods. It is now housed in
much better quarters than previously.
Requests are received almost daily about
various phases of "lab" work, from other
laboratories in Canada and many in the
United States, England, Sweden, Australia
and Japan.
The case load handled by the staff of this
laboratory has increased by the rate of 25
per cent, each year.
Last year, the staff conducted over 1,900
examinations. Approximately half of these
cases involve alcohol determinations in con-
nection with cases of murder, assaults and
driving while intoxicated or impaired. The
other half of the cases involved examination
of a wide variety of materials, bloodstains,
bullets, powder markings, paints, and so on,
and the identification of these materials
supplies law enforcement officers with in-
formation which often results in convictions,
modification of charges, or a new line to
follow when investigating a crime.
Vote 210 agreed to.
On vote 211:
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, this— oh, the
hon. Attorney-General wants to speak? Let
him go ahead.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I want to make some
comment on vote 211, because I think this is
a very important work, and one in which the
government can take justifiable satisfaction
in the progress which has been made.
The amazing growth of probation services
in this province is evident from a comparison
of the situation in 1953, at which time the
government put into effect its plan of
increasing probation service.
In 1953 there were 13 provincial probation
officers serving the criminal courts in 4 cities
only: Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London.
At the present time, there are 118 provincial
probation officers serving criminal courts in
all but one of the 48 judicial jurisdictions
within the province.
During 1957, 30 probation officers were
appointed to the provincial staff, 12 being
replacements and 18 being new appointments,
and as I indicated at the outset there will be
8 new probation officers appointed this year.
This increase in the provincial probation
staff has encouraged the forming of juvenile
and family courts so that the number of such
courts total 49. These courts enable the most
modern methods to be used in dealing with
delinquent children. In 1957, over 4,000
such children were under official probation
supervision of the juvenile courts, while well
over another 4,000 were counselled by the
probation staff without formally appearing in
court.
In addition to counselling children, the
probation staff counselled over 30,000 cases
involving marital discord. From these figures
it will be seen that an important part is
played by probation officers in striking at one
of the major causes of juvenile delinquency,
the broken home.
The development of probation services is
also justified from a purely financial stand-
point. During the past year, some $2.75
million was collected by juvenile and family
courts from deserting husbands and fathers,
and paid to these men's dependants, thus
effecting a considerable saving in terms of
public welfare. Over $60,000 was collected
from adult offenders by way of restitution
and return to the aggrieved parties.
In addition, it is estimated that 8,500 adult
offenders on probation, who were all gain-
fully employed during their probation period,
earned about $15 million which was channeled
back into the economy of the province.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, how many
did the hon. Attorney-General have on proba-
tion who broke probation rules or had to come
back again to the courts? Does he have that
number?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I might be able to get
some idea of that from the director of proba-
tion services if that could be ascertained. Does
the hon. member want the number who have
broken parole in 1957?
Mr. Manley: On probation.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I will get that perhaps
before I go.
MARCH 5, 1958
549
Mr. Manley: While that information is
being sought, I would like to ask a supple-
mentary question of the hon. Attorney-
General, and that is, does he think there are
sufficient probation officers in the province at
the present time, and if it is his intention to
continue to add probation officers throughout
the province?
Personally, I think it has proven out very
well, and that they have been a wonderful
asset to the province, not only from a personal
point of view but for the amounts of money
that have been saved, as was pointed out
earlier. Therefore, I would like the hon.
Attorney-General to comment as to how many
more probation officers he thinks should be
added to carry out the service effectively in
the province at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I would say in
answer to the hon. member's question that
we have been moving along what was really
a planned economy— I was going to say a
planned economy in probation— if you want
to put it that way. But back in 1953, when
the service was instituted, there was a 5- or
6-year plan laid out by the director, and we
have been moving within it and fairly close
to those original estimates, and we are now
just reaching the end of that particular plan.
I have no doubt that the active type of
gentleman, who is director, will have ideas
at least for a further expansion, but I must
not only deal with him, I must also deal with
the hon. members of this House, and there
are some different viewpoints on how far
we should go in this field. But we feel, in this
particular allowance this year, that we are
making some further progress in line with
the plan.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, could the hon.
Attorney-General give us any indication as
to what the case load is of each one of those
probation officers at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I do not know
what would be termed a "case load." They
talk of case loads to me from time to time,
but I think it is within the ability of these
people to do their jobs, most of them get
their work done within the period.
There may be a few cases where they are
overloaded, but we do not have to leave this
building to find people who are overloaded.
I think that is the sort of situation which
comes and goes, depending on the volume of
work. I am not too impressed with the prob-
lems of overloading and case loads myself, I
think we are making good progress.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Last year, I believe,
this was a statutory vote, now this year it
seems to be needed to be voted on. Now, can
the hon. Attorney-General give us an explana-
tion for the change?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am afraid I will have
to ask the hon. member to repeat that
question.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Last year, I believe, this
particular vote was a statutory vote, or at
least as far as I can gather. This year it is
not. Now is there an explanation?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It was at the suggestion
of the treasury board that the vote was
brought in, in this manner, this year. The
Act has accordingly been amended.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The Probation Act?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Vote 211 agreed to.
On vote 212:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to make some remarks too about the fire
marshal's office. We have so many interesting
branches in this department that I do not
want to leave any of them out, now that we
are dealing with them.
A few remarks regarding the general history
of the fire marshal's office would be of interest
to the hon. members of this House. The
office was organized in 1916 to investigate
incendiary fires, and was considerably ex-
panded in 1921 to carry out fire prevention
activities, such as fire inspections of buildings
and advising municipalities on their fire
departments.
Some 14 years ago, the administration of
The Fire Departments Act was transferred to
the fire marshal's office.
One of the most important developments
in the entire history of this office took place in
August, 1957, with the purchase of premises
near Gravenhurst for the use of a residential
fire college. This is the first residential fire
college established anywhere in Canada. It
has a great deal of work to do.
I think it is of real interest to know that
it reflects perhaps, in the very purchase of
the ground, some wonderful research work
that has been going on in the field of tuber-
culosis, because we are using certain build-
ings formerly used by the national council
of tuberculosis, but are no longer required
by them, because of the fact there are far
fewer bed patients than formerly using those
facilities.
The property itself covers some 92 acres,
and has 6 existing buildings which will
550
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
accommodate some 30 students at a time.
The courses will run from May to October,
and cover training in different phases of fire
department operation.
Fire research will also be carried on at
the fire college, particular attention being
given to the testing, under Canadian weather
conditions, of new developments and fire
fighting techniques. For example, at present,
research is being carried out on a new type
of plastic hose used extensively in Great
Britain and Europe.
Under the supervision of the fire marshal's
office, a mutual aid system has been built
up in the 38 counties of the province, based
on hose tread standardization. The extension
of this mutual aid system made available
for civil defense a total of 350 fire pumpers.
The fire marshal is responsible for develop-
ing civil defence fire training throughout the
province, and a few weeks ago the fire
marshal was named by the hon. Minister of
Planning and Development (Mr. Nickle), as
associate civil defence co-ordinator for the
province.
Under the 1957 regulations to The Fire
Marshal's Act, the new advisory committee
to the fire marshal's office was authorized.
This committee consists of two representatives
from the Ontario mayors' association, one
municipal fire chief, the provincial president
of the fire fighters' union, two representatives
from the fire insurance field and two rep-
resentatives from the general public. It not
only gives valuable advice and policy, but
reviews proposed legislation.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Attorney-General say that there are some
areas, in the province of Ontario now, that
do not have these uniform couplings? Are
some of them still without the uniform
couplings?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: They are all uniform
now. I have the fire marshal in the wings,
and he indicates that I am giving the right
answer.
Vote 212 agreed to.
On vote 213:
Mr. Oliver: I would like to ask the hon.
Attorney-General if there has been an increase
in the tax on insurance premiums, which is
ordinarily construed as being the revenue for
the fire marshal's office. The increase is from
Vz to % of one per cent. Now, what has
been the increase in revenue?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The increase in revenue
will run somewhere from $220,000 or there-
abouts to $450,000, but the extent of the
work, and the work in connection with the
college, fire college and so forth will involve
an additional expenditure.
Might I, while I am on my feet, just say
that this figure has been handed to me.
During 1957, some 1,290 violators— this is on
the probation question— were reported to the
court. Of these, 748 were ordered by the court
to appear and were sentenced.
Vote 213 agreed to.
On vote 214:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, the work
of the Ontario securities commision has ma-
terially changed during the past few years.
In the 1920's the operation of bucket shops
appeared to be the main problem. Ten years
ago, industrial issues were second.
In the calendar year 1947, some 114 in-
dustrial issues were accepted for filing as
against 109 mining and oil isues. Today,
it is also to be noted, there is a definite trend
towards large-scale financing on real estate
ventures including shopping centres, which
present many complicated problems.
While fraud, relating to securities, gener-
ally speaking has not materially increased, it
would appear that the pattern of investigation
by the commission has become more compli-
cated and extensive, requiring increased staff
and the insuring of additional administrative
expenses.
A dangerous pattern has developed by
operators, often outside the jurisdiction of the
Ontario securities commission, getting control
of Ontario companies having substantial
liquid assets, and siphoning off these assets
through improvident acquisition of properties
and the purchase of questionable securities.
Extensive and complicated investigations
have been made in respect to the following
companies :
Bun stun Mining Co. Ltd.
Micre Co. of Canada Ltd.
Cabanga Development
Ltd.
Triton and Uranium
Mines Ltd.
Can. All Metal Explora-
tion Ltd.
Brilund Mines Ltd.
Burchell Lake Mines Ltd.
Charges of theft laid.
Fraud charges laid in-
volving one Peter Crosby.
Theft and fraud charges
laid.
Charges — false filing.
Charges laid.
Under investigation.
Under investigation.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Attorney- General say if those were
stocks listed on the Toronto stock exchange?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Some of them, but not
all of them. A number of them were.
MARCH 5, 1958
551
Mr. Whicher: How many were delisted
from the Toronto stock exchange last year?
How many stocks?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well I cannot tell the
hon. member how many in all, but I can say
this, that quite recently the Toronto stock
exchange has shown considerably more
interest in solving the very problem that has
been brought out by some of these investiga-
tions. It has, as perhaps my hon. friend has
seen by reading the papers a few weeks ago,
put into effect certain requirements with
respect to certain types of issues. Definite
information must be furnished when sub-
stantial sections of the assets of such com-
panies are being moved out, or control is
changing, or various things of that sort. The
problem, of course, is not confined to listed
issues by any means.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Attorney-General
intimated that charges were laid in several
instances for violation. In how many instances
were they able to make the charges stick?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, these that I have
mentioned are all pending cases, I just men-
tioned them because they relate to the subject
matter I was referring to, that of evidence of
siphoning off assets and that sort of thing.
There are 7 cases, listed here, where charges
have been laid, and the matter is before the
courts at the present time. There are two
cases under definite investigation.
Vote 214 agreed to.
On vote 215.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: This is the vote on the
inspector of legal offices, Mr. Chairman. As
the name implies, the inspector of legal
offices is responsible for the administration
of all legal offices in the 48 counties and dis-
tricts of the province. That includes the offices
of magistrates, Crown attorneys, sheriffs, local
registrars of the supreme court, court clerks,
clerks of registrar, juvenile and family courts,
and division courts.
The increase in the volume of work in all
these offices reflects the continuing growth of
Ontario. As a lawyer, I have derived great
satisfaction from the fact that the responsible
offices of magistrate and Crown attorney are
attracting able young lawyers perhaps as
never before. Of the recent appointments to
these offices, 4 magistrates, 4 Crown attorneys,
and 5 assistant attorneys are under the age
of 40 years.
Mr. Wintermeyer: With respect to item No.
5, that is "salaries of Crown attorneys," that
figure is substantially up from last year. Now,
is that indicative of the fact that more and
more Crown attorneys are being put on direct
salaries?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I shall just get the exact
number.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is item No. 5.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That certainly is the
tendency, to put on salary those who are on
fees, where they are in jurisdictions whose
business warrants them being on full-time
salary.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Can the hon. Attorney-
General tell us what percentage of the magis-
trates are on fee basis at the present time,
and what percentage of the magistrates in the
province are paid on a direct salary basis?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Magistrates? All magis-
trates are!
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, I am sorry, it is
Crown attorneys.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The actual figure on
Crown attorneys— I think the figure is 20 who
are on fee basis, the balance would be on full
time. Within the last few months, 3 have
come over from a fee basis to full time, and
there is a resignation in the case of one who
did not feel that he could afford, at his age,
to give up his practice and come over on a
full-time basis. Whoever is appointed to that
particular position will be on a full-time basis.
We are moving in that direction quite rapidly.
Mr. Oliver: What about sheriffs and
registrars of deeds throughout the province,
are they all on salary?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: All on salary.
Mr. Nixon: Well, on the sheriff vote, item
No. 7, "he is the only one," and so on, what
does that mean? The hon. Attorney-General
does not have that with the Crown attorneys.
Is that the cost of the office or what?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: No, I think that is— is not
that all in the list of people I read out?
Mr. Nixon: It seems to be a very large vote
—over $1.5 million, when the Crown attorneys
are something under $600,000—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That item covers sheriffs,
local registrars, and the supreme court clerks,
county court clerks, certificate registrars and
I suppose their staffs.
Mr. Nixon: Oh! That includes the whole
works!
552
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Something over 350
employees in that group.
Vote 215 agreed to.
On vote 216:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to say that $1 per capita allowance,
provided for last year, in aid of the municipal-
ities for the administration of justice, has
made a considerable difference in this vote.
You, sir, would be interested to know that
$4,618,000, based on the $1 per assessed
capita formula, was paid out to the constituent
municipalities in 1957. This figure is based
on the total population except for inmates of
mental institutions, personnel of defence
work, and Indians on reservations, which latter
group will be included in this year's pay-
ments.
Mr. Nixon: Why not make it retroactive,
so as to give us all a fair break now?
Mr. Oliver: Well, we did not want to in-
crease the provincial debt any more.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Does that amount, the
grant, the sum of $4 million, appear in the
estimates of The Department of Municipal
Affairs? Is that where it appears in the
estimates?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Vote 216 agreed to.
On vote 217:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, 1957 is
what is termed as a happy year for the
Ontario provincial police, as general head-
quarters was transferred from a very small
house — small in relation to their work — on
Queen's Park Crescent to a large, modern
3-storey stone building on Fleet Street.
The new building not only houses the
garage on the main floor, but all administra-
tion offices of the Ontario provincial police
as well as No. 5 district headquarters.
Shortly after transferring to the new build-
ing, a teletype system was installed, which
connects the general headquarters with 15
district headquarters. Teletype service has
proved of tremendous value in the general
administration of the force.
The estimates provide for 100 uniformed
personnel, and recruiting will start April 1.
The force is now at the full authorized
strength, 1,730.
Mr. Whicher: I wonder if the hon.
Attorney-General would tell us— of that 1,730,
approximately how many would be patrolling
the highways of this province?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Three-quarters of the
force is the round figure that is taken as
being on highway duty. Yes, the commis-
sioner's report, which was tabled in the
House a few days ago, gives very detailed
information in relation to the work on patrol
and the general work of the force.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I suggest to the hon.
Attorney-General that this is the place where
he could resolutely back his highways safety
campaign, really help it out. Obviously 1,200
men are not enough people to patrol the
highways of this province, when we consider
there are not more than probably a quarter
of them on duty at any one time.
They work only so many days a week, and
they work so many hours a day, and using
that figure of 25 per cent, of the force on
duty at any particular time, it means that we
have 300 people patrolling the highways in
the province which extend many thousands
of miles.
I would suggest to the hon. Attorney-
General and his department, if they really
want to have highway safety in this province
of Ontario, that there is one way to do it,
and that is to get more men patrolling the
highways so that the offenders of speeding
laws and other traffic infringements can be
caught and properly dealt with by the
proper authorities.
That is the only way in which we are going
to cut down on the highway fatalities, and I
strongly suggest to the hon. Attorney-General
that, if he says at the present time the total
number he can have, according to the rules
and regulations, is 1,730— well I think that it—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Up to 1,830 now.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I strongly suggest that
there should be many, many more provincial
police in this province, if the hon. Attorney-
General really wants to get to the cause of
accidents. We must have people with more
white cars for patrolling our highways.
Mr. J. Spence ( Kent East ) : Mr. Chairman,
may I ask the hon. Minister a question? Are
the Ontario provincial police using unmarked
cars to enforce the law in the province? If
they are, what results are they having with
that procedure? Is this a good thing?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Speaking of unmarked
cars—
MARCH 5, 1958
553
Mr. Spence: Yes?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, approximately
10 per cent, of the total number. There are
some 600-odd cars, and I think there are
about 60-odd that are unmarked, and only
used for special purposes.
Of course, some of them are used for
purposes having nothing to do with highway
traffic patrolling. But it is felt that a certain
number are advisable, and these are used
wisely in connection with the province. How-
ever, the great bulk of them are marked.
I might say, as I mentioned in my address,
that if any hon. member sees fit to travel
for 31 miles— the hon. Minister of Labour
(Mr. Daley), I guess, knows the location
of it-
Mr. Nixon: Maybe the rest of us should
know too.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: —he will see there,
especially at night, the use of these new
types of revolving reflector lights, and other
types of equipment on the personnel. These
make it evident that everything possible is
being done to draw the attention of people
using the roads to the fact that they are in
the vicinity of these patrol cars.
These cars in themselves, the fact that
they are known to be there, I am sure
do assist in keeping down speed.
But what we are trying to do in this 31-
mile area is to find over a period of months,
what is the "perfect patrol" figure. It will
take months to get a pattern to say what
really might constitute the perfect number
that we are referring to, and to what extent
that could be applied in similar areas in the
more congested sections of the province.
I might say that that particular work has
not been advanced to any great extent in
any other jurisdiction, but we did get enough
information on some of our inquiries to make
us feel that it was worth trying it ourselves,
and testing out ourselves to see if we can-
not come up with a formula as to what,
in the conditions that exist, say in southern
Ontario, constitutes the perfect patrol in
accordance to miles and the number of cars
on the road.
Now that is what we are working on and
to that extent we are on common ground.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Attorney-General
stated that some men would be taken into
the service who would not be in uniform.
Would their contract of service be similar
to the uniformed policemen? He said 8,
I think, would not be in uniform.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think my hon. friend
is referring to clerks, people who are doing
civil service work, but not police work-
certain drivers for example and clerical work.
On that point though, there have been used
from time to time what might be termed
auxiliary police, in conjunction with some
of the civil defence organizations. These
organizations have proved quite helpful, I
might say, in getting additional people for
heavy traffic periods in the summer time
and that sort of thing, and that is being
continued. But in those cases there is always
a qualified police officer along with one of
the others, but it does make more qualified
people available in the area.
Mr. Thomas: Further to that point, I was
wondering whether there are some police-
men doing clerical work in the different
offices, who are physically and mentally cap-
able of being out on the highway? If there
is any dearth of that type of men, physically
and mentally, to do police work outside,
does the hon. Attorney-General not think it
would be just as well to get persons who
would not meet the physical standards of
a policeman to do the clerical work, and
put the other men outside?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, that is a question
of course that has been asked on a number
of occasions and the answer is no. If we want
to get the best results, it is important that
there be the continuity of training all the way
through.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, from experi-
ence that I have seen across the province, I
dc find that we have a lot of provincial police
engaged in running miles and miles over
township roads to investigate small accidents,
those which involve only a couple of hundred
dollars. Now, that does take a lot of time
away from those qualified men, when they
should be doing other duties in other impor-
tant fields.
I am wondering if there could not be some-
thing done to alleviate that situation that we
are finding ourselves in. As I say, those men
have to drive miles and miles to reach the
scene of an accident. When they get there,
they find that it has only been a minor one,
but the people involved do not want to move
their car without having the police come in.
I think that it is a waste of time as far as
the police are concerned, and I am wonder-
ing if some personnel could not be added to
the staff, who would not have the physical
qualifications of provincial police, yet could
do this job quite effectively and bring in the
554
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
information that is necessary to the police
department. I think in that way we could
alleviate the situation, and make those pro-
vincial policemen more readily available for
work that would be more beneficial to the
citizens of the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon member for
Stormont has made a suggestion, but I must
say, as I said a moment ago to the hon. mem-
ber for Oshawa, that those thoughts have cer-
tainly been canvassed, discussed with the
commissioner and his staff, and the present
procedure is regarded as the best one for
police efficiency.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Chairman,
regarding the placing of provincial police in
the province, the thought has often struck me
that more should be done. However, before
making a suggestion, I would first like to con-
gratulate the police officers in our area on
the fine work they are doing.
It seems to me unwise to have them con-
centrated in one or two areas. For instance,
I believe there are 16 officers in my own area.
We have a group at Sebringville and at Strat-
ford.
Well, I see no good reason why maybe a
couple of those officers should not be
stationed at Mitchell, a couple more maybe
in the town of Palmerston. There are already
two in the town of Listowel. They all have
cars with 2-way radio, and possibly some of
the mileage would be eliminated. Yet, as has
been said before, the mere presence of some
of the black and white cars on the highway
would be a deterrent to speed. I wonder if
any thought has been given to that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Oh, yes, lots of thought
has been given to it. But I must say that,
when all these are taken and considered
carefully— the distribution of the force in
relation to the size at any one point, and the
need for emergency calls and also the
rapidity with which one can get about by
car now, the much greater distances than used
to be the case — it is not considered wise
to have a whole lot of small detachments if
the work can be done by a more concentrated
force with more people available right at a
central spot.
However, each situation has to be looked
into, and if the hon. member has anything
there, or if any other hon. member has any
situation in his local area which he would
like to have reviewed, I would be only too
glad to take it up with the commissioner and
his staff.
But I must say that from the time I took
this office, I have been very careful not to
override their decisions unless I think they
are completely wrong. I feel that they know
more than I would about the general problem
they are dealing with.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, there is an
item for travelling expenses for $1.6 million.
It is quite an increase over last year, and
that is an awful lot of money for travelling.
Could we have an explanation of just what
that covers?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I understood that that
is an increase as a result of increased mileages.
It covers cost of gas and oil, repairs, main-
tenance of mobile units. Also, the living ex-
penses of men when stationed away from
their usual headquarters.
Mr. Nixon: Well, of course, in addition to
what we voted last year, the hon. Attorney-
General had to get the treasury board orders
for $400,000, did he not?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Last year. Yes, for the
current year.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I presume the hon.
Attorney-General hopes that these estimates
are more accurate as to the amount needed, so
that he would not have to come with a
treasury board order for another $400,000
next year.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, I think that is the
situation, and also, of course, it provides for
the additional 100 people who will be taken
on from April 1, and in addition to the 160,
I think it was, who were taken on in the
current year, all of whom have to use the
equipment and travel and so forth.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, does the hon.
Attorney-General know the maximum salaries
of the provincial police as of this year?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, I thought I had
them in my little book just in case I got an
inquiry of that sort. A probationary constable
receives $3,240. Six months afterwards, he
starts as a regular constable, at $3,450, which
increases regularly until it reaches $4,050.
Did the hon. member want the salaries of
those beyond constables?
A constable reaches the top of his bracket
in 4.5 years.
Mr. Gordon: May I have the age limit?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: From 21 to 35, I think it
is. Not under 21, not over 35.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In that connection, a
quick computation would suggest that the
average salary is about $4,500. That is, the
MARCH 5, 1958
555
hon. Attorney-General is paying out $7.8 mil-
lion for salaries, and he is employing 1,730
men. Now, that average works out to $4,500,
which is substantially higher than the $4,000
to which he has referred.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If it is $4,500, I hope it
is. It is not too much.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would remind him that
teachers' salaries are far less than that.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I was asked a question
as to what they are at the present time, and
that is the position. Of course, we have the
corporals, the sergeants, and the staff sergeants
and inspectors and so forth at different
brackets.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the hon. Attorney-General could tell us how
many municipalities have agreements signed
with the provincial police where the munici-
palities have not got policemen of their own?
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, further to
that question, to follow on, maybe the hon.
Attorney-General could answer the 3 ques-
tions at the same time. I would like to know
if he had any requests from municipalities
to be admitted into the provincial police
system during the past year, and if any
municipalities have decided to get out from
under the system and set up their own police
force?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I will answer
that in this way. The policy established
about a year ago, and based on understand-
ing and co-operation with the municipalities
concerned, has been to endeavour to get
away from the municipal policing of the
larger places, at any rate, in order that we
can have more men available for the general
work of the force, particularly for highway
patrol work.
I think that, last year, there were some 12
municipalities with which agreements were
terminated. There were some smaller ones,
4 I believe, in which we entered into agree-
ments for police, but the total overall number
—I do not have it exactly— but my recollec-
tion is that it runs about 60 municipalities,
involving about 140 men and 62 cars.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to point out to the hon. Attorney-General
that there are some more men who are
engaged in other duties, and if we take that
140 off the total that he now has— I know
that they do other highway duties besides—
it seems to me that he needs more men in
this department to police these roads. I do
not think there is any question about it
whatsoever.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Until this problem is
solved, we will probably always need more
for some time to come.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, dealing with
radio communication system, this $315,000.
Is this for installation of new equipment or
change of frequency or what?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, there has been a
switch over to conform with federal require-
ments in connection with radio operations,
that has cost us a considerable sum. In addi-
tion to that, we have this new teletype equip-
ment that I mentioned earlier. Both of
these have involved considerable additional
expenses. I must say that the teletype equip-
ment for the 15 districts is a great move for-
ward from the standpoint of speeding com-
muncations. We have almost instantaneous
communication throughout the whole prov-
ince.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned
this to the hon. Attorney-General before. In
our area, we are having considerable difficulty
with radio calls coming in on television sets
and I wonder if something could be done to
change that. It is quite noticeable, and we
get quite a lot of it. I thought this frequency
change took place some time ago, but it is
just a recent move.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It is complete now as
far as the Ontario provincial police are con-
cerned. Are these calls Ontario provincial
police calls?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, oh, yes.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Perhaps the hon. mem-
ber would report them to the local detach-
ment, and get a recommendation sent in, and
we will ses if anything can be done about it.
Vote 217 agreed to.
On vote 218:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, on vote
218, Mr. Armand Racine, who was the public
trustee from 1940 until August, 1957, died
last August. Mr. Racine was born in the
Ottawa valley at Castleman, Ontario. He was
a graduate of the University of Ottawa and
Osgoode Hall, and later became a partner of
hon. C. P. McTague in Windsor.
Mr. Racine was a dynamic public servant,
and under his direction the branch of the
public trustee grew rapidly.
556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Some years ago Mr. Racine conceived the
idea of a new public building to house not
only his branch, but other branches of The
Department of the Attorney-General in the
rapidly-expanding economy. To him, perhaps
more than to any other person, is due the
credit for the 6-storey modern stone adminis-
trative building located on the south side of
Queen Street in Toronto opposite Osgoode
Hall.
This building, which will stand for many
years, can always be regarded as a monument
to Armand Racine. Both the hon. Prime
Minister and myself have known Mr. Racine
for many years; we were classmates at
Osgoode Hall. His passing was a source of
deep regret not only to the government but
to his many associates and friends.
In the appointment of Mr. J. W. Thompson,
Q.C., as public trustee, the government has
followed once again the principle of promo-
tion within the service. A bill was introduced
a few weeks ago authorizing another deputy
public trustee, which means that Mr.
Thompson will have the services of two
deputy public trustees to administer this
important office.
Votes 218 and 219 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE
On vote 701:
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Might I just make
these remarks, Mr. Chairman, in connection
with The Department of Insurance? It is
supervised by the superintendent of insurance
under the following statutes:
Under The Insurance Act, approximately
17,400 agents are registered with the depart-
ment, 9,244 of these being life insurance
agents and 8,156 being other than life insur-
ance agents.
There are also 643 insurers licenced under
the Act, of which 419 are registered by the
federal Department of Insurance, to which
they submit their annual reports. Of the
remainder of the 224 provincial companies,
108 are mutual benefit societies and 66 are
farm mutuals. Amendments to The Insurance
Act are presently before the Legislature.
Under The Loan and Trust Corporations
Act, 26 trust companies and 7 loan com-
panies are registered. Amendments to The
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, dealing
with powers of investment of loan and trust
corporations, will be presented before this
session of the Legislature.
The third Act is The Real Estate and Busi-
ness Brokers' Act. Under this Act, approxi-
mately 2,600 brokers and 6,600 salesmen are
registered with the department. Amendments
to The Real Estate and Business Brokers'
Act, to provide for the appointment of an
advisory board which will make recom-
mendations to the superintendent in connec-
tion with licences, will be presented to the
present session of the Legislature.
The fourth is The Credit Unions Act.
Approximately 1,400 credit unions are super-
vised by the department examiners at this
time, which requires the service of 12 exam-
iners. The credit union league, pursuant to
an amendment to the Act passed in 1957, is
also empowered to examine into the affairs
of credit unions and to report the results to
this department. The staff of the credit union
league has been considerably increased during
the past year to perform these duties.
The fifth is The Collection Agencies Act;
125 collection agencies are presently regis-
tered with this department.
The sixth is The Prepaid Hospital and
Medical Services Act. Some 40 plans are
registered with the department under this
Act, each plan generally speaking covering
the operations of the plan in one county.
And finally, under The Investment Con-
tracts Act 3 companies are issuing invest-
ment contracts and 192 salesmen are pres-
ently registered.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Attorney-General something
about the bonds for real estate agents. Last
year in Toronto, we had a very unfortunate
circumstance when one of the larger real
estate agencies went bankrupt. I have had
some smaller agents tell me that the bond
has been increased quite considerably, and
I would like to know how much the bond
is for the smallest real estate man, in a
small town, and how much it would be for
the larger ones, say in the city of Toronto,
who handle millions of dollars' worth of real
estate each year.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, the bond was
increased about a year ago. Actually, it came
into operation last fall. For real estate brokers,
the bond increased from $1,000 to $5,000,
and for a salesman $500 to $1,000. $5,000
is a fixed figure across the board.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if the hon. Attorney-General feels it is not
fair that a man who is handling a minimum
amount of real estate should have to have
a $5,000 bond when, on the other hand,
MARCH 5, 1958
557
as I say, we have men who handle millions
of dollars' worth, and the public is protected
only by a $5,000 bond.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: This was done after
careful consideration, and after consulting
with the real estate organizations, and as far
as I know, it is working out all right. And I
am informed by the superintendent that he
has had no objections to it.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to point out
that last year this real estate agency which
went bankrupt cost the people of this prov-
ince a lot more than $5,000.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Bonding is not for that
purpose.
Mr. Whicher: It is not for that purpose?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Oh, no, I mean there are
lots of people not bonded at all, organizations
not bonded at all, which could go bankrupt.
This bond is to prevent fraud.
Mr. Whicher: They are handling other
people's money though, a lot of it.
Mr. Fishleigh: A $1,000 bond costs only
about $10 to the salesman. Nobody is kicking
about it— $10 for $1,000.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, there is also the
point that a very small real estate broker
might perchance get a very large deal, which
would be all out of proportion, you might say,
to his usual run of business. I have known
that to happen.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am told the premium
for a $5,000 bond is $35.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, what is the
policy of real estate salesmen in line with
doing other work? Are they allowed to carry
on with any other position, or must he be
strictly a real estate salesman?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: In areas of over 5,000,
the rule applies, generally speaking.
Mr. G. J. Monaghan (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, has this proven to cause any hardship
on any persons who some years ago carried
on an auctioneering business as well? They
actually carried on both, and I feel that in
some cases there is a hardship with the
amount of sales, there is not enough sales
today to warrant a full-time auctioneer. Yet
a person, who formerly carried on auction
sales and sold real estate, cannot do both
now.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If the hon. member is
referring to an auctioneer in his capacity as
an auctioneer, he is not required I understand
to be registered under The Registry Act for
that purpose. But if he is speaking of some-
body who wants to do more than one job, I
would say the general rule definitely applies.
Some very good reason could be shown
beyond any question, but the rule is there and
should be adhered to, generally speaking,
very definitely.
Mr. Gordon: I understand one cannot be an
auctioneer and sell real estate too. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is what I am getting
at. Well, the superintendent thinks a person
can sell real estate in relation to his job as
auctioneer.
Vote 701 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the committee rise
and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole, Mr. H. M. Allen in the chair.
SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD OF
LINDSAY
House in committee on Bill No. 2, An Act
respecting the separate school board of the
town of Lindsay.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 2 reported.
HURON COLLEGE
House in committee on Bill No. 4, An Act
respecting Huron College.
Sections 1 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 4 reported.
TOWNSHIP OF GRANTHAM
House in committee on Bill No. 6, An Act
respecting the township of Grantham.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 6 reported.
558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
TOWNSHIP OF LONDON
House in committee on Bill No. 8, An Act
respecting the township of London.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 8 reported.
TOWNSHIP OF CHINGUACOUSY
House in committee on Bill No. 14, An Act
respecting the township of Chinguacousy.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 14 reported.
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY
House in committee on Bill No. 15, An
Act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway
Company.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 15 reported.
STRATFORD SHAKESPEAREAN FESTI-
VAL FOUNDATION OF CANADA
House in committee on Bill No. 5, An Act
respecting the Stratford Shakespearean Festi-
val Foundation of Canada.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 5 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I want to
hold that bill and also the Waterloo College
bill. They have similar provisions. I want
to hold those for another day.
ONTARIO DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
House in committee on Bill No. 20, An
Act respecting the Ontario Dietetic Associa-
tion.
Sections 1 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 20 reported.
TOWNSHIP OF TECK
House in committee on Bill No. 21, An
Act respecting the township of Teck.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 21 reported.
CITY OF BELLEVILLE
House in committee on Bill No. 31, An
Act respecting the city of Belleville.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 31 reported.
CITY OF WATERLOO
House in committee on Bill No. 7, An Act
respecting the city of Waterloo.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 7 reported.
SUDBURY YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION
House in committee on Bill No. 10, An
Act to incorporate Sudbury Young Women's
Christian Association.
Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 10 reported.
ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL OF
BARRIE
House in committee on Bill No. 12, An Act
respecting the Royal Victoria Hospital of
Barrie.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 12 reported.
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AT KINGSTON
House in committee on Bill No. 17, An
Act respecting Queen's University at Kings-
ton.
Mr. Nixon: Did all the people who are
writing about this bill have an opportunity
of appearing before the—
TOWN OF THOROLD
House in committee on Bill No. 18, An Act
respecting the town of Thorold.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed on.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 18 reported.
MARCH 5, 1958
559
CITY OF LONDON
House in committee on Bill No. 19, An Act
respecting the city of London.
On section 1:
Mr. W. A. Stewart (Middlesex North): I
believe that bill went through committee and
was to be amended, but I do not believe the
amendment is written into the bill.
Sections 2 to 16 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 19 reported.
LAKESHORE DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION
House in committee on Bill No. 23, An Act
respecting the Lakeshore district board of
education.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 23 reported.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR NORTH
YORK
House in committee on Bill No. 24, An Act
respecting the board of education for the
township of North York.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 24 reported.
VILLAGE OF LONG BRANCH
House in committee on Bill No. 38, An Act
respecting the village of Long Branch.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill No. 38 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
rise and report certain bills without amend-
ment.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the committee of
the whole House begs to report certain bills
without amendment and begs leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
WATERLOO COLLEGE ASSOCIATE
FACULTIES
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 16, "An Act respecting Water-
loo College associate faculties."
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in relation to
this bill, I am advancing it to committee stage
so that a certain clause in relation to
expropriation contained in this bill can be
considered at the same time as a somewhat
similar clause in the Queen's University bill.
They involve the same principle, and it might
as well be determined at the one time. So I
am asking the House to advance this bill so
that we may consider them both in a similar
stage.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
WINDSOR JEWISH COMMUNAL
PROJECTS
Hon. C. Daley moves second reading of
Bill No. 1, "An Act respecting Windsor
Jewish communal projects."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF CHATHAM
Mr. G. W. Parry moves second reading of
Bill No. 9, "An Act respecting the city of
Chatham."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
VILLAGE OF PORT PERRY
Mr. R. J. Boyer moves second reading of
Bill No. 11, "An Act respecting the village
of Port Perry."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
VILLAGE OF WEST LORNE
Mr. J. P. Robarts moves second reading of
Bill No. 13, "An Act respecting the village of
West Lome."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
CITY OF WINDSOR
Mr. M. C. Davies moves second reading of
Bill No. 22, "An Act respecting the city of
Windsor."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR SAULT
STE. MARIE
Mr. C. H. Lyons moves second reading of
Bill No. 32, "An Act respecting the board
of education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF FORT FRANCES
Mr. W. G. Noden moves second reading
of Bill No. 35, "An Act respecting the town
of Fort Frances."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF FORT WILLIAM
Mr. G. C. Wardrope moves second reading
of Bill No. 40, "An Act respecting the city
of Fort William."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, prior to
moving the adjournment of the House, I
should like to make this motion, seconded by
the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Dunbar).
It arises out of what I said yesterday con-
cerning sittings on Fridays— that is, without
interference with the session in the after-
noon — commencing with a session in the
morning. I have had a number of comments
from hon. members from both sides in relation
to this, and I did discuss it briefly with the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver).
We will try this out this Friday.
It has been arranged that the committees
which will sit on Friday commence their
sessions at 9.30 instead of 10 o'clock, and I
make this motion that, notwithstanding the
previous order, this House will meet on
Friday next, March 7, at 11 o'clock in the
forenoon, will rise for the luncheon interval
at 12.45 o'clock, and re-assemble at 2 o'clock
in the afternoon.
Mr. Thomas: I wonder if the hon. Prime
Minister has given some consideration to
the dining room facilities? We will adjourn
for just an hour and a quarter, and they
are very, very cramped there. I wonder if
the hon. Prime Minister has given any con-
sideration at all to that? It will be very,
very crowded there, I do not know how
all the hon. members would get in.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, as a matter of fact,
I have not given consideration to that point,
except that we on other occasions have
worked out the hour and a quarter period.
Now, I would say to my hon. friend that
we might try this and I think that the com-
mittees will be generally over on Friday,
commencing a week from Friday and the
week following.
If that is an unsatisfactory hour, we could
meet, say at 10.30 or even 10 o'clock, on
Friday morning and adjourn at an earlier
period to allow the hon. members sufficient
time. I am not sure that that hour would
work out, on the other hand, because the
purpose is, first of all, to enable the hon.
members to get away around 3.30 or 4 o'clock
in the afternoon and, at the same time, not
lose the time there is in the morning. After
all, I think we are all anxious that all the hon.
members should have the fullest opportunity
for discussion.
I never like to curtail the budget debate
or the Throne debate, and I think that if we
do this, it will give more time to hon. mem-
bers, and also give more time for the discus-
sion of the matters on the order paper.
If my hon. friend would be agreeable, we
can try this out. Now, if that luncheon hour
is short, it will mean that some of the hon.
members will be compelled to diet a little
bit at that time, but if it is unsatisfactory then
we will meet the problem the week following.
Mr. Thomas: I may say that I am all for
the idea of speeding up the Legislature on
Friday in that manner, but I would like the
hon. Prime Minister to remember that the
dining room facilities have been cut in half
to what they were last year.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the only reserva-
tion that I have in regard to the motion is
that it should have included the closing hour
on Friday afternoon. It was set out in the
motion, as the hon. Prime Minister will recall,
that we sit from a certain time to a certain
time in the morning, and then start at 2
o'clock in the afternoon, but no indication
was given of when we might close the session
of the Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It was set aside to put an
hour in there.
MARCH 5, 1958
561
Mr. Oliver: Well, I think we should
because on Friday afternoon it is quite neces-
sary for a number of hon. members to get
away around 3.45 o'clock, or close to that,
in the afternoon, and I think having the morn-
ing session will allow us to do that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would 4 o'clock be
satisfactory?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, to me it would.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would be glad
to change the motion and put in 4 o'clock,
from 2 till 4.
Mr. Speaker: We will just add to that
motion that the Legislature will adjourn at
4.00 of the clock, Friday afternoon.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, for tomor-
row, we meet at the usual time of 3 o'clock
and, as indicated yesterday, will continue
for a night session tomorrow. Now the order
of business would be the estimates of The
Department of Labour in the afternoon. Now,
I should like to take, tomorrow evening and
running through on Friday morning, the esti-
mates of The Provincial Treasurer's Depart-
ment, which would include the supplemen-
tary estimate, which I understand is non-
contentious. There are a number of small
estimates which include the provincial audi-
tor, the Prime Minister's Department, The
Lieutenant-Governor's Office, and The De-
partment of Economics, which really runs
with The Provincial Treasurer's Department.
I would like to take first the estimates of
The Department of Labour tomorrow after-
noon, and then fit these other estimates in:
Treasury, Economics, Lieutenant-Governor,
Prime Minister and the auditor tomorrow
evening and on Friday morning.
Now if there is time, then there are items
on the order paper, and I would say, if there
are any items which any of the hon. members
want held over, we will do that, but there
are the items on the order paper and we
would try to include, on Friday afternoon, the
budget debate.
I think that we can arrange for a satis-
factory time next week for the concluding
speeches on the Throne debate, and have a
vote on that item some time say Tuesday or
Wednesday of next week, at a time that the
"whips" would find satisfactory.
The hon. Prime Minister moves the
adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.00 of the clock,
p.m.
ERRATA
(February 20, 1958)
Page Column Line Correction
298 2 1, 2 Change to read: "appeal, the appeal was heard by
Justices of Appeal Hogg, Roach and Aylesworth on
December 8,"
298 2 11, 12, 13 Change to read: "Justice Kerwin, and Justices of Appeal
Rand, Kellock, Locke and Cartwright, on March 2, 1956."
298 2 43, 44 Change to read: "27, by Justices of Appeal Schroeder,
Roach and Mackay. On May 14, that court gave"
No. 24
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, March 6, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 6, 1958
First report, standing committee on travel and publicity, Mr. Sandercock 565
Fifth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Yaremko 565
Department of Municipal Affairs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 565
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 565
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 565
Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 566
Registry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 566
Time Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, first reading 566
Law Stamps Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Roberts, first reading 566
Corporations Tax Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 566
Succession Duty Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 566
Racing Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 567
Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1922, bill to amend, Mr. Connell, first reading .... 567
Separate school board of the town of Lindsay, bill respecting, third reading 567
Huron College, bill respecting, third reading 567
Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada, bill respecting, third reading .... 567
Township of Grantham, bill respecting, third reading 567
City of Waterloo, bill respecting, third reading 567
Township of London, bill respecting, third reading 567
Sudbury Young Women's Christian Association, bill to incorporate, third reading 567
Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, bill respecting, third reading 567
Township of Chinguacousy, bill respecting, third reading 567
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, bill respecting, third reading 567
Town of Thorold, bill respecting, third reading 567
City of London, bill respecting, third reading 567
Ontario Dietetic Association, bill respecting, third reading 567
Township of Teck, bill respecting, third reading 568
Lakeshore district board of education, bill respecting, third reading 568
Board of education for the township of North York, bill respecting, third reading 568
City of Belleville, bill respecting, third reading 568
Village of Long Branch, bill respecting, third reading 568
Estimates, Department of Labour, Mr. Daley 568
Recess, 6.04 o'clock 590
565
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
.'.. V
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers. .
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by commit-
tees.
. !
.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. Sandercock,
from the standing committee on travel and
publicity, presents the committee's first report
and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 76, An Act to amend The Tourist
Establishments Act;
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. Yaremko, from
the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's fifth report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 26, An Act respecting the city of
Toronto.
Bill No. 27, An Act respecting the Canadian
National Exhibition Association.
Bill No.. 28, An Act to incorporate the
chartered institute of secretaries of joint stock
companies and other public bodies in Ontario.
Bill No. 33, An Act respecting the corpora-
tion of the synod of Toronto and Kingston of
the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
Bill No. 36, An Act respecting the township
of Sunnidale.
Bill No. 43, An Act respecting the city of
Niagara Falls. ,
Bill No. 44, An Act respecting the city of
Sault Ste. Marie.
Bill No. 88, An Act respecting United
Community Fund of Greater Toronto.
The committee also begs to report the
following bill with certain amendments-
Bill No. 39, An Act respecting the city, of
Ottawa.
Your committee Would recommend that
the fees, less the penalties in the actual cost
Thursday, March 6, 1958
of printing, be remitted on Bill No. 33, An
Act respecting the corporation of the synod
of Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian
Church in Canada, and on Bill No. 88, An
Act respecting United Community Fund of
Greater Toronto.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Department of Municipal Affairs Act.*'
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is just a short
section. It is to make it clear that the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may
appoint committees for any purpose relating
to municipal affairs.
THE CORONERS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Coroners Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes
cities of over 100,000 population to employ
one or more persons as technicians to assist
the coroner.
THE POLICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Police
Act/'
Motion agreed to; first reading1 of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for
a board of police commissioners to Consist'
of the head of the council, a judge of any
cOunty or district court designated by the
Honourable the Lieutenant^GoVernor-in-Cburi-
cil. The present Act provides, in the third
category, such magistrate or^ Crown attorney
as the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-
566
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in-Council may designate. The bill changes
that last category to any person whom the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Coun-
cil may designate.
The amendment also contains provision that
if the municipality and the police consent,
the collective bargaining agreement, decision
or award, may remain in force for a period of
2 years, which brings it in line with an amend-
ment already before the House under The Fire
Departments Act.
THE REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS
BROKERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Real
Estate and Business Brokers Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for
an advisory board to be appointed by the
superintendent consisting of 3 persons, who
may be made available, if required, to deal
with an application for anyone to be licenced
under this Act, or in relation to a cancellation
of suspension proceeding. The board would
come into action only if it was requested,
either by the superintendent or by the person
whose rights were being considered.
THE REGISTRY ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Registry
Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the
Real Estate and Business Brokers amendment
bill could go to legal bills committee, and I
would think also that this amendment to The
Registry Act could go to that committee.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The meaning of it?
Well, it is really just a definition of the
meaning of "standard time" and the relation-
ship of it to Greenwich time and the dividing
line, the meridian where the time changes in
this province.
THE LAW STAMPS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to repeal The Law
Stamps Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at present The Law
Stamps Act provides for the issue of law
stamps, and that these stamps are to be used
in payment of fees and charges payable to
the Crown upon all legal proceedings, This
bill repeals the Act, and henceforth, fees
will be paid in money.
THE CORPORATIONS TAX ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Cor-
porations Tax Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amending Act,
while rather voluminous in material, and sec-
tions, boils down simply to an amending Act
to confonn with the amendments and changes
in The Income Tax Act of Canada in relation
to corporations, and is chiefly aimed at keep-
ing the proper allocation of profits, the basis
for which taxation of corporations is made
both at the federal level and at the provincial
level. It also has certain provisions which
provide for an allocation of profits basis to
meet the provisions in The Province of
Quebec Act, and our own Act.
THE TIME ACT, 1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "The Time Act, 1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a routine
general revision of the definition of "Time
Act" to improve the language. There is no
change in the effect of the Act and it will
put it in line for a better Act when the
revision of the statutes takes place, which
I hope will be in the year 1960.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): What is the
meaning of the title? t
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Succes-
sion Duty Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amending Act
provides for, or permits, the payment by
insurance companies, without the need of
waiting for the production of the usual con-
sents from the succession duty office, of
insurance monies up to $2,500 with respect
to any insurance company. This means that
the $1,500 limit is raised now to $2,500 with
respect to any insurance company policy.
1
MARCH 6, 1958
567
THE RACING COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Racing
Commission Act." .
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this
amending Act will be that the rules made by
the racing commission from time to time, in
connection with racing and the other admini-
strative work that they have to do in that
field, will be filed with the registrar of regu-
lations, and on filing will take effect.
THE LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL
BOARD ACT, 1922
Hon. R. Connell moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Lake of the
Woods Control Board Act, 1922."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two
purposes, one is to give Manitoba official rec-
ognition on the Lake of the Woods control
board, which has authority over the water
level of the Lake of the Woods and the flow
of the English River and the Winnipeg River,
and secondly to give to the board control,
under the specified circumstances, of works
to divert water from Lake St. Joseph into
Lac Seul, which is part of the English River
watershed.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to extend a hearty welcome to
the pupils from the Adelaide school of Ham-
ilton; from Markham district high school; the
Cartwright Avenue School, Toronto; and from
St. Joseph's college school, Toronto. We also
welcome to the House this afternoon a group
of ladies from the city of Niagara Falls, who
are here to view the proceedings of the
House.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion I would like to address to the hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop), and it
arises from an advertisement in yesterday's
Toronto Globe and Mail.
It states that the Ontario school trustees'
council announces that 171 boards of educa-
tion, collegiate institute boards, and high
school boards, including all boards in Metro-
politan Toronto and district, and those of all
large cities in Ontario, have agreed to refrain
from advertising for, interviewing, or engag-
ing secondary school teachers until the diffi-
culty between North York board of education
and the Ontario secondary school teachers'
federation has been resolved. It was signed
by the Ontario school trustees' council.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Inasmuch
as students are not allowed to enrol at the
College of Education for summer courses,
until they are assured of a job in the autumn,
and inasmuch as this advertisement and the
contents therein could jeopardize the possi-
bility of these potential teachers getting
positions, and consequently enrolling at the
College of Education if this condition were
allowed to continue too long, will the hon.
Minister of Education tell the House what
he has done about this situation, and what
chances there are of settlement in the near
future?
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, may I inform my hon. friend
from Bruce that I am watching the situation
very carefully and shall, at the proper time,
if necessary, take whatever action may be
needed to see that the supply of teachers is
kept up to the proper level.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions:
Bill No. 2, An Act respecting the separate
school board of the town of Lindsay.
Bill No. 4, An Act respecting Huron
College.
Bill No. 5, An Act respecting the Stratford
Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada.
Bill No. 6, An Act respecting the township
of Grantham.
Bill No. 7, An Act respecting the city of
Waterloo.
Bill No. 8, An Act respecting the township
of London.
Bill No. 10, An Act to incorporate Sudbury
Young Women's Christian Association.
Bill No. 12, An Act respecting the Royal
Victoria Hospital of Barrie.
Bill No. 14, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Chinguacousy.
Bill No. 15, An Act respecting Canadian
Pacific Railway Company.
Bill No. 18, An Act respecting the town
of Thorold.
Bill No. 19, An Act respecting the city of
London.
Bill No. 20, An Act respecting the Ontario
Dietetic Association.
568
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Bill No. 21, An Act respecting the township
ofTeck.
Bill No. 23, An Act respecting the Lake-
shore district board of education.
Bill No. 24, An Act respecting the board of
education for the township of North York.
Bill No. 31, An Act respecting the city of
Belleville.
Bill No. 38, An Act respecting the village
of Long Branch.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do
now pass and be intituled as in the motions.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr,
Speaker, I move that you do now leave the
chair and the House resolve itself into com-
mittee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply, Mr. H. M. Allen in the cjiair.
- ■ | ^ • ■
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Hon. C. Daley (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Chairman, before getting into the actual sub-
mission of the estimates of The Department
of Labour, I would like at this time to make
a few remarks that I hope might be informa-
tive and I also hope interesting.
We, in The Department of Labour, with
the many and varied Acts which we
administer, have had a very busy year, but
in most respects, I would say, a very good
year. Industrial disruption has been held at
what might be considered a very low mini-
mum. Our labour relations board and our
conciliation services have rendered excellent
service to industry and labour alike. I am
happy to commend both of these departments
for the good work they have done.
Now, as hon. members know, with the
select committee on labour still conducting
inquiries, and not able to make their final
report because of the great amount of business
that came before them at this time, I will be
saying very little about labour relations; I
know and have read the submissions made
to the select committee, and I can say that
at no time have I interfered in any way with
their deliberations, nor do I know what their
thinking is on the submissions made.
1 1 have continued, m my normal manner,
to examine The Labour Relations Act, and
have submitted, for the approval of this
House, certain amendments which I think
are necessary, as has been my practice over
a great many years. ! :
I will only say from experience in adminis-
tering this Act, t feel personally that the Act
generally is sound and has' produced excel-
lent results over the years'. I say this because,
in this great industrial expansion, with our
thousands of new citizens and the ever-
increasing demand for services, we have had
less industrial disruption than any place I
am aware of, so I would say the weaknesses
of the Act have been, in my opinion, exag-
gerated.
Now at the outset I would like to say a
word about the civil service. I think we in
this province have been very fortunate that
the civil service has attracted such a fine
type of people. It is evident on all sides,
that a fine esprit de corps exists in the civil
service.
I believe the government attitude toward
them has had a lot to do with establishing
the mutual confidence and understanding for
the following reasons:
Establishing security in the service; pro-
motion from within when possible; recog-
nizing the civil service association as a bar-
gaining agency for the service; a continuous
review of salaries and classifications in keep-
ing with the times; a realistic approach to
their aims and objects.
It has been my privilege as chairman of
the Ministers' committee to deal with the
association representatives. I think that if
hon. members checked with the association
they will find our discussions have been most
cordial and that much has been accomplished.
Without going into any more detail, I simply
say we have good people and we want to
treat them right.
My department grows as industry and
population grow, and as new services are
required. A great many of the people who
were in the service when I took over in. 1943
are still here and while we have had changes
in personnel due to deaths, superannuation,
marriage and so on, I am pleased to say that
in handling this department for 15 years, I
have had to dismiss only one man.
Now I want to speak for a moment about
the vacations with pay. This has proved
to be a wonderful thing for the workers of
of this province. Hon. members, of course,
understand that the large and many small
industries have a regular system of granting
holidays that do not require stamps. They
give the holidays and pay in cash. . >
But what I want to talk a little about is
the vacation stamp book. This has grown to
be big business. In the first year this Act
was introduced, we sold $377,236 worth of
stamps. Last year we sold $12,724,884 worth"
of stamps, and these stamps, of course; are
for the worker whose employment may not
MARCH 6, 1958
569
be continuous with the same employer, such
as construction work and casual help with
industry. -
The employer purchases the stamps from
the department, deposits them in the book
owned by the employee, which can be cashed
at any bank inr the province on and after
June 30 in each year.
Now great precautions are taken to protect
this procedure from being victimized by
crooked operators. Every book is audited to
the satisfaction of the provincial auditor.,
A few years ago we found that some
ingenious people had stolen a number of
books and removed and repaired stamps that
had not been completely destroyed by pur
punch press. We have corrected this possi-
bility by shredding the books after payment;
They are completely destroyed.
Then, we found another fraud was being
committed which did not at this time cost
the government any money, but defrauded
the purchaser of the stamps. Stamps were
stolen from one individual, in quite a large
quantity, and these were put into books and
cashed. But, of course, the owner of those
stamps had paid us, and we lost no money
by it, but we have taken great steps to
endeavour to correct the possibility of that.
So I want to advise those individuals who
hold vacation stamp books, and the indus-
tries which purchase the stamps, to guard
them as carefully as they would dollar bills.
They are actually money, and the govern-
ment will not be held responsible for their
loss, and definitely will not reimburse any-
one for loss.
As I have indicated, the money in the
stamps is collected on June 30. That was
deliberately designed so that when the holi-
day season came along, the man would not
be without money during his vacation.
But we are in a very difficult position today,
and I was thinking that if I were unemployed
and had no money, but I did have in my
pocket a book, a stamp vacation stamp book,
with say $100 in it, I would feel that that
was my money and I should be able to get it.
I am saying, therefore, to people who find
themselves in that predicament, we will not
cash them before the due date if the owner
is working or if he is on unemployment insur-
ance. But if an individual has money in a
stamp book and can qualify as I have stated,
we will give very sympathetic consideration
to making the cash available to him.
Now, I want to talk for a minute briefly
about our elevator inspection service, because
that is a new piece of legislation in the last
3 years. This branch is functioning very well.
W©? have assembled a number of very com-
petent people, skilled in the operation- and
even in the construction of elevators. .We
inspect installations , of new elevators— plans
for which have to be approved by the depart-
ment--passenger and freight elevators, dumb
waiters, man lifts, escalators, incline lifts, ski
tows, and so Oil, over the entire province,
with the exception of the city of Toronto
proper. We inspect all ' of Metropolitan To-
ronto, out the actual city of Toronto proper
retains its own inspection service.
,1 am very happy tp say .that in this
brief period, in which this , Act has been in
existence, we have now pretty well balanced
the revenue and the expenditures of this
department.
Briefly, may I say something about discrim-
ination. Because of our laws, and I would say
the whole-hearted acceptance by the people
in respect of employment, public accommoda-
tion; and so on, ' discrimination has almost
entirely been eliminated. A system of admini-
stration makes it easy for people to complain
if they feel they have been discriminated
against. It is our policy to inquire into a
complaint almost instantaneously in any part
of this province, because we have inspectors
in all parts of the province. As soon as we
receive a complaint, we can immediately
assign a man to look into it.
Another thing that is developing is nuclear
reactors. The scientists have developed a great
force, designed, I believe, in its original ap-
plication, for war. But it is now considered
to be an even more valuable peacetime serv-
ice, if harnessed, which is being done. My
technical consultant of the department has
the honour of being appointed a member of
the staff of the reactor safety advisory com-
mittee of the atomic energy control board of
Ottawa.
Now, my reason for bringing this matter
before hon. members is to indicate that we
are continually examining this question, so
that proper care can be taken to control and
minimize any harmful effects it might have
on the people who will be required to use it.
The Department of Labour, in 1957, provided
enabling legislation to permit regulations
currently being drafted by my department
officials and those of The Department of
Health.
A word about unemployment. Much has
been said on this subject, and much has to be
done to alleviate distress— by built-in benefits,
I believe the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost)
called them. Now, when the hon. Prime Mini-
ster announced his willingness to advance and
make available a fund of $5 million, which I
570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
consider a great deal of money, to the muni-
cipalities, it was designed to provide immedi-
ate work. We agreed to pay 70 per cent, of
the wage bill incurred, with the very elastic
provisi"*"* covering so many types of work.
I certainly thought, and still do, that it was
a very generous, realistic approach to the
difficulty of those out of work and not on
unemployment insurance. I still think so.
The fact that the municipalities cannot use
it to the full extent because of such things as
union difficulties and insufficient labour avail-
able of those who can qualify, does not in my
opinion distract one iota from the scheme.
But these things point up the fact, to me,
that there are not as many people really
suffering as we have been led to believe.
The Ontario government is taking definite
action to alleviate the province's unemploy-
ment situation by winterizing to the greatest
possible extent its public works programme.
It is estimated that some $55 million will be
spent in public works, and I also want to note
that between April and December, of 1957,
some $110 million was spent by private in-
dustry in construction— not the biggest year
we have had, but really a good year— on fac-
tories, alterations to industrial plants, shops
and offices.
Winter work on government, projects, while
being given the go-ahead signal to take up
the slack created by seasonal lay-offs and
other causes, has gone forward to a greater
extent than ever before. There is a great list
of things, because I had a survey made, and
I have a lot of detail here about the number
of projects. But I think I would be infring-
ing on The. Department of Public Works to
mention these things. I am leaving those
to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Griesinger ) .
I just want to say that the government is
making an inter-departmental survey which
might increase the potential of winter opera-
tions. At the same time, I suggest that private
industry might take a long look at its own
operations with a view to reorganizing itself,
to reducing and eventually eliminating the
seasonal lay-off trend.
I would suggest the use of local employ-
ment councils as a means of combating
seasonal unemployment. Such councils would
be composed of representatives of industry,
commercial firms, chambers of commerce,
boards of trade and possibly municipal gov-
ernment officials. They could attack this
problem right at the local level. Each council
Would examine its own problems and seek
ways and means of solving them.
There is urgent need for a realistic approach
to the unemployment dilemma, and I call on
industry and labour to help to attack the
problem. I do not believe that the situation
is critical, but this government's feeling is
that there should be a comprehensiv V+imy
made, not only by our departments, but also
by private industry and commercial firms, to
attempt to provide a more balanced employ-
ment cycle.
As I have said, my survey disclosed a great
many projects which I am not going to
mention at this time, because I feel the subject
will be well taken care of by the hon. Minister
concerned.
But I repeat my suggestion that councils
on unemployment be established on a local
level by industry, business, chambers of com-
merce and boards of trade to supervise the
general atmosphere of unemployment in their
respective areas. The attack on unemploy-
ment should be carried out on a long-term
basis, industry should be asked to reorganize
its methods of operation so that there are no
drastic peaks and valleys in employment.
It should not be lost sight of that Canada,
lying as it does in the temperate zone, must
endure 5 months of weather conditions which
generally make it impossible to carry on cer-
tain types of operations. So it is reasonable
to expect that we will always have a certain
amount of unemployment in the winter time.
Now, when people have steady jobs and
they have short hours, and then they go out
and they take somebody else's job, that is
called, I believe, by organized labour "moon-
lighting," where a person holds down more
than one job. I do not think this has become
a very serious problem in Ontario, but I
think that it should be discontinued during
this particular period.
I have always admired a man who was
anxious to get along and was willing to do
a little more than was actually required of
him, but when jobs are scarce I think it is
unfortunate that some of our steadily
employed people at good rates of pay are
simply using the time off, that organized
labour has secured for them, to take some-
body else's job. I know of certain instances.
I hope our people will be big enough in this
period to discontinue that practice.
Now, I would just like to point out that
the value of construction approved in 1957
in The Department of Labour exceeded $150
million. An all-time record of 2,053 projects
were approved. There were 21 projects cost-
ing over $1 million, and almost 200 projects-
some of which exceed $1 million in proposed
*"> MARCtt 6, 1958
$71
cost— which are in varying stages of discus-
sion prior to approval. I would just point out,
without going into all the figures that I have
here of this department, that in January of
this year, there were 16 approved projects
costing $100,000 or more.
Now that is a lot of work in one month,
at a time when we are so greatly concerned
over the problem of employment.
These 16 firms have listed their proposed
expenditures in this respect: Cities Service;
Canadian Thermos Products; T. Eaton Com-
pany Limited; Canada Steamship Lines; the
board of water commissioners, Lindsay; Pills-
bury of Canada Limited, Midland; Inter-
provincial Freezers Limited, Chatham; British
Drug Houses (Canada) Limited, Toronto;
Canadian Motorola Electronic Limited, North
York; University Press, Toronto; Atlantic and
Pacific Food Stores, Windsor; Imperial Oil
Limited, Sarnia; Peel Construction Company,
Limited; Atlantic and Pacific Food Stores,
Ottawa; Bell Telephone Company, Ottawa;
and Principal Investments, Toronto. These
projects range from $100,000 up to $830,000
each.
Another clipping I have, from the Toronto
Globe and Mail of Monday, March 3, reads:
Electric Firm Plans Big Plant
The decision to build a $12 million
factory in Westminster township has def-
initely been made by Northern Electric
Company, and plans for the big factory
are rapidly forging ahead.
This announcement was made by Harry
Miller, engineer in charge at that plant
location and real estate for Northern Elec-
tric. He said the company had decided
to buy 100 acres and locate in the London
area because the district was an attractive
place to build a factory.
The decision to go into Westminster
township, he added, is to a large extent
because of the superhighway and easy
access to a main arterial route across the
province.
I just point those out to show there is no
reason for too deep pessimism, that the pic-
ture as we view it, as we see these things
evolve, leads one to think that the present
condition is more or less a temporary one.
I believe, under our system with so many
necessary things to be done, that we can
provide work and opportunity for our people.
What ar,e we striving for, in this country,
and what, under our free enterprise system,
Have we achieved?
Probably as high a standard of living as
can be found anywhere. Equal opportunity
for all willing to work, and yet we have n0t
up to this time destroyed the initiative of our
people. Social services to care for those who
unfortunately and probably through no fault
of their own need assistance.
A system of accident prevention and case
care assistance for those injured in industry
and with industrial diseases not equalled
any place in the world. Apprenticeship train-
ing and supervision of those wishing to
become skilled mechanics. Great progress
along the line of equal opportunity for all in
education. Ever increasing grants for this
purpose.
Now, concerning this new proposed loan
to students desiring to go to university, I can
say I am all in favour of this scheme as pro-
posed by the hon. Minister of Education.
In passing, I would say from my experience
with this hon. Minister, that he has brought
more vision, a more realistic down-to-earth
approach, more consideration for the under-
privileged, and has done more to advance
educational opportunities for the people of
Ontario than any other man in the history
of this province. The people are lucky to
have this hon. Minister at the head of this
great department.
This proposed $3 million, which he says
will be available for student loans, is the
money of the taxpayers of this province.
Because of this, I say that the view, which I
have heard discussed here, that there should
not be any interest charged, that there should
not be any obligation to pay the money back,
is unreasonable. Surely there should be some
security required, some minimum interest
charged to protect the loan. Many of our
most famous educated men, including the hon.
Minister himself, worked hard during the
school vacation period to earn their education,
and I do not think we should make this thing
so easy that we are going to destroy this
initiative on the part of these young people.
I personally never had the opportunity of
getting a higher education. At the age of 16,
I was apprenticed to learn the carpentry
trade, at $3 a week for the first year, $4 and
$5 for the succeeding years. I will say, Mr.
Speaker, that it was a great sacrifice on the
part of my parents to allow me this oppor-
tunity, for money was rather scarce in our
home. In fact, at times it was almost nil.
Now, according to the standards of that
day, I think I could be considered as having
become a fairly good carpenter, for at the
age of 21, I was ,a foreman of one of the
largest groups of tradesmen ever assembled
up to that time in our city.
57-2
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I belonged to the. union- and so did my
boss. This is <a little point I want to. make on
this. sWe used to atjtend the union meetings
together, the boss for whom I worked and
myself. Neither , the boss or employer of that
day, nor ~. the boss of today, hates his
employees. ^ <
There are. some exceptions, of course,
because we have a great many types of
people. But I believe the boss of today has
the welfare of his employees at heart because,
in so many instances, he came from the
ranks.
T am going to mention a fellow whom I
have known for a great many years, and that
is "Ted" Walker as I know him-E. H.
Walker, president of General Motors of
Canada, Now, he started as a boy in that
industry, finally attended the General Motors
college at Flint—or Detroit, I am not too
sure which place—and he gradually pro-
gressed to the presidency of that great indus-
trial organization. He did not have a college
education.
Thevman he succeeded, president of the
McKinnon Industries— a branch of General
Motors in St. Catharines— a big organization,
had no academic or college education, so I
claim that it is not absolutely necessary that
everybody have a college education to get
along in this world.
I have visited the plants of General Motors
in company with this Ted Walker, whom I
mentioned. I have seen him walk along the
lines and say "Hello Ted," "Hello Red/'
"Hello Bill, Jack," to the workmen on the
line. Does that sound as if these people who,
because of their ability, their initiative, have
reached the top in certain things, are against
the workers? Do hon. members think men
like that are not concerned with the welfare
of the workers and anxious to do the best
for them? I may be naive, but I think they
are greatly concerned.
George Burt, whom hon. members all know
so well, at least by pictures and written
word about him, is head of the United Auto-
mobile Workers in Canada. He still has his
seniority rights in General Motors. He has
not been in there in 15 years, I guess.
Well, what does that mean? It just means
that, in other words, General Motors said
to George Burt: "Go on out and work for
the workers, organize them, lead them, and
your job will always be here for you." Now,
do not say it is not right, because George
Burt told me so himself.
Mr. Thomas (Oshawa): That is quite
true. But they did not say: "Go out and
organize the workers." The hon. Minister
knows they did not say that
Hon. Mr. D»aley: They gave him his sen-
iority rights in the plant, which he holds
today. He could be fired tomorrow, heaven
forbid, and he could go back to General
Motors and resume his position, with his
seniority.
Now I mention this because I feel that
our laws, our rights of labour, bur Labour
Relations Act, are in my opinion— and I have
said this before— slanted; if anything towards
labour. We try to keep them in balance, but
actually they are slanted in favour of organ-
ized labour, for during a period of organiza-
tion of a plant, the union has every opportun-
ity to approach the workers but the industry
must remain silent, else it is deemed to be
an Unfair employer, forcing the workers.
Now, what I say all this has done is to
create the feeling, and I regret it, that the
workers and the employers are getting further
apart. It is driving the workers and the
employers into two camps, for after all the
employer has to stay in business. He has to
remain competitive. He has to earn dividends
for his shareholders.
It often occurs to me, when I am sitting
in on some of these bargaining procedures,
trying to bring the two parties together,
that the representatives of the employers are
not employers at all. They are just workers
themselves, working for a big corporation
with responsibilities to fulfil, so the situation
is actually that of worker against worker.
I am sorry to see that there is a cleavage
there, that the workers and the employers are
getting further apart.
Let us go back to this educational business
for a second. I am a little concerned that,
because the Russians launched this sputnik,
we are going overboard on this question of
education. Are we going to advance so far
that we are not going to need any labourers,
or carpenters, or electricians or plumbers?
Who is going to do the work in this country
if everybody is going to have academic train-
ing? I do not know.
I am going to say to you, Mr. Chairman,
it was a great sacrifice to my parents, and it
will be to a great many other parents, to allow
a boy to learn a trade at the apprenticeship
wages, when he is strong and capable of earn-
ing a better wage. It is just as much a sacri-
fice to them to allow that boy to learn a trade
as it is for the next family to allow their boy
to go for a higher education. I do not think
all our efforts should be centred along the line
of higher education.
MAR€H 6, 1958
973
We should give continuously more thought
to the boy who has a lot of ability— the kind of
ability which is needed in this country— yet
who is not able to absorb higher education.
We are getting to a point— where, in this
country, we are demanding more and more
without considering all sides of a question.
In my opinion, if we allow the pendulum to
swing too far, We are going to destroy marry
of the things which we presently enjoy. There
is no utopia on this earth, and I do not think
it was ever intended that there be one here.
We should re-examine our position, and I
appeal to the workers, the union men who
have made such a great contribution to our
way of life, to do so.
I am not one who thinks that the workers
of today do not do a satisfactory day's
Work for a day's pay. I think our
skilled workmen are more skilled than ever,
because of the opportunities for technical
training that have been made available to
them. Nor do I believe that they are any
more lazy or inefficient than we were when
I was in the trade. In fact, our people of
today are more skilled and more efficient than
ever before in the history of this province.
Now, we want men in the trades and we
have seen the growth of union organization.
We have fostered it, we have helped it. No
one has done more to assist the organization
of the workers than this government.
We have seen them freed from the neces-
sity of strikes for union recognition. Advances
have been made by our present system.
Workers have achieved a higher standard of
living than ever before, more of the good
things are available for more of the people.
There is no discrimination because of union
activities, and there is freedom of choice of
union.
Let hon. members compare the early
Labour Relations Act with the Act of today,
and note the improvements over the years,
concerning the hours of work and vacations
with pay. Now I would say we have made
great progress and that the workers in this
province have made great progress.
But I say this, that the workers in the
unions should take a greater interest in the
activities of their union, because I believe
that is one of the weaknesses of the union.
Too great decisions are left to too few to
make. Naturallyj union leaders have to be
continually pressing to justify their position,
and I will say this, that unfortunately too
many of them, because they have so declared
themselves, have become too socialistic in
their outlook, so I say to the workers: "Do
not be led 'down the garden path' without
knowing where you are going."
Now, I come to the subject of smalt busi-
ness people. We hear so much today about
the small business being put out of business
by the larger business. Well that is, probably
true to some extent.
But I say the small merchants can give the
big fellows a fight. They have so much on
their side— personal service, personal desires
which they are aware of, and knowledge of
the wishes of their customers.
Much discussion has been made regarding
closing hours, particularly of retail establish-
ments. This subject is and. should, in my
opinion, remain a municipal responsibility.
We all like to have good hours of work. A
trend is coming from longer hours down to
40 hours, and representations have already
been made for even lesser hours. I think
merchants should realize that, in this highly
competitive business in which they are in,
they cannot do business when their shops are
closed.
I get a great many representations from
people like the barbers, who complain about
lack of business and what they should do
and how they should get more of it. I like
to see them get all they can.
Maybe I am old-fashioned, but it does
annoy me when I cannot get into a barber
shop before 9 o'clock in the morning. I used
to live near a barber shop up on Eglinton
Avenue in Toronto, and one morning I went
to the shop and there were 3 men waiting
to get in. The barber did not come until
about 10 minutes after 9. The next day
I went and the barber complained bitterly
about his business being poor.
Why would it not be poor? It is easy to
leave a haircut for another week if one
wishes to, if one has gone to the barber
shop at 9 o'clock and could not get in. I
do not know when a worker does get his
hair cut, because the shops are not open in
the morning and they are closed at night.
I do not want the barbers to keep open
nights, but it seems to me that a better
system than the present one could be worked
out.
Then there is the matter of coffee breaks.
I would not be surprised if some workers will
soon want what they have down in the
south— a siesta. We want all the good things
of life, and we are entitled to them if we
work for them. But I do not see how we
can have all these things if we are not pre-
pared to do something for them.
574
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We have established the fact that a 5-day
Week is desirable, not to exceed 48 hours.
During this period we have gone through-
industrial expansion and great improvement
in the standard of Jiving— we have accom-
plished a great deal in arriving at that point.
I do not know how much further we should
go in reducing hours. So I say let us consider
this matter thoughtfully, seriously, and sen-
sibly.
I have heard it proposed that we should
have a 32- or 34-hour week. Will that num-
ber of hours support the kind of life we have
been accustomed to? We have lost our export
markets to a large extent. Why? We do not
compete in the world market because we have
priced ourselves out of it.
Mr. Nixon: A while ago it was the Ottawa
government that lost us that.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Well, of course, they
helped a bit. We have higher wage rates than
other countries, with the exception of the
United States. We have better labour laws,
legislation protecting the interest, health and
welfare of the workers, workmen's com-
pensation which is considered to be the most
liberal and humanely administered to be
found anywhere. How much more can we
expect to get?
1 Mr. Chairman, the speech from the Throne
gave me the feeling that this is not a time
for pessimism. Because I have read some
things that are on the planning boards, I
would say it is a time for optimism. We have
every reason to be optimistic in the long-
term view. Because of this great province's
geographical location, its tremendous natural
resources, the initiative of our people, the
skill of our workers, certainly in my mind we
should eliminate pessimism from our minds.
The tremendous works programme outlined
at federal, provincial and municipal levels
indicate faith in our country by those people.
But this will not, in itself, restore us to our
normal position. First, the people themselves
must have the faith to live normally, and to
keep purchasing the things they need,
whether it be a new dress or suit, refrigerator,
or a new car. Failure to do this will lead only
to more unemployment. Our industries are
not quiet, at this time, because of loss of
our great export business. We priced our-
selves out of that years ago, our export busi-
ness has not been so great. But we have also
lost the home market, at least it has been
greatly reduced beyond the point of realism,
because of uneasiness. But we cannot al-
together blame the people, because every time
they read a newspaper or hear, particularly, a
Liberal political speech, gloom seems to be
emphasized.
This province and this country are finan-
cially sound, our credit is good, and our stand-
ing among the nations of the world is high.
Our position has been clarified, only just
recently, among the members of the British
Commonwealth. To use the words which
have been used so many times, of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, "we have nothing to fear
but fear itself."
Our industries, large and small, must show
their confidence by proceeding with their pro-
posed expansions, and by keeping every man
at work where it is possible. A confident in-
dustry and a confident people will lift this
temporary difficulty like fog before the sun.
This province has enjoyed a long period of
growth and prosperity that has exceeded even
our most wishful thinking.
Organized labour has done a good job in
securing for the workers of this province
better conditions of employment, and ex-
tended employment particularly in the auto-
motive industry— which used to be far worse
than it is today in relation to seasonal unem-
ployment. And it has secured a fair share
of the fruits of labour for the workman him-
self.
This government has also, since 1943 when
labour legislation was enacted, been extremely
aware of the need to enable the workers of
this province to organize without fear of dis-
crimination for union activity. It has set up
conciliation, arbitration and many other pro-
cedures to assist them in improving their
position without the necessity of work stop-
page. We have set up measures to protect
their health, by providing for increased
inspections, reduced hours of work, vacations
with pay, and ever-increasing protection from
accidents.
Because of the record of the government,
since 1943, I am sure the workers of this
province will agree that, under this govern-
ment, the worker has made real progress.
In that period, and I think this is most im-
portant, we have not discouraged industrial
development, for our increase in that respect
has been phenomenal. It is continuing, and
the figures which I gave are ample proof
of this.
Does this indicate there is any foundation
for pessimism in this province? I said that
we have not destroyed initiative and indus-
trial development, and we could have done
so had we acceded to all the requests made
by the socialists in this province. We could
have hamstrung our industries so that the
desire of new industry to come here, and
MARCH 6, 1958
575
present industries to expand, with their skills
and their abilities, would have been curtailed.
We want industry to come, and industrialists
like to come io Ontario because they like
our labour laws. Let hon. members be assured
that these industrialists investigate these laws
very carefully before settling in this province.
It would be possible to develop a system
that would give shorter hours, more and
more unrealistic wage rates, and almost
have Utopian conditions— but no jobs. This
government has maintained a balance as
between labour and management, while
actually protecting the jobs of the workers
and the conditions under which they have to
work.
Ever since World War II, this province
and this country have gone progressively
forward in every way. More of the good
things of life have become available to more
people than was ever considered possible.
As a matter of fact, under the free enterprise
or capitalistic system, if you wish to call it
that, the standard of living for our people
has risen faster and further than under any
other system known to man.
Small business has become big business.
I have always found it difficult to decide
where the line is between a big and little
business. In my business career I was con-
sidered a small business operator. Yet to me
it was a big business, because it provided me
with the necessities of life and the ability to
care for my family.
Big business has undoubtedly played a big
part in our development and made available
goods and services that could not have been
supplied by what is called small business.
But we must not ignore the fact that even if
an industry or merchandising establishment
is considered small, the business man who
operates it is really the backbone of our
economy. The small business man is a solid
citizen in fris community, taking an active
part in anything of community interest. He
supports the churches, the schools, the service
clubs, and the sports, so we have to do what
we can to support him. These are difficult
days for him.
The big operator and the big unions are
continually pressing us for legislation con-
cerning such things as hours of work, more
vacations with pay and other things which I
consider matters for negotiation. We have
mandatorily imposed a 48-hour week, a
week's holiday with pay, and I believe that
is as far as we should go by legislation, or
else we impose on the little man— whom we
are endeavouring to help— a burden that he
cannot bear and remain in business, especially
in these difficult times.
I do not believe we can continually impose
burdens on our people they cannot bear, and
hope to continue our progressive move for-
ward.
Is it not reasonable, after all these years
of progress, to expect a certain amount of
levelling off? That is just what we are experi-
encing today.
How do we combat this condition? I sug-
gest that industry, large and small, look to
the future with confidence, and keep their
staffs at the highest point consistent with good
management. I suggest that the workers of
this province reassess their position, take a
good look at it, and see if it is unreasonable-
after all these years of great progress— to ex-
pect that, this year, no unrealistic demands
will be made to increase our difficulties.
Rather, the workers should concentrate on
consolidating their gains made over the years.
Lets us not dig a big hole in which to bury
our free enterprise system.
Mr. Chairman, the estimates which I have
once again the honour to submit to you are
realistic, taking into account the ever-
increasing growing needs of our people. They
have been carefully prepared, they have been
scrutinized by the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Frost) and approved, and I request the
approval of this House so that we in this
department can go forward knowing where
we are going.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): I want to make some
comment about labour matters in this prov-
ince. At the outset, I would like to commend
the activities of the hon. Minister of Labour,
the Deputy Minister of Labour, and the staff
for the manner in which they deal with labour
problems. I think it is to the credit of adminis-
tration generally that the Ministry in this
House saw fit last year to appoint the select
committee on labour relations.
To my mind, it is the most important select
committee that ever sat in this House in the
interval between the sessions. I sincerely hope
that the committee, at least the majority of
the committee, will be enabled to bring in
a report before the next election (which will
probably come early this year if newspaper
speculation is accurate at all) so that some-
thing better might come of our Labour
Relations Act.
I am not going to say anything more about
that Act at the present time, because diat is
a matter which is still under discussion before
the committee, and in my opinion should not
properly be discussed here.
576
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Set a new programme
for Guy Fawkes Day.
Mr. Wren: The government have set it,
have they?
An hon. member: Set the month but not
the day.
j Mr. Wren: One thing I am disappointed
about, Mr. Chairman, is this. In the speeches
given in the Throne debate and in the hon.
Ministers remarks today, there was very
little said about some of the human labour
problems— some of the real problems perhaps,
that affect human beings— which are adminis-
tered by the department.
In particular, I noticed that the hon. Minis-
ter had nothing at all to say about the
recipients of disability and death awards of
the compensation board.
Now, I have heard the hon. Minister's
arguments before, and I have heard the hon.
Prime Minister's arguments before, that it is
not fair or reasonable to go back over the
years or place the costs of accidents of former
years onto the shoulders of industry today.
Now I do not think that we can realistically
allow this thinking to continue, when we have
people in our province who are suffering
extreme hardships through no fault of their
own, people who faithfully performed their
duties and their services as working men
and women years ago, and suffered accident
as' a result. Imagine a widow today for
example, with two children, having to exist
on $74 a month!
Now I noticed the other day that the Rt.
hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefen-
baker) said that he was having a good look
at the question of adding a contributory
pension scheme of some kind to the existing
$55 a month old age pension. Now I suggest
to hon. members that even the $55 a month
old age pension for a married couple will
provide them with a great deal more than
a widow with two children can obtain through
the compensation board allowance. The same
holds true for men who suffered loss of limbs
in former years and are incapacitated as a
result, all the way up from 10 to 100 per
cent., and they are existing under conditions
which are absolutely disgraceful to behold.
Now I do not know why this cannot be
properly adjusted out of the general revenue
fund. If I were in the Ministry on the
government side, I would not hesitate to
introduce a bill to provide that that money
be allocated. But, inasmuch as money bills
are the property only of the government side,
I would urge that some hon. Minister on
that side take this matter into consideration.
■t Now, they may say that it cannot be done,
they may say there is no precedent for doing
it, and that it is not fair to assess industry
at the present time. Well, if it is not fair
to assess industry, then let us make it a
levy on the entire population of the province.
For example, in the federal Department
of Veterans' Affairs, the veterans' pensions
have been adjusted upwards from time to
time as needs and conditions change. The
government of Canada has never gone about
suggesting that, just because a man fought
in one war or another war, or in a different
period or different era, that he was not en-
titled to the same consideration as the pen-
sioner of today.
Therefore I am appealing to this govern-
ment to do something for these people, be-
cause I do believe they are worthy of very
serious consideration.
I have noted the hon. Minister's remarks
about the unemployment situation which has
been beaten around quite a lot during this
session. I am not going to say a great deal
about it. The hon. Minister mentioned this
afternoon that the proposal of the hon. Prime
Minister for 70 per cent, of labour cost to
municipalities with peculiar labour troubles,
was generous and realistic. But I suggest to
him that he might agree with me that,
although I think the hon. Prime Minister had
the best of intentions when he announced the
plan, in the plan itself he actually "goofed."
Now I say that for this reason. The muni-
cipalities are already getting, under existing
regulations and legislation, relief for those
who are unemployed and unemployable up
to an extent of 80 per cent. Now, why would
they find it necessary to embark on a pro-
gramme of this kind where they would
increase their own cost by 10 per cent.? I
do not think the plan is realistic at all, I
think the money might better be used if
allocated to the municipalities on a basis of
need and a basis of good intention.
I was interested too in the hon. Minister's
remarks about this so-called "moonlighting."
I noted where he said that it has not become
quite as serious a thing as some people might
believe. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
it is in some cases becoming a serious matter,
for this very reason. I want to give one or
two examples.
If a man is holding down two jobs, and
works, we will suggest, from 8 o'clock in the
morning to 5 in the evening, and then goes
back at night at 9 o'clock to work at another
job until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, he
does not get his proper rest. As a result of
not getting his proper rest, he may suffer
MARCH 6, 1958
577
an accident H) minutes after he* resumes
work in the morning. Who is held responsible
for that accident? It becomes a cost to his
original employer and it is not a fair assess-
ment. I do suggest that it is the. responsibility
of the unions themselves to do something
about this, but! think. that our compensation
benefits, arid other activities of government
where they are related wholly to occupation,
should be given a very .close look.
I have personal knowledge of injuries
which have taken place on the railroads and
in the mines and in the bush, simply because
of fatigue, and the original employer was
penalized because the man was not able to
report for work in a fit and proper condition.
Another matter I noticed in the hon.
Minister's remarks concerned the unemploy-
ment situation regarding automobile indus-
tries in places like Windsor and Oshawa.
I think the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario
put his finger on part of it the other day
when he said that they were designing cars
something like ladies' dresses. But I want to
suggest another aspect of this situation which
has hit the automobile market very hard, and
as a result, the service industries allied to
that trade generally. This situation is this,
that of gouging by finance companies. What
they are doing to the people of this province
is something that should be severely checked
and severely countered.
There are many automobile dealers today,
Mr. Chairman, and you and I know it, who
do not worry if they do not make a cent's
profit on the sale of the automobile, because
they are making 23 per cent, and upwards in
financing the sale of the automobile. In fact
there are some automobile dealers who will
not sell a car at all unless the purchaser agrees
to take it at a cheap rate, plus the financing
which he handles himself*
I suggest to the automobile industry serious-
ly that, first of all, they should design a car
that is suitable for this country, Suitable for
this climate and suitable to men who require
basic transportation. Those people who have
the resources can always get a better car, but
the working man needs a car, and certainly
our engineers can design one, which will suit
the needs of this province.
Then let the automobile industry itself
finance the sale of the car at service cost.
Now, when the hon. Minister asks where are
we going to get the money for all these
things, I would suggest that there are hun-
dreds of millions of dollars each year being
siphoned out of this country through the
operation of the finance companies.
We cannot say they are simply handsome
profits, because they are actually disgusting
profits. Their rates are having a very serious
effect on employment generally.
Now, I would like to mention another
thing this afternoon, and I am glad the hon.
member for Temiskaming (Mr. Herbert) is
back in his seat. The other day he assured me
in this House that, as far as he was person-
ally concerned, he was in favour of keeping
the diesel firemen in service on the Ontario
Northland Railway and allied operations. At
the very moment he was giving me this
information, the Manager of the railway com-
pany itself had written to the railway union
president in Montreal, telling him that he
wanted to open negotiations to cancel the
existing collective bargaining agreements so
that firemen could be removed from service
in the Ontario Northland Railway.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have
discussed this since with the hon. Prime
Minister and he has assured me he has the
same feeling about the matter as has the
hon. member for Temiskaming. I am sure the
people up there would be very pleased to
know that.
I want to say some more about that subject,
particularly with reference to what the hon.
Minister has said about his concern for doing
something about unemployment and the
thinking about people of this country.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, today,
that the rape of the trade union movement
is underway, and the culprit is the so-called
Canadian Pacific Railway, aided and abetted
by the foreign holders of the bulk of the
ordinary stock, who are the people who
selected the site for the crime.
I do not think there are too many Cana-
dians aware that the controlling stock, the
ordinary voting stock of the Canadian Pacific
Railway is in American hands. I think this
is significant, in view of the fact that not
one single American railroad is involved in
any way in this matter. As a matter of fact,
almost all American railroads, certainly all
the large carriers without exception, have
signed, 3- to 5-year collective bargaining
agreements with their firemen.
Now, here is a case where they picked on
an innocent victim. What they did was this,
in plain and simple English:
These people sat down in the United States
and picked out a weak union, that is to say
weak in numerical strength, and dragged it
into the bushes for assault. The only thing
that happened there was the Canadian Pacific
578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Railway did not realize that the victims could
identify their assailants.
Now, it is going to produce serious
economic chaos— I see some grins across the
way, but I want to assure hon. members of
this, and. I am not trying to be pessimistic
when I say it— we are in for a period of
economic trial in this country, and I am sure
we are all going to do our level best to work
our way out of it. But if this particular rail-
way company is to get away with this attempt
to strangle the railway union movement, we
are going to have a general strike on our
hands the likes of which we have never seen
in this country, something of the shades of
the 1919 general strike.
Now, I have been in touch with the Rt. hon.
Prime Minister of Canada, too, about this
and Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker advised me by
letter yesterday that he is taking a close
look at this thing and, as a matter of fact,
was just as surprised as I was about some
of the actual facts of this situation.
Mr. Grossman: "Diefy" will fix it up.
Mr. Wren: Well, I am telling the hon.
members that if he does not, it will be just
too bad.
The hon. Minister was talking a little while
ago about socialistic votes. If the Rt. hon.
Prime Minister does not act, he is going to
hand the socialists a half-million votes on a
silver platter. If we think we have trouble
now, we will have much more if we wait
until that happens.
Now I would like to discuss some other
aspects of this Kellogg report. We have heard
a lot in this labour relations committee, and
I am not discussing any aspects of the com-
mittee's work, but during the work of the
labour relations committee we heard a great
deal about these high priced lawyers, how
they are gouging the public. I want to say
this for this House, Mr. Chairman, in all
sincerity, that I do not think there was ever
a trade union that was sold down the river,
by a so-called high priced lawyer, any more
definitely than was the union I am discuss-
ing. Now their lawyer was paid fees from
$200 to $250 a day plus expenses, and the
very meat of the subject, which should have
been presented before the Royal commission
—which was in the interest of the public
itself and the interest of public safety, and
in the interest of the men— was not presented.
As a matter of fact, I have a copy of the
Royal commission's report here, and if hon.
members look through this book, and through
this report, they will learn what—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: What high-priced lawyer
is he referring to?
Mr. Wren: Mr. Lewis.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. David Lewis?
Mr. Wren: Yes, he is one of the CGF
executives.
Mr. Grossman: He surely did not take all
that, did he?
An hon. member: He donated some of the
cash.
Mr. Wren: I do not know where he is
going to use it, but certainly the union did
not get the benefit of it.
Another point I want to make about this
Royal commission report— on pages 18, 19
and so on of this report, it is evident that the
commission wandered all over Europe. They
went to the United Kingdom, to France, to
Switzerland, to Italy. They had themselves
a real junket. They did not take a look at
the operation of one single American railroad.
Not one.
At the insistence of the railway companies,
when the union selected the spots where the
Royal commission would have a look at the
operations, it was made mandatory that the
union inform the commission in advance,
give them two or three weeks' notice of the
spots selected. Naturally, the railroad com-
pany by the time of the visit had the finest
set-up one could imagine.
For example, out in western Canada, where
it is indeed vital to have a full complement
of train crew on each train, they took them out
there at a time when not one box car of grain
was moving, because we just were not moving
any grain at the time. And yet, in a normal
year, or a year when grain is being moved,
about every 5 or 6 miles, there is a switching
spur for grain and the attendant box-car
handling operations.
The Royal commission did not see any of
that. They did not go up to Kenora or Sioux
Lookout or Fort William, for example, in the
middle of winter when the snow was blowing
and it was 40 or 50 degrees below zero.
They did not see any of these things, but
they had this junket around Europe.
Without any disrespect to the operators
of railroads in the United Kingdom-and I
have ridden on lots of them and say they
have a fine transportation system there— the
conditions under which they operate have no
comparison to ours. The trains themselves
are as toys compared to ours.
MARCH 6, 1958
579
Another thing they made a great issue out
of in this report, and I wish hon. members
would all read it, is this: They made a great
issue about the so-called "dead man equip-
ment" that is on diesel locomotives. If any-
thing happens to the operator, they said,
immediately this automatic equipment will
go into operation and the train will stop.
That is so much nonsense. I know per-
fectly well that the commission members
would not have said what they did if they
had known how the device operates.
How it operates is simply this: When
something does happen to the operator, and
the dead man equipment goes into action,
it involves what is called a "service applica-
tion of the air-brake." The train will then
move for a length, perhaps, of a quarter-
mile before the brakes themselves start into
the emergency operation, and it will take
approximately 5,700 feet to stop a normal
freight train. Now, that is over a mile— well,
a normal freight train does not stop until
it has gone over a mile.
I would ask hon. members to go and talk
to some of the men who supervise railway
operations. If they talk to some of the yard-
masters and the trainmasters and the road
foremen of engines, and those sort of people
who have to operate these railroads, they will
be told in a minute that these railway men
do not dare say anything publicly, because
they will lose their jobs. What the operators
will tell hon. members is that, if these men
are taken off these locomotives, they them-
selves are going to look for other jobs because
they do not want the responsibility of han-
dling or directing the operations of the railroad
without the full complement.
Another thing that is asked is why these
people expect to get something for nothing.
Well, they are not getting something for noth-
ing. These diesel locomotives are not automatic
-they are not automatic by any stretch of
the imagination. It takes a great deal of
fortitude to operate these trains at the high
speed they operate them at today. You can-
not train a man overnight to operate a full
tonnage freight train.
Another thing they will talk about, too,
is the productivity of unions. They will say,
"Why cannot we get some benefit from
these technological advances?" Well, the
unions went right along with them (very
foolishly they discover now) but there was
a time, under collective bargaining agree-
ments,, when for each locomotive unit that
went off the shop track, there had to be a
crew on it, whether the train was being
double-headered, triple-headered or what it
was.
Now, the one crew operates up to 4 units
on that train. They are hauling 3 or 4 times
as much tonnage, and with the same train
crew on the tail end. Their productivity is
actually increased, and they have co-operated
with the railways to increase their produc-
tivity as much as 600 and 700 per cent., and
this is what they get for it.
There is no other trade union in the world
that can show that increase in productivity.
Not a single one. Yet, that is one of the
great arguments that the Canadian Pacific
Railway counsel puts up to the Royal com-
mission. They asked, the men to do this for
them some years ago, then after they co
operated with the railway to increase effi-
ciency and productivity, they are winding up
in this situation.
I want to relate another situation that
happened just west of Sioux Lookout just
two or three years ago. Some "wise guy"
in the Canadian National Railways said:
"There are two or three operators in that
line we do not need. They're sitting down
there reading magazines, and we could do
without them. We are going to save 3
salaries."
They did do away with them, and it was
not two weeks later until the chief dispatcher
from Winnipeg, who operates the control
over the area right down to Armstrong,
phoned the superintendent at Sioux Lookout
and said: "Call out the wrecking train."
The superintendent said, "Where is the
wreck?" He said: "I do not know. I have 2
trains moving in opposite directions. They
are about 25 minutes apart. The operators I
used to have are no longer there, and I can-
not stop the trains."
Those trains did hit, 20 minutes later. Four
men were killed and another was crippled for
life, and it cost the railway in damage claims—
they were what are called "hot shot" speed
freights or merchandise freights— it cost the
company over $940,000 in damages. They
could have paid those men's salaries for 263
years and still been money ahead, even if
they had done nothing at all. But they do
not care about that. The hon. Minister can
look that up and see in his compensation file
where we— when I say we, the province-
have 4 families on our hands until those chil-
dren are educated, or until the widows get
married again. We have another man crippled
for life as a result of it.
The railways are dollar conscious before
they are safety conscious. And that is exactly
580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what is happening again. I am telling hori.
members today that if the railways are
allowed to get away with this thing, we are
going to see wrecks in greater number than
we have ever seen before, and we are going
to see experienced men, good men who, out
of necessity, are going to have to leave, their
jobs.
I am suggesting to hon. members, the Cana-
dian Pacific Railway and anyone else, that
they cannot suck and whistle at the same
time. If they want the trade union move-
ment to co-operate with them in matters of
productivity and the benefits of technology,
and all the benefits we derive from automation
generally, then they have got to play the game
too. It cannot be all one-sided.
The campaign to counteract this has been
started. The first meeting will take place in
Toronto tonight. There is another one next
Monday night here. There will be one in
Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary, from cOast to
coast. And every hon; member of this Legis-
lature, and every hon. member of the House
of Commons, and every candidate for mem-
bership, is quite free to come up and talk
to these people because the public is going to
be told the story.
They have heard the railway side of the
story now, through expert public relations
counsel with whom I have no quarrel. They
were hired to do a good job and they did a
good job, but the men sat back and trusted
them and did not say very much, and they are
not in a position where -with the newspapers,
they are handling any advertising arid other
accounts to get their message into the papers
themselves.
Now, we are going to get this information
into all the daily, all the weekly papers, give
them all they want to print.
But I am appealing to hon. members on
behalf of these men, and I am not appealing
on the basis that they might vote for
me because there are not enough of them
in my riding to make that difference. I am
just appealing to hon. members on the basis
of fairness; on the basis that if we do not
back up the labour union movement now, with
a sympathetic look at their problems, they
are never going to trust us again.
And here is a group that have placed their
trust in us, and here is a group, who, as with
all other trade union groups, back us to the
limit as long as we are willing to see to it
that they are not throttled by interests which
are foreign to this country.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to say a few words
before we go into the vote on the estimates.
I agree with the hon. Minister of Labour that
we have the select committee set up and they
are going to look after, I hope, the problems
of providing in the Act the things we need
to make it workable and satisfactory to all.
Now I am going to say something about the
trade union movement later on in the budget
speech or in the speech on the Throne debate.
But there is a point I would like to make
today, and that is, it seems to me that about
the only time the hon. Minister pays some
attention to the trade union movement is
when he makes his speech regarding the
estimates. ^
Hon. Mr. Daley: I deal with them every
day.
.Mr. Gisborn: Yes, I would agree that
maybe he does, but the trade union move-
ment does not feel that is the case, because
the office of the hon. Minister is one that
should try to bring about the best possible
relationship with those people involved in the
trade union movement, and when they
request of his office an opinion or a decision
or anything that his office is responsible for,
they at least expect ari answer either favour-
ing something they want or otherwise.
Last year, in my speech on the Throne
debate, I dealt With some of the loop-
holes in The Labour Relations Act and I men-
tioned a particular case in Hamilton where
the union, after being certified, had attempted
to bargain with their employer. The employer
just refused to bargain, and they mentioned
the fact that we should have provisions in the
Act to make bargaining, in good faith, com-
pulsory.
But this particular union was forced to go
on strike because, in our opinion, the com-
pany would not bargain in good faith. And
in November, 1956, this particular union, as
I mentioned in my speech last year, asked the
hon. Minister to intervene, and see if he
could help them out with their problem, and
up to this time, that union has not had an
answer to their correspondence.
Hon. Mr. Daley: It must be over by now,
then.
Mr. Gisborn: Yes, the problem is over by
now, the strike was smashed, and the com-
pany are operating with some employees at
sub-standard wages.
But the point I want to make is that the
hon. Minister is not doing the job that he
should do, just on one very small minor
point. I am going to deal much further with
this later on, in my opportunity on the Throne
speech. But in May, 1956, the journeymen s
MARCH 6, 1958
581
barbers, hairdressers and cosmetologists union
submitted to the hon*, Minister some of the
things they felt should \ be changed in The
Industrial Standards Act.. In May, 1956* and
up till this time they have not had an answer
to their questions to the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Daley i My goodness ■■'■ we have
been dealing with these people week after
week— not me personally in every instance,
but through the department. I have asked
that they be called in, and they have been in.
Mr. Gisborn: Up to a few days ago, they
have not had an answer to their correspond-
ence from the department. That is the
information I get from their organization.
Now to further document the point I want
to make:
On the particular matter that I brought up
last year, when this particular union did not
receive an answer from the hon. Minister,
their problem was taken to the Hamil-
ton labour council, and because they felt that
the hon. Minister's department had not
answered their correspondence, they wrote
to the hon. Prime Minister and this was
the correspondence:
Our council is very disturbed over the
situation that has developed between Metal
Textile Corporation, Catharine St. North,
Hamilton, and Local 287, United Textile
Workers of America. This union, following
the procedure outlined in The Ontario
Labour Relations Act, was duly certified
as a collective bargaining agent for the
employees of this firm.
Management refused to bargain with the
union, and when developments had reached
the stage of a conciliation board, they
refused to submit evidence to the board.
This is a board that was set up in accord-
ance with the Act.
Here is a case where the union in every
instance followed not only the provisions of
the Act, but in intent as well, while manage-
ment accorded the provisions of the Act the
most minimum attention, and we could well
say completely flouted the intent.
In a list of many similar cases, this prob-
ably indicated the most flagrant breach of
good faith any company had indulged in,
and the dispute went on and on, until the
union finally asked that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's office contact their department, asking
for an answer to their problem. It ended
this way:
Be it resolved that we condemn the
Ontario government for not being prepared
to have labour legislation with teeth in
it, to force employers to bargain in good
faith, and we so advise the Ontario gov-
ernment and our two provincial federa-
tions to this effect. Would you please
advise this council if our provincial gov-
ernment intends to correct this serious lack
of enforcement provisions in our Ontario
Labour Relations Act.
Well, that was sent on February, 1957,
and they were referring to the Metal Textile
case that happened in November, 1956.
On February 18, the secretary of the labour
council received this correspondence from
Mr. Young, the executive assistant to the
hon. Prime Minister's office.
I have for acknowledgement your letter
of February 12, in connection with the
Metal Textile Corporation of Hamilton, and
wish to advise you that a copy of same
will be sent to the hon. Mr. Daley, Minis-
ter of Labour, for his information, as such
matters come under the jurisdiction of his
department.
On March 4, Mr. Cooke, the secretary
of the Labour Council sent this letter to Mr.
Young:
We received your letter of February 18,
informing us that labour matters come
under The Department of Labour, and in
case you felt otherwise, we were very much
aware of this before we wrote the hon.
Prime Minister. The fact is that the union
involved in the Metal Textile Corporation
strike had appealed to the hon. Minister
of Labour as set forth in our letter, and
we saw no point in writing the hon. Minis-
ter of Labour about it, because to date,
the United Textile Workers of America
have not even been given the courtesy of
a reply from the hon. Minister of Labour.
Our council would appreciate it, if the
hon. Prime Minister would take note of
the complaints forwarded to him, because
regardless of whom he has in charge of
the department, it is the hon. Prime Minis-
ter on whom the responsibility falls for
the behaviour of one of his Ministers.
I trust you will in future read the mails
and give some attention to it, rather than
refer it to someone who has already chosen
to ignore it.
On March 11, and I would like to say,
Mr. Chairman, that this is not the corres-
pondence just sent by the wish of one per-
son, but it is duly done as a council and
582
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the instructions are given to the secretary
of the labour council by the delegates. On
March- 11,. Mr. Cooke, secretary of the council,
received this correspondence from Mr. Young,
the assistant to the hon. Prime Minister's
office::-
I have for acknowledgment your letter
of March 4, and would like to add to my
former letter, that all the important docu-
ments such as that received from your
organization, are without exception refer-
red to the Prime Minister prior to being
sent to the Minister directly in charge
of that particular part of Ontario legis-
lation.
On April 2, the secretary of the council
had to send this letter, on instructions from
the council, to the hon. Prime Minister:
On February 12, we wrote you in con-
nection with a resolution passed by our
council arising out of the difficulties be-
tween the United Textile Workers of
America, affiliates of our council and the
Metal Textile Corporation of Hamilton.
In this letter we also advised you that
the hon. Charles Daley, Minister of Labour
has yet to reply to the letter dated Novem-
ber 3, 1956, sent to him by the United
Textile Workers of America, nor did he
intervene as they had requested.
On February 18, 1957, Mr. E. J. Young,
your executive assistant, acknowledged our
letter to you, advising it had been passed
along to the hon. Mr. Daley. On March 4,
we wrote Mr. Young, stating we felt
the mere sending of a copy of our letter
to Mr. Daley was futile, since he had
already chosen to ignore previous cor-
respondence and that the whole point of
writing you had been to draw this matter
to your attention.
On March 11, Mr. Young again wrote
us, assuring us that such letters were always
referred to you prior to being sent to the
Minister concerned. Our council delegates
are quite concerned. We have not been
able to receive any reply regarding the
contents of our letter of February 12, and
the United Textile Workers of America's
letter of November 3.
They have instructed the writer to pursue
this matter, as they desire an answer to
the contents of the letters, and are not
satisfied with a letter from your office
advising us. that you have received our
letters.
Would you, therefore, please reply to our
letter of February 12, wherein we asked
you to advise this council if the govern-
ment of Ontario intends to correct the
serious lack of enforcement provisions in
The Ontario Labour Relations Act.
In addition, we would ask that you
advise us why the Minister of Labour, Mr.
Daley, did not reply to the November 3,
1956, letter of the United Textile Workers
union of America, and why he took no
action upon their request.
We would advise that these are matters
of very grave concern to the 31,000 trade
union members this council represents in
Hamilton, and that is their feeling that
you, as Prime Minister, have the respon-
sibility of seeing that your cabinet minis-
ters discharge their duties properly.
May we look forward to a complete
and early reply.
Now on July 3, without having any answer,
the secretary was instructed to send this
letter to the hon. Prime Minister.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: They were kind of
giving them the run around.
Mr. Cisborn: Run around? I would say it
is the run around.
Would you please reply to the series of
letters we have sent you, the latest of
which was dated April 2, 1957.
Now, on July 5, we received this letter
from Mr. Mclntyre, secretary of the cabinet.
Mr. Cooke received it as secretary of the
labour council.
Your letter of July 31— [obviously, Mr.
Chairman, there was a mistake in dates
there because it was dated July 5]— is
received in the absence today of the hon.
Leslie M. Frost. The matter to which you
refer has been having the attention of
officials here, and I am having the file
referred back to this office for the attention
of the Prime Minister at the beginning of
next week.
So, on September 12, the secretary was
instructed to write this letter to the hon.
Prime Minister:
At the risk of seeming importunate we
would again remind you that we have not
yet received a reply to the series of letters
we have sent you dated February 12»
March 4, April 2, and July 3.
On September 17, the secretary of the
council received this correspondence from Mr.
MARCH 6, 1958
583
Young, executive assistant to the hon. Prime
Minister's office:
In the absence of the Prime Minister I
am acknowledging your letter of September
12 and must further apologize for the delay
in replying to your letter which is being
given careful consideration.
Then on October 25, lo and behold, Mr.
Cooke received this correspondence from, I
believe it would be, Mr. M. McMillan, sec-
retary to the Minister of Labour:
Mr. Daley has received several notices
from the Prime Minister's office advising
that a group of letters received from you
were forwarded to the Minister.
After a careful search in this office, we
do not seem to have received the same.
Would it be possible for you to forward
copies direct to this office and they will
receive Mr. Daley's attention.
Then, on October 26, Mr. Cooke wrote to
the secretary of the Minister of Labour, Mr.
M. McMillan:
As requested by your letter of October
25, we attach copies of the correspondence
to which you refer.
We are surprised to learn that they have
been mislaid, as the last advice we received
was that it was being given careful con-
sideration. We are pleased to learn that
the correspondence which originated SVz
months ago will now receive Mr. Daley's
attention.
Mr. Grossman: That correspondence must
have been designed to help the unemploy-
ment situation.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, it might do as much as
what this government has done at least. It has
not done anything.
Then, on December 11, 1957, because we
had not yet received a reply to our request,
the council was instructed to send this cor-
respondence:
On October 28, we replied to your letter
of October 25, sending copies of the file of
correspondence which originated February
12, 1957. To date we have received no
reply.
Hon. Mr. Daley: I could not make head or
tail of it.
Mr. Cisborn: The correspondence goes on
to say this. Yes, I would agree, maybe the
hon. Minister cannot make head or tail of
it because there was no consideration given
to it.
For 10 months less 1 day, we have been
awaiting a reply. It is true we have been
more or less in constant correspondence, but
always On the basis- that we have been
reminding the government of the province
of Ontario that we have not yet received a
reply to our original letter of February 12.
Those we did receive, merely advised
of referral, or that consideration was being
given, or that it was being held pending the
return of some individual from out of town.
Could we now expect to receive a reply
to our letter of February 12, this month,
or must we carry this file over into the
new year?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: It is the hunting season.
Mr. Gisborn: I had to take the opportunity
to make this point because I think that cor-
respondence, regarding some of the problems
affecting the trade union movement, should be
answered. I feel they are entitled to a reply.
I am going to say something more about the
trade union movement at my next opportunity.
Vote 801 agreed to.
On vote 802:
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Last year
when the hon. Minister was speaking and
presenting these estimates, he mentioned the
cost of printing the books and the stamps for
vacations with pay, and he said that he had
arrived at the conclusion that it was so costly
that they were seriously thinking of paying
the workers in cash, but he wondered at that
time what the reaction of the trade union
movement would be. Now the question I
would like to ask the hon. Minister is this:
What has been the reaction?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Very much against it.
Mr. Thomas: Against it?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Organized labour feels
that the system that we have accomplishes
a great deal, and the difficulties of policing
and one thing and another without this
system would create havoc.
Mr. Gisborn: This might be the proper
place to ask this question: Has the hon.
Minister made provision for any monies for
added education in regard to The Fair Ac-
commodation Practices Act or The Fair
Employment Practices Act, or any provisions
for monies for an extended programme on
education? I believe it was mentioned in the
speech from the Throne, and I am wondering
just what the programme is going to be.
584
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Daley: These estimates, of
course, were prepared before that was an-
nounced. The money will: be found, but, it
is not in i these estimates. . . ^ ■,
Mr. Gisborn: But there is going to be a
programme on education on anti-discrimina-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Daley: I am sure, an educational
programme,; yes.
Vote 802 agreed to.
On vote 803:
1 Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the hon. Minister if he
would give an explanation of this appren-
ticeship branch. I am not familiar with it.
Just what do they do, what are their duties?
Mr. Thomas: Before the hon. Minister
answers that question, I asked something
along the same lines, too. In the debate
last year when the hon. Minister presented
his estimates he said this, and I quote from
the official Hansard:
With all due deference to the hon. Mini-
ster of Education and my associates in the
government, I feel we have not concen-
trated sufficiently on the part of educa-
tion which must be the basis on which
industrial development must proceed and
it is the training of apprentices in skilled
trades.
Now, he was very much disappointed last
year. I wonder if there has been an improve-
ment in the situation since that time?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Yes, I would want to
assure the hon. member that there is an
improvement. I just do not have the figures
available but I would try to get them for
him, but there is an improvement in the
number of apprentices.
Now, the other question: What do we
do in that regard? Well, of course, we try
to supervise apprentices. The apprentice first
gets his job with the employer, he is inden-
tured to an employer for a certain period of
time to learn his trade. We have the records,
I inspect and check to see if that boy is
securing proper training and that he is not
just being used as a labourer and learning
nothing.
Then for two months, or, I believe, dif-
ferent periods, each year he is required to
come into the training school where he re-
ceives technical training.
To explain it a little more, a boy may
be employed by an employer, and he may
not care whether this boy learns the trade,
he is a good worker, he can pass in car^
pentry maybe if that is what he wants him
to do, but under this *~ -*-~m this boy comes
in arid he gets a real training, how to frame
a roof and how to do the finer things of the
trade, so that when his term of apprentice-
ship is completed, he is a skilled man.
That is. what I said in my remarks before,
that the men today are more skilled than
they were in my time because they have
better opportunities to do this. And there are
trade schools and one thing and another to
which we contribute with the federal govern-
ment, in caring for these schools, and look-
ing after the apprentices and also the job of
trying to get employers to take apprentices.
We do that type of work, we go out and
find out why a man who has a business has
no apprentice, we do quite a lot of that work.
And I can say that I think there is a
decided improvement in it and we can stand
more yet, because as I said at that time we
want our own boys to become the mechanics
and not have to import mechanics from all
over the world.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to ask how
long normally are these boys at these schools?
Is it a one-year course, or two years, or how
long it is when they are turned out as skilled
men?
Hon. Mr. Daley: 13 weeks twice in 4 years.
Mr. Whicher: And they have to finance
this themselves?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Oh, no, oh, no. We pay
them and in a great many cases if their
normal income from the employer is less or
more than we pay them, a great many
employers, realizing the value of this, make
up the difference.
Mr. Thomas: The total appropriation for
the apprenticeship branch for this year is
$557,000. Now, of course, there is a grant
from the federal government I believe of 50
per cent. Now would that 50 per cent, grant
be applicable to every item on that?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Just to the apprenticeship
classes and a share of our cost of inspection
and administration.
Mr. Thomas: It does not apply to salary?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Oh, yes.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
On the apprenticeship branch, Mr. Chairman,
I had what I thought was a rather curious
MARCH 6, 1958
585:
situation in respect to garages. Now the one
I have in mind particularly had an apprentice
who had just. about completed his term, and
they were anxious to employ another appren-
tice, and were tpld,.and I suppose it is con-
tained within the regulations, that they could
not employ a second apprentice because
there had to be a relationship between the
number of trade mechanics and the number
of apprentices, .
The, one chapj as I said, was almost ready
tc advance into the . fully-trained class, and
it seemed to me when we are anxious to get
these boys into training that a regulation of
that kind was not completely necessary. I
would like to hear the hon. Minister on that
particular point. ,
Hon. Mr. Daley: There is an established
ratio of apprentices to journeymen in every
case. It applies to everything, otherwise you
could have a bad effect on all apprentices,
but I would agree with the hon. leader of
the Opposition1 that things should be a little
more flexible, and if the man had almost
completed his apprenticeship, even at that
time he could have been called a journeyman,
and that would permit the employment of
another apprentice. If the hon. leader of the
Opposition could give me the instance, some
time at his convenience-
Mr. Oliver: Oh, I have them appointed all
right, but I mean it just seemed to me that
there should not be any necessity of—
Hon. Mr. Daley: I think sometimes we are
not flexible enough in some of these things.
Vote 803 agreed to.
On vote 804:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I have heard—
it is not authenticated, but nevertheless a
rumour— that the department is behind in such
things as boiler inspection. Is there any
truth to that?
Hon. Mr. Daley: No. Our boiler inspection
is well manned, well staffed, at this time. We
have had occasions when we lost a man and
found it difficult to replace him, but we are
well staffed now and I think doing a satis-
factory job.
Mr. Whicher: How many inspectors are
there?
Hon. Mr. Daley: 38.
On vote 805:
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I think the
particular question that I wish to ask the hon.
Minister would come under this item, and
that is,; the question of air pollution in the
factories themselves. ; .
As hott; members know, I was a member
of the air pollution committee, and in our
travels around this country and the United
States, the conclusion I came to, at that time,
was that it was just unfortunate that the
terms of reference of the committee were not
extended into factory interiors, because in
some of the places we went to there was a
very great problem. In the issuing of permits
for the building of new plants in any partic-
ular industry, does The Department of Labour
consult with The Department of Health re-
specting the regulations? -
Hon. Mr. Daley: We work very closely with
them.
Mr. Thomas: Fine.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Chairman,
on, vote 805, are there sufficient inspectors for
the factory inspection branch, or what addi-
tional—
Hon. Mr. Daley: We are changing, we are
increasing areas in industry, we are chang-
ing our zones from time to time. If I remem-
ber correctly, two men died in the last year,
I think, and we have other men who reach
the age of retirement, and we are continually
replacing, rebuilding, and at this moment, we
are endeavouring to get 2 or 3 more men
to qualify for that type of work.
But generally speaking, I would say we do
have ample.
Mr. Manley: Is the department behind with
its factory inspection work, could I ask the
hon. Minister that?
Hon. Mr. Daley: No, I would say not. We
have 51 inspectors. But, as I say, there are"
changes from time to time, a man retires or
passes away and new appointments are made,
and as we re-examine the area— in a place
where today there were only a few industries,
one man handles it reasonably well, but in a
few months there are 4 new ones in there,
and then we find we have to shift the zones
and maybe put another man in that area. It
is a question of change, and trial and maybe
some errors as we go along.
Mr. Manley: Could the hon. Minister give
lis an indication as to what the inspection
does consist of, whenever inspectors go to
a certain plant? How often are the plants
inspected, is it on a yearly basis, twice a year,,
or how often?
Hon. Mr. Daley: We certainly, would in-
spect theiri at least once a year, and we look
586
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for hazards to safety and health, the things the
hon. member for Oshawa mentioned. We look
at ventilation, safety guards on machines,
proper stairways for escape in case of fire,
particularly where new additions have been
built.' But, of course, under the Act, plans are
supposed to be submitted where changes are
going to be made, and that is supposed to be
corrected in the office. But a trained inspector
looks for every type of thing when he goes in
to an industry to protect the workers from
unnecessary hazards.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Chairman, in regard also
to this factory inspection, do inspectors look
to see that the factory has been properly
manned as to the number of first-class engi-
neers, second-class engineers or whatever the
case might be in the plant?
Hon. Mr. Daley: That comes under another
Act, The Operating Engineers Act. Oh yes,
that is very well looked after, and I will tell
the hon. member that if we do not and they
are not properly manned, we soon hear of it
from the operating engineers. They quickly
draw these things to our attention.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, a week or two
ago I was approached by some members of
the steelworkers union in Oshawa, and they
complained very bitterly about the delay in
the revision of the foundry regulations. I am
quite sure the hon. Minister is aware of this.
The revision has been underway for over
two years and yet nothing has been done
about it. Now I would like to ask the hon.
Minister if he would care to comment on
the reason for the delay.
Hon. Mr. Daley: The reason for the delay
is that we are trying to be realistic in the
preparation of regulations. Where regula-
tions cover new developments and new foun-
dries, we have no trouble, no trouble at all.
But we also have well established foundries
which are operated in a small way, and if
we try to make regulations that will demand
the same type of protection for the worker
that we demand from the new foundries,
we simply close the man up, he could not
possibly afford to do it. So we have to look
at these things with great eare.
Three or five years ago, I guess, I asked
two special inspectors to go into a place of
this type, in an endeavour to get the man-
agement to move towards a better condition
gradually, and we had great success at that.
We have found that they have done good
work, and that the owners were co-operative.
But we cannot impose on them. If they
have to put in a ventilation system, this plan
will cost them $30,000. Some just cannot
do it. Now then, we try to get a company
set by some simple way, and of course we
have to give them time, and that is really
why there is so much delay.
I know there has been delay, but it is
an endeavour to keep an industry alive and
yet eventually have it come around to the
kind of place that we want it to be. We are
in a position just like the grain elevators
in the country were after those big explo-
sions several years ago. We had to make some
regulations which we did, in co-operation
with the people who operated them and the
unions, but we could not go in there and
say: "Now tomorrow, either you close this
elevator or you put all these things in."
We had to give them 5 years, but they had
to be started, and I think that today our
grain elevators are in very good shape.
It is the same with the foundries. We
could go in and say: "Now you have got
to do this or else," and we could do that,
but would that be the thing to do in this
country? These people employ workers and
they want to stay in business, and we have
to work with them to bring about the con-
dition that we consider to be desirable.
Vote 805 agreed to.
On vote 806:
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr. Chair-
man, how many examiners are there on this
board?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Of the operating
engineers?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Examiners?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Daley: 4.
Mr. Gordon: I understand the department
had 4 in 1920, and they still have 4, and the
institute of power engineers has a brief
they presented to the select committee on
labour in connection with this.
Now, the hon. member for Stormont was
on the wrong track concerning the question
he was asking in connection with factory
inspection. He really did not mean factory
inspection, he meant this, our engineers.
He has had the same complaint as I have
had; there are industries in Brantford which
do not have qualified engineers, they have
third-class engineers doing a second-class
man's job, and they complain very bitterly
MARCH 6, 1958
587
about it. The department has only the same
number of examiners today as they had a
number of years ago, and yet this year their
amount for this appropriation, for this branch,
is $30,000 more than last year's.
Hon. Mr. Daley: We are putting on two
more.
Mr. Gordon: Two more examiners?
Hon. Mr. Daley: That is another thing
now, we have to look at these things from a
reasonable point of view. I may be wrong,
but I think there are cases where we have
a plant going, and one of the men holding the
second-class papers is ill, or something hap-
pens to him, and the third-class man is quite
able to maintain the operation of that plant
because he has been in the plant for years,
and he is available. What are we going to
do, are we going to close the plant up? That
is the only thing to do, if they cannot get a
second-class engineer right then.
Mr. Cordon: The thing to do is to have
more engineers, but the hon. Minister has
not got enough examiners to examine them.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Oh, that does not affect it
afc all, we have all the examiners we need.
Mr. Thomas: Now, here is a factory, On-
tario Penman's, and this plant has been
practically operating with fourth-class shift
engineers for years—
Hon. Mr. Daley: We have all the inspec-
tion we need, we are putting a couple more
inspectors on to build it up a little, but that
is not the reason. The reason is, that there
just are not enough top engineers in the
country.
Our inspector, Mr. Grinley, said a certain
man is quite capable of operating this plant,
but that he has not got the second-class
papers, but he will apply for them. If this
job is going to be open for him, he will write
for the examination. I am not going to say
to a plant manager: "I do not know what
your business is, but if you have a plant
without a qualified engineer you have to close
up until you get such a man." If that plant
manager could not get him, such an ulti-
matum would throw a lot of people out of
work. We have to use judgment in those
things.
Mr. Cordon: Well, what I first said still
holds, that there were 4 in 1920, and there
are still 4 now, and that is the reason that
the situation is as it is. There are not enough
examiners.
Vote 806 agreed to.
On vote 807:
Mr. Cisborn: Mr. Chairman, I would ask
the hon. Minister, through you, has there in
the Jast year been any request from manage-
ment or labour for the licencing of diesel
traction locomotive operators? In the last 10
years there has been almost a complete
change from steam to diesel traction in indus-
tries. Has there been a request in the last
year for the licencing of the diesel operators?
Hon. Mr. Daley: No, I do not think so, no,
we have had no request.
Vote 807 agreed to.
On vote 808:
Mr. Whicher: I would like to ask the hon.
Minister if the minimum wage for women is
the same as last year, or what is it?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Yes, it is, and it is some-
thing that if conditions remain as they are,
we are going to have to take another look at.
We are not the highest in Canada, but we
are certainly not the lowest.
Of course, in today's market there are very
few women who are being paid that minimum
wage. We said that was a floor below which
they could not go, but I would venture to
say that most people are being paid in excess
of that. What I have in mind, having
another look now—
Mr. Oliver: When was the last change
made?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Two or three years ago.
Mr. Thomas: The cost of living has gone
up since that time. I think it should be revised
or reviewed anyway.
Hon. Mr. Daley: That is true, it may lag a
little bit in these things. But the women are
not being paid this minimum wage, they are
being paid more than that. We do not want
to get this minimum wage up to a point where
it becomes a maximum-
Mr. Gisborn: Well, I think it should be
given consideration because it is used as a
yard-stick, and let us not kid ourselves. When
people try to get increases in their wages,
management points to anything that is there,
and they say: "Well, this is a minimum for
the province of Ontario, and we are giving
you so much above it."
Now, I think it should be given considera-
tion and brought up to something that is
realistic. We have been talking about taking
a realistic look at things, let us bring it up to
a point where, if management is going to use
588
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it as a yard-stick, it is, at least, in a position
where it can be looked at realistically.
Votes -808 and 809 agreed to.
On vote 810:
Mr. Oliver: I would like to ask the hon.
Minister if the government, outside this de-
partment, has helped the Whitby hockey
team, for instance, in any way, to pay their
expenses?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Yes, we gave them $1,000.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Minister gave $1,000?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Yes.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): I want to
congratulate the hon. Minister for the good
job he is doing in his department, in the
grants and money and leadership the depart-
ment is giving to amateur sport in the prov-
ince. Now, in the British Empire games, a
year or two ago, this province donated
$7,500, and at the Olympics, in 1956, in
Australia, t think we donated something like
$10,000 to help in the training there.
Now, the 1960 Olympics will be held in
Rome, and the 1964 Olympics we hope will
be held here in Toronto.
It is necessary to apply and make arrange-
ments to have the Olympic Games in any city
or country 5 years prior to the actual date
they are held, so that we will have to apply,
il we are going to have them in Toronto, by
1959. So I am giving the suggestion real
early that the province start giving pretty
serious consideration to a substantial grant
if these Olympics are brought to Toronto.
We will have to enlarge our stadium facilities,
the swimming facilities and so on-
Mr. Thomas: We always look after Toronto.
Mr. Cowling: What is that?
Mr. Thomas: We always look after Toronto.
Mr. Cowling: Well, of course, when I say
Toronto, it would be quite an honour for the
whole of Canada to have the Olympic Games
here. I know that the federal government has
a large part to play in this, too, but it seems to
me that, with government giving the leader-
ship in this ... programme, together with the
great industry in Canada, We should be able
to get enough money together to really put
on the Olympics as we should be proud to
put them on in Canada, and in Toronto.
It was my good fortune here just a couple
of days ago,- to see coloured pictures, down
at the council chamber. in Toronto, /of the
1956 Olympics in Australia. It is really a
beautiful and wonderful sight to see, a very
thrilling thing, to see the athletes from all
over the world, from every country marching
along together, the red flag of Russia right
beside our own Union Jack, and so on, which
al) points out that these sports are a great
leveller and a wonderful thing to help keep
peace in the world.
So would the hon. Minister allow me to
make this suggestion, and the reason I am
doing it is because we must make the decision
by 1959 to invite the 1964 Olympics to
Toronto.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Mr. Chair-
man, I did not know, until the hon. member
for High Park began discussing the question
of grants, that the office of athletics commis-
sioner did make grants for these sports
organizations, and this is probably just as
good a time as any to raise a matter which I
have had in my mind for some time. ,
There is in Toronto a Hungarian water
polo team consisting of many members who
in Hungary represented that country in the
Olympics. Under very trying circumstances,
they have organized a team here and won
the Toronto championships. They are now
the Ontario champions, and as I say, they
have been operating under very trying
circumstances.
They must go to Montreal to attempt to
win the Canadian championship, and there
is no way at all for them to raise the funds
for such a trip. As a matter of fact, they
are so enthusiastic about this team that they
convinced a gentleman to come in from the
west to try to find a job here so he could
be their goalie, and the other members of
the team, under very difficult circumstances,
are attempting to keep that man in Toronto.
Now, am I to understand, Mr. Chairman,
from the hon. . Minister, that a request to
the office of the athletics commissioner might
be conducive to getting some assistance for
this team to make a trip to. Montreal for this
purpose?
Hon. Mr. Daley: I think we would be
very likely to help out an organization like
that, particularly as the hon. member has
raised it. But I cannot see how sending a
team to Montreal would come under our
system at all. We did give a grant to the
Whitby boys who are going to represent
Canada, and this province, in the world
games, and we have helped to train , some
Olympics material by giving a grant to some
club where they were going to develop for
the Olympic Games, and we have given a
grant to the Olympics committee.-
MARCH 6, 1958
589
But I do not think the hon. member would
expect that we could start sending teams
from one town to another. I could get 1,000
applications like that tomorrow.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister: Some months ago
we saw that the national hockey league
players were attempting to bargain with the
hockey owners, and I would like to know
if they approached The Department of
Labour at all, particularly the office of the
athletics commissioner of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Daley: Oh yes, they had many
meetings with the labour relations board.
I do not know whether a decision has been
reached— the thing has been dropped. They
issued a suit for $3 million, for one thing,
against the national hockey league— well,
they finally got together and I saw Ted
Lindsay on television the other night ex-
plaining it, and he said they had sat down
with management and they had a lot of
the grievances out of the way and they were
going along quite happy now, so the thing
is really dropped.
Votes 810 and 811 agreed to.
Mr. Thomas: Before the estimates are
finally approved, I would like to speak for
a moment briefly and ask the hon. Minister
what he is prepared to do about accident
prevention.
As we know, in 1949, Mr. Justice Roach
recommended that there should be worker
representation on the accident prevention
committees.
Now, the hon. Minister has blown hot and
cold on this particular thing over the years.
I can remember two or three years ago when
I made a similar request to him, that he
said, at that time, it was lack of accommoda-
tion, and when they got into the new build-
ing they might go along with the idea.
I do sincerely feel, Mr. Chairman,
that the workers in industry are very much
interested in accident prevention. Because
the premiums are paid by the employers,
they too are interested, but their interest is
in the question of money. I think the worker
has a much greater interest because to him
it might mean the loss of a limb or life itself.
I think the time is long overdue when
intelligent people in industry, workers in
the factory, should have an opportunity of
giving of their knowledge and giving informa-
tion that would help in this very great work
of accident prevention. I would like to ask
the hon. Minister what he is prepared to
do about it at this time.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Well, I am about in the
same position as I was. I think we have
very good accident prevention. I do not
say it could not be improved.
Mr. Thomas: I could be improved.
Hon. Mr. Daley: I do not say it could
not be improved, I would like it improved
to the point where we did not have any
accidents, but that is not possible. With
human nature, we will have them. Our
industrial organizations are spending some-
thing like $2 million— I am speaking from
memory— which the workmen's compensation
pays out to victims. This money all comes
from industry.
I have been down at some of their conven-
tions, there are a couple coming on very
soon now, and we can find 1,000 people,
voluntary workers, at these conventions who
have almost dedicated themselves to accident
prevention.
I do not want to discourage these people
and say: "You are not right because you
have not a representative of labour in your
organization at all." They all work in plants,
they are all industrial people.
Mr. Thomas: People working in the indus-
try, having practical experience of the opera-
tion, surely would be in a position to make
some contribution.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Well, surely they are,
and I am sure these people who are appointed
by the industry to develop safer methods
for the workers— I know Mr. Justice Roach
made some recommendation, but he did not
give any answers. His approach was like a
bunch of letters the hon. member for Went-
worth East read. He did not tell us how
it could be done, he thought it was easier
to say, in general: "I think there is a better
way of doing it."
Mr. Thomas: Well, he made a decision.
It is up to the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Daley: We are gradually im-
proving the situation. The hon. member says
the shortage of accommodation was the rea-
son. I said that, when we had the accom-
modation, we would bring all the accident
prevention groups together, and we now have
them in our building. They used to be scat-
tered all over, now we have them in
the building, so there is greater connection
between the workmen's compensation board
and the accident prevention people. They
work together very closely.
I must admit to the hon. member that I
do not have an answer to improve the situa-
590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion over what is already being done, and
I am very happy as a resident of this country,
outside of my official duty here, that there
are so many good people who take such an
active part in doing what they think is a
good thing in the interest of the workers of
this province.
On vote 812:
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Minister
whether or not the money which is expended
is collected within the ensuing year — the
money which is expended for vacation with
pay stamps? That is, collected again by the
department within a stipulated period of
time. Now, what is that period of time, Mr.
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Daley: We start to sell stamps,
that is where we get the money, by the sale
of the stamps.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Minister be
more specific? I was wondering why we treat
this as a capital expenditure, obviously it is
expended and collected all in the course of
one year. One would think that it should be
in order, but—
Mr. Wintermeyer: One would think that
it should be.
Hon. Mr. Daley: Of course, there might be
stamps out which are not redeemed.
Mr. Whicher: But the balance would, by
and large, certainly all be within the course
of that one year?
Hon. Mr. Daley: That is right.
Vote 812 agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves that the com-
mittee do now rise and report certain resolu-
tions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. H. M. Allen: The committee of supply
begs to report certain resolutions and begs
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: It being now 6.00 of the
clock, I do now leave the chair.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, would the
government indicate what is likely to take
place this evening?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Well, I anticipate that we will proceed in
committee of the whole for a time this eve-
ning, and perhaps take the estimates of the
Office of the Lieutenant-Governor and some
other estimates as indicated yesterday, and
resume the debate.
Mr. Gordon: I understood it would be
Treasury estimates tonight.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, it was intimated
the Office of the Lieutenant-Governor and the
Provincial Treasurer's department, I think.
Mr. Gordon: Well, does the hon. Attorney-
General anticipate that the Treasury estimates
will be called tonight?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes.
It being 6.04 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 25
ONTARIO
Hegtsilature of Ontario
Mates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Thursday, March 6, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 6, 1958
Supplementary Estimates, Mr. Frost 593
Estimates, Office of Lieutenant-Governor 610
Estimates, Treasury Department, Mr. Frost 610
Estimates, Provincial Auditor 614
Estimates, Department of Prime Minister, Mr. Frost 614
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 614
593
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, March 6, 1958
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
The House upon Order resolved itself into
committee of supply.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, in presenting these supplementary
estimates to the House, by way of explana-
tion, I would like to refer to what the hon.
member for Waterloo North (Mr. Winter-
meyer) said in his budget presentation last
Tuesday. There are some things that I think
I would like to correct him on, and also to
point out where he is in error in his figures.
He said:
A year ago, sitting together, we agreed
that we would spend $475 million, and I
now say that, before the end of March, we
will have spent $580 million, or more than
$100 million more than we agreed upon a
year ago.
Now, surely that is not good planning,
surely that is not good administration and
management. $475 million is a lot of
money, and one would expect the gov-
ernment to sit down and determine exactly
what that expenditure would be in some
real detail, instead of coming along 9
months later and saying: "We are sorry but
we underestimated them slightly." And the
slight amount, Mr. Speaker, is over $100
million.
That is what my hon. friend said. Now, may
I say this, that the estimates of expenditures,
as made last year, were actually underspent to
the extent of $4.35 million. In other words,
that the government lived within its estimates,
and actually lived within them to an under-
expenditure of $4.35 million.
In the converse, in revenue, the original
forecast of revenue made last year was $574.-
355 million. The interim forecast this year
is $582,118 million. An increase, in other
words. An underestimate of revenue of $7,763
million. An increase of 1.4 per cent.
This, I would say to my hon. friend, is
very fine budgeting— that type of budgeting
was never equalled in Ottawa in the "hey-
day" of some of the parties which preceded
the party that is now in office.
Now I want to make a brief explanation to
the hon. member. I have no doubt that he
understands this point, because he is a very
able gentleman. The difference that he men-
tioned is not made up in over-expenditures
at all, but is made up in 3 principal items,
all of which this House has absolute control
over.
We are not coming to the House and say-
ing now: "We spent your money and there-
fore we want you to okay what we have
done." That is not the case at all.
We are coming before you with this. As a
matter of fact, with the interim revenues of
about $582 million, and over-estimated expen-
ditures of $491 million, it means that we
have about $90 million on hand.
I would say to my hon. friend that the
$90 million, of course, can be applied on the
capital commitments of this province, and
that is what we are asking hon. members in
this House for authority to do. Now we have
the money. It is in the bank. We have not
spent it.
I would say this, that we come before this
House with about $90 million more than
hon. members opposite expected us to have
a year ago, and we say to them: "Now, what
will we do with this?" This is our recom-
mendation to them.
First of all, we say: "We recommend to
you to apply $18,122 million of that in
supplementary estimates." Is that not cor-
rect? That is the amount.
Now then, concerning this amount, may I
say a word about the surplus on ordinary
account. I am very glad that my hon. friend
frcm Waterloo North has put this into per-
spective, because the Opposition used to talk
about swollen surpluses. As a matter of fact we
had our great old friend down on King Street,
in that high building down there, the Star
building, convinced that it was a surplus, and
I am glad to see through the hon. member's
address he has corrected that, and now he
takes the proper view, and I compliment him
for that, I compliment the Opposition.
As a matter of fact, it is not a swollen
surplus at all. It is a businesslike application
of the surplus we are able to get on ordinary
accounts, the application of that to the great
594
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
expenditures we must make in capital invest-
ment.
Now I say to my hon. friend from Bruce
(Mr. Whicher) and also my hon. friend from,
I think it was from Waterloo North, who told
of our debt increasing at so much a minute,
or so much a day. What was the figure he
used? $12,000 an hour.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): It was $12,000
an hour. That is quite a lot. Now let the
hon. Prime Minister try to talk his way out
of that one. It will take him a long time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh yes, sure. I will point
tliis out to my hon. friend.
Mr. Whicher: It will take him a long time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not as long as the hon.
member thinks. But I point out to my hon.
friend that he says the debt is increasing at
$12,000 an hour. May I point out that the
revenue-producing assets of this province are
increasing at the rate of $36,000 an hour.
Mr. Whicher: He talked himself out of
that one. Let him prove it, now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not need to prove it,
I mean it is quite obvious. If hon. members
take the overall picture in the last 14 or 15
years, as I gave them the figures in the
budget, we had spent in investments that
better the revenue producing facilities of this
province by-
Mr. Whicher: In worn-out highways in this
province.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out that, of
the $1,000 million, we have paid $667 million
in cash, right on the barrel head.
Now I was interested in looking at the
statement tonight of one of our great corpora-
tions in this country. I saw their capital
picture, the amount of money they were rais-
ing by means of new issues of capital, the
amount that they were raising by way of
debenture issues, fixed type of income issues.
I noticed their amortization of that over many
years.
Now that company, despite the fact that
stock values are down in this country and in
the United States and elsewhere, has never-
theless done very well. It has maintained
its position.
May I say that if we could list, on the stock
exchange, the shares of Ontario, showing that
in capital outlays we had paid out of revenue
$2 out of $3 for every $12,000 of debt in-
curred, which is invested in revenue producing
assets, and that our assets have gone up by
$36,000, I would say that our stock would
soar very, very high on the market.
I would say to the hon. members of this
House that, at the end of March, they would
be investing their sessional indemnities in the
stock of old Ontario, and I just mention that
as a matter of passing. I would say that our
stock stands high.
Now why do we do this? I will explain
it. I think it makes a very logical and proper
explanation.
Why do we ask the House, why do we
come here and say, Mr. Chairman and hon.
members, that we have $90 million in the
bank that we have saved out of our opera-
tions this last year? Why do we propose
that we use it this way?
First of all, we propose that $18 million
be devoted to certain supplementary esti-
mates. I will got into the details of that in a
moment. Secondly, that we take $37.5 mil-
lion of that money that we have in the bank
and we put it into the highway construction
account. That is equivalent to paying it on
debt. The third thing is this, that we take
$39 million and we apply it on capital
account.
Why do we do that? I will explain why
we do it, and I think my hon. friend from
Waterloo North, coming from a city that
is noted for its great financial institutions
and for the contribution that it has made
to the stability of this province and this
country, would agree with this.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced with this.
Next year, to meet the great commitments
of this province, we must borrow $240 mil-
lion. Now that is a huge sum of money.
We must fit in our borrowings of $240
million with the borrowings of Metropolitan
Toronto, and with certain borrowings with
the Dominion of Canada, because they are
coming into the market with certain refund-
ing and other loans.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask a question please?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, just a moment.
Mr. Whicher: Will he not let me ask one
question? I will remember that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He can ask his question
afterwards and I will explain it to him. We
need about $240 million which is a large
amount of money, I think he will agree. If we
were to take this $90 million that we have
saved, by good administration in this prov-
ince, and we were to apply that to sinking
funds, then we would have to invest that
large sum of money, some $90 million, in
MARCH 6, 1958
595
sinking fund investments, with the result that
we would have to increase our actual borrow-
ing by going out and adding to it by the
amount we add to sinking funds, which
would bring our borrowings then to some-
thing of the order of $330 million.
So what we are doing is this, the sensible
thing. We are taking this surplus on ordin-
ary accounts and $37.5 million we are put-
ting in the highway construction account,
which means this, that we hold that in cash
as against the commitment next year, and
the $39 million we treat in a similar fashion.
Now the result is that it very much lessens
our borrowing problem for next year.
Now I think that makes a very logical ex-
planation, and that is the explanation that
the fiscal advisors of this government have
advised us to adopt. However, Mr. Chair-
man, if the House does not agree, of course
we can change it. We are here today, not
saying that we want hon. members to give
us an okay for money we have spent; we
come here with money in the bank, are
giving an honest explanation, and are asking
the House to determine what we are to do
with it, and we are suggesting a logical way
to handle that.
Mr. Whicher: Could the hon. Prime Min-
ister answer that question now?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, I will answer the
question.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask this? Why is it
that this government has to borrow $240
million? I will give the answer— because that
is approximately how much it is in the hole.
That is why.
An hon. member: He knows all the
answers.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I thank the hon.
member very much for answering, and I have
listened to his answer with really great
interest.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
That is a fair thing to do. I am inclined to
agree, of course, that now we have the op-
portunity to vote on these supplementary
estimates. But on the other hand, the hon.
Prime Minister must agree that, even in the
budget statement that he introduced, on sche-
dule A-2, an outline of the ordinary expendi-
tures for the year— at least for the fiscal period
which ends on Mach 31, 1958— he totalled
$581 million as being—
An hon. member: He has not said it for
sure.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I know, but certainly I
do not think hon. members can criticize me for
taking that figure as being the amount of
ordinary expenditures in the current fiscal
year. And of, course, the figure of $581
million—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Pardon me for giving an
explanation of how that comes about.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, but I do think that
is a very unfortunate thing— that all this very
complicated explanation must be made for
what is relatively a very simple issue. If we
would combine our capital and ordinary ac-
counts, we would not be into this.
The hon. Prime Minister knows, as I know,
that there is no money in the bank. He has
spent money on capital expenditures, all far
and beyond business. My figure of $473 mil-
lion, of course, was taken from his fiscal— at
least, his forecast for ordinary expenditures in
the budget statement a year ago, and that is
how I made up the difference of $100 million.
Now, I can appreciate his explanation, but
on the other hand, I do not think it is fair
to suggest to me that I had no right to make
a statement or take the stand that I did.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I accept my hon. friend's
point of view. I might say that he had the
right, a technical right, to do that. I accept
that, and when I say that I have an explana-
tion which I know my hon. friend will accept,
I think he will agree that this is good finan-
ing.
Now, may I say to my hon. friend, and I
want him to think of this because his budget
criticisms and comments are indeed very fine
and very intelligent, which I very much
appreciate. I may say that I have asked for
constructive criticism and I have no objec-
tion at all. I think myself that my hon. friend
has done a very fine service to the House in
making the presentation the way he did.
Now, may I say that he talks about overall
surplus. If he were to adopt that principle
then he would show the province in its worst
position. Let us understand — and let us
remember— that we have to go out to the
markets of the world to get the money to
make the wheels go round.
Mr. Whicher: He thinks he is fooling the
market.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not at all.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Then why not give them
a true statement?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that it is
reasonable that when we are going to people,
596
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and we are presenting our case, that we give
them the true picture of the case. I very well
remember this. I do not think the matter of
overall surplus was ever mentioned, until it
was mentioned in the budget of my predeces-
sor, hon. Mr. Gordon, in the budget of 1943.
When I became treasurer in that year, 1943,
I remember discussing it with the treasury
advisors at that time. It was perfectly obvious
that we could produce an overall surplus in
the year following and we could produce it
at that time as far as the foreseeable future
of wartime went. But it seemed to me this,
that we were going to create a very distorted
view if we carried that on, because even at
that time, we could foresee that we were
going to be met with very great commit-
ments.
Now, the problem is this. An overall
surplus can be achieved by levying sufficient
taxes to pay for all of our capital commit-
ments that are incurred in one year. Now
that is one way that an overall surplus could
be obtained this year. I ask my hon. friend, in
these days of huge commitments, surely he
would not ask the people, in 1958 with all of
their problems of expansion, to assume all of
the burden of paying the total capital in-
debtedness in one single year? This is an
extreme view, but it would be somewhat akin
to asking the people of Toronto to pay in
cash the cost of their subway in one year.
Well, that is an extreme view, I recognize, but
if we did that, we would be putting a very
great burden on the people of today.
The alternative to that is this. This House
can produce an overall surplus very easily.
As a matter of fact, we can produce an over-
all surplus in the coming year by simply
cutting down our capital expenses
Now, may I ask you this? Does the hon.
member for Waterloo North want us to cut
down the expenditure on highway No. 401
which is destined to run by his great city of
Kitchener? Of course, he does not.
Mr. Whicher: In what year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: This year. Now I am going
to tell hon. members opposite that we are
going to do a real good job. As a matter of
fact, I might go up there and make a few
promises myself.
Mr. Whicher: He has certainly done it
before.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say that hon. mem-
bers would not want me to cut down capital
expenses. As a matter of fact, that is not
consistent with these days in which we live.
I do not think it is consistent with the days
we have lived in these last several years of
fabulous development in this province.
I think it is fairer to look at it this way.
It is fairer for us to go to the money markets
in Toronto and Montreal, to go to the money
markets in New York, and say to them this:
"We have engaged in this tremendous capital
programme. We think we can show you a
record which is not equalled in America. With
this huge sum of money, we have paid two-
thirds of it in the last 12 years in cash. We
have spent $1,000 million on things that pro-
vide for increased revenues for this province.
As a matter of fact, we could not collect
the gasoline tax and we could not do the
things we are doing if we had not done the
work we did. We have paid, of that $1,000
million, some $667 million in current cash
right out of the till.
I think that is far better, and a fairer pic-
ture, to put it that way. It is better than to
go to the money markets saying: "We are
going with an overall defict of so much
money." I would say that one needs only to
do that for so long before spoiling our credit.
You spoil it yourself by what you say yourself.
I think we have done a very marvelous
job in this province. For the future, our
problem is to keep up, if possible, some place
between the 50 per cent, and 60 per cent,
level in capital investments.
Actually speaking, our debt position is very
good. When I became treasurer, the debt
was something about $.5 billion, and the
revenues were about $100 million, but the
revenue bore a relationship of a debt of about
5 times the amount of our revenue. Today,
I think it is 1.5 times our revenue.
As a matter of fact, we are paying off debts
incurred by other administrations with the
1958 dollar. Per capita wise, from the stand-
point of the wealth of the province, the value
of the "old farm", against which there is this
indebtedness, every way we look at it is a
favourable picture.
That explains, I think, the picture that the
hon. member for Waterloo North gave to the
House last Tuesday, and he gave it very ably.
I will explain afterwards this supplementary
estimate in detail, but that is the general
picture.
Mr. Whicher: I would just like to ask the
hon. Prime Minister a question. Speaking
about the future, and presuming the province
pays 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, of the
capital in the next 10 years, would he care
to prophesy what the debt of the province of
Ontario might be 10 years from now?
MARCH 6, 1958
597
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would not care to pro-
phesy that, but I would say that, in the past
15 years, because of our development and
expansion, the revenues of the province have
risen from $100 million to about $600 million.
In the meantime, the debt has increased from
$500 million to $860 million this year. That
is the increase.
Now, if he were to rise in this House 20
years from now, and say: "We have revenues
of $2.25 or $2.5 billion and the debt stands
at about that figure"— and he may, if we keep
up the tempo of things— my hon. friend
would agree that it would be a great record.
All I would say is that all I can project
would be based on what we have done in
the past 15 years.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to remind the
hon. Prime Minister of what the hon. member
for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay) said. I have
a great deal of respect for him too, as a finan-
cial critic. I do not think that at the present
time there is any reason to think that the
revenues of this province are going to in-
crease by a great deal.
While the hon. Prime Minister has pointed
out that, during the past 15 years, the debt
has not increased a great deal, may I say
that, this past year, it increased by $99.6
million.
As a matter of fact, it could be worse be-
cause he says we have paid 66% per cent,
of our capital in cash. But in his statement,
he said in the future we would be fortunate
if we are able to pay 50 per cent, to 60 per
cent, in cash. Therefore, I suggest that, in
the next year, instead of the debt increasing
by $99.6 million it could very well be $125
million, and that in 10 years from now cer-
tainly, instead of having a debt of $860
million, it would be $2 billion— unless he adds
taxes, which the hon. Prime Minister can very
easily do. He has done it in the past—
Hon Mr. Frost: Well, of course, the hon.
member can give that picture. But I very
well remember the days when the war ended.
At that time, there were people who sat in
the Opposition seats. They were not far from
the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas);
they prophesied that we were going into a
tailspin, and that we were going into disaster,
and that we were going into deficit, into debt,
and into unemployment. I would say that I
take a more optimistic view of the future
than this.
Mr. Whicher: Surely, to be fair, when we
have gone in debt this past year by $99.6
million, the hon. Prime Minister must admit
that my view is not pessimistic or optimistic
or anything else, it is a fact. He, by his own
statements, admits that we have gone in debt
by that amount.
Surely, when he says that during next year,
and the years to follow for some time, we
are going to be able to pay only 50 per cent,
to 60 per cent, of our capital in cash, it is
reasonable for us to presume that we will be
going in debt at the rate of at least $100
million a year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that is true,
we did. I acknowledge that and I admit
that. But what happened was this:
We spent last year, on capital works,
even providing some of those bridges which
the hon. member for Essex North (Mr.
Reaume) talked about and some other things
—and we might put a few down in his county
-we spent $216 million. And of the $216
million, we spent $116 million in cash. That
is what we did.
How could we have cut that $100 million
increase? Merely by cutting off some of those
bridges— $50 million worth. By doing that,
we would have reduced it down to $50 mil-
lion, and if we wanted to cut some more
off, we could have cut that down to $25
million. It is controllable. You can do it if
you want to.
But, with the Treasury Board and with
the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan)
we went out and we spent the money inten-
tionally, to improve the capital stock of this
province. Now, we did that with our eyes
open. The hon. member asks us not to
to that.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to just finish with this point. No one sug-
gests that this government should not spend
a great deal of money towards the develop-
ment of this province. But is the hon. Prime
Minister trying to suggest to us that such
things as highways can really be charged
to a capital fund? Because those highways
do wear out. We know perfectly well that,
20 years from now, most of the highways
of this province that have already been built
will be worn out, and will have to be im-
proved. Now then where does the capital
nature come in?
When the hon. Prime Minister suggests
that these expenditures are controllable, I
agree very much. The only thing that is
non-controllable in this province is the debt,
because we have no idea how much it is
going to be from one year to the next, and
10 years from now, when we are voting on
598
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$100 million for interest, instead of $50
million, the people of this province are going
to know it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to the hon. member
that he is wrong in what he says, because
my illustrious hon. predecessor (Mr. Porter)
stood here just a year ago and told hon.
members exactly what that would be this
year, and that is what it is.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): I am correct when
I say, I think, that the federal government
has never resorted to this system of book-
keeping, that they always present an overall
picture of expenditure and income. And
during two wars they ran the debt up to
over $13 billion, yet they were always able
to borrow money even more advantageously
than the province has been able to do by
camouflaging its debt position. I think the
hon. Prime Minister is unduly alarmed, as
evidenced by his reluctance to admit the true
position that we are in, and to tell the people
quite frankly that we are not meeting our
expenditures, that we are exceeding our
revenues by $100 million in expenditure.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member for Brant that his statement is incor-
rect. If he would look at the budgets of Mr.
Hepburn, who was a very able budget maker
—if he would look at them, he would find that
Mr. Hepburn almost invariably had an
increase of debt on capital account.
At that time the hon. member accepted
that procedure and applauded it, and very
many times, most of the time, in his regime
of some 8 or 9 years, Mr. Hepburn had a
surplus on ordinary accounts which was
received with great acclaim by the hon. mem-
ber. May I say that, in Mr. Hepburn's tenure
of office, when he sat here with revenues that
ran less than $100 million, his government
added $196 million to debt. I never heard
the hon. member for Brant call it a deficit
until he got over there.
Mr. Whicher: May I point out to the hon.
Prime Minister that here he has taken one-
half of that $196 million in one year. We
would not be the least bit perturbed if it
was just for this year, but what about next
year and 10 years from now? That is what
we want to know.
An hon. member: We will still be in power.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, and if the hon. Prime
Minister is in power, the debt will be doubled
and tripled.
An hon. member: And the population will
be quadrupled.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Will the hon. Prime
Minister permit a few more questions? I am
much interested in this matter of capital ex-
pense. Very frankly, it seems to me that we
have reached a point where we are incurring
public expenditures each year. Let us forget
highways for a moment, and think of the
buildings we have put up.
Now, I do not think that it is good ac-
counting, if you will, to charge any part of
that to the future, as a municipal body would
charge for an underground subway or as an
industrialist would charge for a factory, be-
cause the fact of the matter is that next
year we are going to put up more buildings
than we did this, and the year after that, and
more the next year.
We all have faith in the future, and we
all have faith in the province, but it is as
obvious as one and one makes two that we are
now an industrial community, and our capital
expenditures are going to increase 10-fold in
the course of the next short number of years
Are we now to determine a course that is
going to prejudice our future?
I think in all good accounting we should
acknowledge frankly that much of what we
are assigning to capital account is technically
incorrect in that, although it is the sort of
thing that lasts for 50 or 100 years, we have
reached a stage in our development where
our expenditures per year are so great, and
occur in such a routine fashion, that we must
treat them as normal ordinary year-in, year-
out expenses. If an industrialist puts up a
building, and it lasts for 50 years, surely he
can charge l/50th of that over the 50 years.
But if he is putting up a building each year,
then surely it is an ordinary expense, surely
it must be charged to ordinary income.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Let the hon. member try
to get away with that with the income tax
people, and see how far he goes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In this instance, you
would, because the tax is determined on
whether or not it is a repeatable regular
expense, and surely this is. You are putting
up a building each year, or 10 buildings.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out to the
hon. member that the Bell Telephone Com-
pany is putting in new telephones each year,
and they are charging those as capital ex-
penses, of course, and they do not say:
"Because we have to do it every year and
have to pay it in cash—"
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, no.
MARCH 6, 1958
599
Hon. Mr. Frost: If the hon. member wants
to refer to highways, he said that our situa-
tion was not like for instance building a sub-
way. Well, surely he does not infer that if we
build a road under ground, we can charge it
to the future, but that if we build it above
ground, we have to pay for it in cash. I do
not have the figures here but I can show
them to the hon. member, that if he is talking
about buildings and other capital commit-
ments, we, Mr. Chairman, have paid in cash
for every building. We have paid in full
cash. Therefore, the residue of the debt is
only against highways. Because we have paid
for everything.
If the hon. member wants to bookkeep that
way, I can give him the statement, and I
would be very glad to show it to him, that
every institution, hospital and school to
which we have given capital grants, all of
that has been paid in cash, not charged to
the future. If he wants to take it that way,
that the only debt is attached to revenue-
producing assets such as highways, which are
very definitely revenue producing, and we
have paid a very large proportion of the cost
of those.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I think
there is something in what the hon. Prime
Minister is now saying. That is, he should
divorce his highway programme from the
rest of his budget, and treat it separately.
But the hon. Prime Minister is not doing
that. Surely he can explain it now in some
fashion, but as he planned a year ago and
two years back, he had no intention of doing
that. That is an explanation that he can,
I suppose, technically, make now.
But if he would tell me that from now
on he will divorce the highway programme
from his regular budgeting and that he will
pay for his non-revenue-producing capital
expenditures in cash each year, then I think
he will have met my criticism.
But I do not think he is meeting it at
all by making an explanation of what he
could have done.
Now may I ask the hon. Prime Minister
directly: Will he give his assurance to this
House that his system of budgeting will
from now on be changed, that he will divorce
highways from the rest of his—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would be very glad to
show what has been done over the past 15
years. We have paid everything in cash,
all of these hospitals and extensions and
buildings and what-not.
I would not give that undertaking for
this reason, that I am not sure it is a good
argument to say that building a mental
hospital is not revenue producing, I think
it is revenue producing, I think it is revenue
producing in the betterment of the health
of our people, the earning power of our
people, and so on. Therefore, when we take
in the general picture, that asset is revenue
producing.
I think of the great Smiths Falls hospital,
for instance. The hon. member can look at it
and say that cost a lot of money. So it did,
but let him look at what it produces in
human betterment and dividends, in better
health for people, and for enabling people
to earn and be an asset to the country. I
think that is something he can regard, too.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Prime Min-
ister is far too intelligent to really think that
is a convincing argument. I would hope that
he never spends a nickel that is not revenue
producing in the sense that he is now using
it. If he ever does, he will be doing a dis-
service to the province.
But he knows, and everybody in this
House knows, what we mean by revenue-
producing, taxable, physical income. Now a
mental institution just does not do that. It
does bring benefit to the patients, of course.
But to show the weakness fundamentally in
the argument that is now being presented,
after all this talk, next year we are going to
pay only one-third of our total capital ex-
penditure, not 50 per cent, or 65 per cent.,
and I doubt whether he is going to pay for
all our physical buildings next year, in cash,
as he says.
Mr. W. H. Collings (Beaches): What
about our capital investments in the water
resources commission, surely they could be
amortized over-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, how many— what
is it? I think it is $15 million.
Mr. Collings: $15 million.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. member
realizes that has been borrowed of course,
to be repaid by the municipalities.
Mr. Collings: But we are paying it up.
Mr. Whicher: Not a nickel has this gov-
ernment put up.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But let us keep to the
point here. Next year the hon. Prime Min-
ister is going to pay for only one-third of his
capital expenditures. Now certainly some
explanation is required to demonstrate the
600
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
inconsistency of that forecast, and the position
he has just outlined to this House.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If the hon. member will
examine the budget statement, he will find
that this next year, which he criticizes and
despairs of, the province will pay in cash for
all of those things, and still will put a huge
amount in sinking funds, and then we will
have a surplus to apply on highways after
that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, what I
mean is, we are just digging ourselves deeper
in the hole.
Mr. Whicher: He is in a hole, $99.6 million
in the hole.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is just typical of
what I have been complaining about. Here
is a statement on page A16 of the Budget,
wherein his total capital expenditures are
estimated to be $241 million. In that same
statement he says that the proportion of the
above capital expenses to be paid from
ordinary revenue is 33.9 per cent., $81
million.
Now, how in the world can he culminate
what he has just told this House with the
technical presentation that he has given to
the province in the form of this current
statement of operations for the year ending
on March 31, 1959?
The hon. Prime Minister says he is going
to pay for all his capital expenditures other
than highways, and that he is going to make
a big inroad on highways. Well, I tell him he
is going to fail to pay for about $150 million
worth of capital expenditures, and that he
will not spend that amount on highways if
he does not take into consideration the high-
ways reserve fund. Now, let us divorce that
for the moment.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member has the
wrong column.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I would
be delighted to file or read the whole state-
ment. There is no question in the world
that the hon. Prime Minister is not confused
at all. He knows very well, he made the
statement up.
Hon. Mr. Frost: As a matter of fact, the
hon. member said those things last year, and
indulged in gloomy forecasts last year, and
the truth of the matter is this, that at the
end of the year we spent $216 million last
year and we paid $116 million in hard cash
and charged some $99 million to debt.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Over a year ago, the
hon. Prime Minister said he would pay 65
per cent., that is what he said a year ago, 65
per cent. In fact, he paid 45 per cent., so
he paid less than what he budgeted for.
Now he is budgeting for 33 per cent., and
if he runs true to form he is going to pay
less than a third in the coming year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will tell the hon. mem-
ber how to clip another $20 million off, and
that is, just do not pay these supplementary
estimates. Here we are, now let him just
listen. Here is what we propose to do.
If my hon. friend wants to do this, let us
take this item. Here is something he can clip
off at once. Now we propose to give of that
money— and this money can go to the pay-
ment of debt if he wants it to, if this House
says it wants to vote this $18 million, or $19
million, to reduce the debt, it may do so.
We propose to give, if the hon. members
will look at the supplementary estimates, $1
million for a new dental building. We have
advanced that sum each year. How much
have we got in the bank now towards that?
This makes $5 million in the bank, cash
money.
Today I was talking to the chairman of
the board of the University of Toronto. They
have an estimate for $3.4 million for the
building. The land has been purchased. There
will be the residuary result which will go a
long way to the equipment, and therefore we
have paid it in cash, and when the building
is completed there will not be a dollar against
it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Why does the hon. Prime
Minister not put it in ordinary expenses
instead of supplementary? Tt is $1 million
every year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, just a minute. I can-
not satisfy my hon. friends. Here is McMaster
University, to assist them in building sputniks
and other things, we are giving the engineer-
ing department another $1 million. We are
giving the Royal Ontario Museum, for the
extension of their arts or purchase of their
equipment, $100,000, which I think is very
good business. As a matter of fact, it is worth
much more than the money we will put into
it.
Then, $92,000 will pay off the indebted-
ness of the Botanical Gardens at Hamilton.
Now that the law school has become one of
our institutions, we are giving them $100,000.
I may say to my hon. friend that they have
put up a fine new law school down there. The
great majority of that has been financed by
themselves, and has been paid for in cash.
MARCH 6, 1958
601
Now then, we are putting another $1 mil-
lion into the teachers' superannuation fund.
I will just go down the list: there is education,
$3,292 million.
It is within the jurisdiction of this House
to apply it on debt if it wants to, but this
government suggests applying it in cash on a
great asset.
Now then we have here, special grants.
Some $8 million will be paid to the hospitals.
They will do the work and their work will
be paid for in cash. The Banting and Best
research fund, $20,000; the Heart Foundation,
$100,000; and the Cancer Institute, $600,000.
I would like the hon. members of the House
to go through that great institution we have
on Wellesley St., the Cancer Institute, where
we have invested nearly $10 million. Every
cent of that $10 million is paid. There is not
a dollar against that place. We have paid for
the whole thing in cash. Now there is noth-
ing charged to the future.
In highway construction, of course, there is
$37.5 million there, which my hon. friend will
agree is good financing to do it that way,
which again is applying it on debt-
Mr. Nixon: How much will there be in
the highway construction fund?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I could not say, but
I could get the figures here. Of course, let us
remember that we use this fund to pay cash,
and I suppose there would be $15 million or
$20 million in it now. This will be carried
forward into next year.
Now then, there is $5 million in connec-
tion with the relief matters which, if my
hon. friend from Essex North wants to dis-
cuss that, I will be very glad to read him
the particulars I have here. I would say
it is a great project.
I listened to the mayor of Toronto on his
radio broadcast last Sunday, and he said that
the city of Toronto has some 1,200 men at
the present time-
Mr. Whicher: What doing?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Doing very useful work.
Mr. Whicher: Batting up snow.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Just imagine this. The
mayor of Toronto said this on the broadcast
on Sunday. He was talking of the black days
of the past:
But all this, I am happy to say, has
changed. By Thursday, out of 1,400 on
relief rolls, 1,071 men had responded, and
there is every indication that more will
be on deck when the clean-up programme
gets rolling. I say that is a magnificent
accomplishment.
Mayor Phillips says it is a great thing
to switch over 1,000 men from the lists of
city charity to the list of those actively and
usefully employed. I think my hon. friends
will agree with that.
Now in hurrying along, there is a grant
of $35,000-
Mr. Whicher: Peanuts.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, does the hon. mem-
ber/ think we should not clean the place up?
I would say it is a good thing to clean things
up occasionally. $35,000 to the St. John's
Training School; another $1 million for the
public service superannuation fund, and then
—this is not lost money, this is repaid to us—
$1,760 million to help finance Elliot Lake,
up in the district of Algoma, and to finance
Manitouwadge, and to finance the Bicroft
municipality, where we have thousands of
people coming in on the uranium business.
Now I would say, if my hon. friend oppo-
site wants to be technical, if he says: "Now
here, apply that on debt," I would say that
this Legislature may so do. They may apply
this on debt, and then the $99 million will
become $80 million. If I did that, would my
hon. friend from Bruce vote for it? I do not
think he would.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He would not vote for it,
of course he would not.
An hon. member: Put it to a vote.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Would the hon. Prime
Minister give the House an opportunity to
vote, not the entire supplementary estimate-
obviously, we are not going to vote against
some of the worthwhile projects here, the
payment to the dental school and the like-
but what about the highway reserve fund?
Also, why was not the cancer fund put in
at the beginning of the year? The hon. Prime
Minister knows why it is here now. This is
"politically expedient", as I said the other
day. It is a very good thing to come along
at the end of the year and give these things.
There is the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions ( Mr. Dymond ) suggesting what
am I talking about. Does he know that this
same supplementary estimate has come down
in this House year after year? Does he realize
602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that these figures, which the hon. Prime Min-
ister has read, can be taken from last year's
budget and the budget the year before?
There is not one change except the $5 million
for unemployment. Now does he or does he
not realize that fact?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: All the hon. members
have to do is vote against them. Let them
stand up and be counted.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Let the hon. Minister
stand up. He is sitting.
An hon. member: Here comes the choir
again. "You are not able to get up."
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, I think we are dis-
cussing the supplementary estimates, and they
amount to, I understand, between $57 million
and $58 million, and they include, as the
hon. Prime Minister has suggested, items for
The Department of Education, The Depart-
ment of Health, The Department of High-
ways, The Department of Municipal Affairs,
and The Department of Reform Institutions
and the Provincial Treasurer's Department.
The hon. Prime Minister has outlined the
significance, as he sees them, of these various
amounts.
What I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that
we have not any intention of voting against
the amounts contained in these supplementary
estimates. It is all very well for the hon.
Prime Minister to rise and say: "Well, if
you want to cut off the special grants to
hospitals, well you vote against them." In
other words, he is suggesting that all is good
that is in supplementary estimates. But of
course, that depends on the degree. I mean
he might say that instead of $8 million for
The Department of Health, why not make it
$80 million. It would still be good. I mean,
that attitude, it seems to me, is not sufficient.
Now I want to just remind the House for
a moment or two, that the practice of sub-
mitting supplementary estimates on the part
of this government, for quite sizeable amounts
of money, is not a new one. It is not confined
to this year but it has a very long history that
goes back to the time when this government
was first elected.
And in the supplementary estimates of
1954, there was for education, $4 million in
the supplementary amounts; in 1955, there
was $10 million; in 1956, almost $9 million;
and in 1957, $2.4 million and in 1958, $3.2
million.
Now, the figure for The Department of
Health, I suggest, is an interesting one, when
we are talking about supplementary estimates.
We will find, if we peruse the figures in
respect to The Department of Health, having
to do with supplementary estimates, that in
1954 we voted a supplementay amount of $8
million; in 1955 we voted $8.8 million; in
1956 we voted $8.6 million; in 1957, we
voted $8.8 million; and in 1958 we are about
to vote $8.7 million.
Now, for 5 consecutive years, in the supple-
mentary accounts, we have had an item for
The Department of Health ranging just over
$8 million.
I suggest to the House that those amounts
cannot be construed as supplementary. If
they were justified expenditures for The De-
partment of Health, then the place for them
was in the budget of this province, and the
government should have taken cognizance of
the need for increased expenditure in The
Department of Health, and included that
amount in their regular estimates.
The same is true of The Department of
Highways. In 1954, the supplementary amount
voted for The Department of Highways was
$17 million; in 1955, it was $15 million; in
1956, $28 million; 1957, $37 million; and this
year the same amount, $37 million.
What I am going to suggest is that we
are not opposed to this supplementary amount,
but we are quite concerned, and I believe the
House should be concerned, about the premise
that provides the revenue to pay these supple-
mentary amounts. I want to read some figures
having to do with the budgeted and the
actual, so far as revenue is concerned, over
the last 6 years:
In 1952-1953, the budget for revenue was
said to be $291 million, and the actual
amount received was $349 million. In 1953-
1954, the amount budgeted for was $334
million, and we took in $372 million. The
next year, 1954-1955, we budgeted for $354
million and received $399 million. The next
year we budgeted for $368 million, and took
in $427 million. The next year, 1956-1957,
we budgeted for $420 million and we took
in $460 million, and on it goes. In 1952—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would he give us this
year?
Mr. Oliver: No, I cannot give this year
because the hon. Prime Minister knows there
is an estimate for 3 months, I do not have
the final figure. We have not come to the
end of the year, my hon. friend knows that.
Pie cannot be positive, he cannot be actual
about the final figure.
But in 1952, we had an actual receipt of
revenue over our estimate of $58 million;
and the next year, $38 million; next year,
If
MARCH 6, 1958
603
year $44 million; the next year, $59 million;
the next year $41 million.
Now what I say to the House is this, that
this government had deliberately and, with
calculated mischief, planned this sort of bud-
get. It is not by accident, it is by desire.
What my hon. friends are doing— and the
hon. Prime Minister knows this quite well
—is planning or is forecasting the estimate
of revenue, placing it deliberately low, plac-
ing it at a level where the hon. Prime Minis-
ter knows full well that it will be exceeded
by $30, $40 or $50 million.
He is doing that for a very good purpose,
looking at it from a political point of view.
He knows full well that when he has $50
million at the end of the year that he can
be a Santa Claus, and that he can "dish
it out" to The Department of Education,
hospitals, to universities, and then he rises
and says to us: "If you do not want it vote
against it.
What I am saying to the House tonight
is that this may be good political financing,
but it is not good business, and it is not
presenting to this House, and to the people,
what they have a right to expect by the way
of a budget.
For instance, I want to pursue this just a
point or two further. Last year and, as I
have said, for the last 5 or 6 years we had
a supplementary amount for education. The
boards of education did not know until the
time came, the budget time, what they were
going to get in the supplementary amount.
The hospital boards did not know what they
were going to get, and therefore they could
not budget accurately, with the increase in
mind.
Moreover, I think what we should remem-
ber perhaps more than anything else about
this whole matter is this, that if the govern-
ment were to have no surplus, and the day
were to come when it made a mistake in its
calculation, or if revenues were to fall or
some other factors were to enter into it that
would wipe away that surplus, then we would
be in the position of the hospitals expecting
what they got the previous year and the year
before that, and the year before that again,
and the money would not be available for
them.
I suggest that there is not a measure
of consistency about these supplementary
amounts, there is not a stability that anyone
can count on. It is strictly on a year-to-year
basis.
Ever since this government came into office,
they have not been paying enough for educa-
tion. What we should have been doing was
putting out that amount in the budget for
education, not waiting until the end of the
year and then, if they have any left over,
give it to education; I do not think that sound
financing at all. The hon. Prime Minister may
have been lucky until now, but after all is said
and done, a government is supposed to be run
like a business, as I understand it, and if it
budgets accurately, if it estimates closely, then
the surplus is quite small. It need not be
large if all the brains there are around the
hon. Prime Minister are set to work— and I
have no doubt he has them working— but if
they are working they can come up with a
reasonable estimate.
I suggest again that what the hon. Prime
Minister is doing is simply trying to make a
big fellow of himself. He is trying to come
out ahead— and he has succeeded this last
number of years in having a big surplus at
the end of the year— and then he throws the
money around like Santa Claus.
Now I repeat, that may be good politics,
but it is not good business, and I think he
should change the system that he has been
following.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend, about this matter of the surplus or in-
crease in revenue estimates, that I listened to
what my hon. friend said some two years ago;
"We changed the Provincial Treasurer, we
got rid of the old fellow and we got a new
Treasurer, and this year it was within 1.4 per
cent, of the estimate."
Now, I am sorry to lose the hon. Provincial
Treasuer we had, but we will have to do the
best we can-
Mr. Oliver: Now, how does the hon. Prime
Minister know it is that close this year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I can give these—
Mr. Oliver: He has 9 months actual and 3
months estimated—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Oliver: Well, if the 3 months is as far
out this year as it has been in past years, he
certainly does not know at all-
Mr. Whicher: Well, does the hon. Prime
Minister deny that he has been a long way
out in the past 10 years? The hon. leader of
the Opposition has just pointed out that the
hon. Prime Minister was out up to $75 mil-
lion in one year, does he deny that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am always on the right
side though, that is—
604
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: That may be true, but if he
would put these supplementary estimates
where they should be, then it will be down
where it should be, in the budget itself.
Mr. Yaremko: How far does the hon. mem-
ber think—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, would
the hon. Prime Minister kindly consider filing
with this House a detailed statement of what
capital expenses will be paid in full, in the
coming fiscal year, and what capital expenses
will not— that is he has said that he will pay
for one-third of them in cash— will he give
us an opportunity to examine those so-called
capital expenditures that will be paid in full,
and those that will not be?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I will give the hon.
member a statement of the last 15 years to
show the—
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, no, I am concerned
with the forecast for the coming year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I could do that. As
a matter of fact, my hon. friend could figure
it out for himself.
Mr. Nixon: He would rather the hon.
Prime Minister would figure it out.
Mr. Whicher: He has a different kind of
pencil.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Exactly, Mr. Chairman;
this, I think, is the essence of the whole
thing— either the hon. Prime Minister knows
or he does not. Frankly, I do not think that
he, or anybody else, knows what capital
expenses will be paid for in cash or not.
Everybody else who examines this carefully
knows that the one-third is a pure estimate,
that is devised to forecast a moderate surplus
of $280,000 for the ensuing year.
I complained of the same thing last year.
But to test it in an intelligent way, I think
the hon. Prime Minister must file, with this
House, a demonstration of how and what
particular capital expenses will be paid for
in cash in this ensuing year, and I would
think that could be or should be done in a
day or two, so that we will have an oppor-
tunity to examine it and make our comments
on it.
Mr. Whicher: Well, is he going to file it,
yes or no?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it is all there.
Mr. Whicher: We want your pencil to
do it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Let us make this em-
phatically clear. I do not want to unneces-
sarily press this point, it is not here, not
with any sense—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I regret that I take up the
time of the House to get these things together.
But if my hon. friend will look at page A16,
he will find that we will be paying, in our
estimates, about $82 million in cash. Now
we can charge, against that, $51 million of
public works, everything that the hon. Minis-
ter of Public Works (Mr. Nickle) spends
is paid in cash, including conservation works.
I do not know whether one would count them
revenue producing or not, but we will pay
for those works in cash. Rural power trans-
mission lines $1.5 million— we will pay that.
We will pay $1 million for mining roads,
we will pay for logging roads $3.8 million.
I guess the balance will apply on highways.
The way it looks right here, I think that is
a very good statement. Hon. members op-
posite do not need to do much calculating
to figure that one out.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Chairman,
this is the statement I have been working
with all evening, my goodness—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, the answer is right
there. It is very plain, it is very easy to
see. If the hon. member will look at page
A16-
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am sure that is the
page that I have been working with all
evening, I have had it before me all evening.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I told the hon. member
he was mixed up.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am not at all mixed up,
and if we look to last year, we will see the
same thing last year. When the hon. Prime
Minister said he was going to pay 65 per cent,
he dropped to 45, and he is going to drop
below one-third, because he knows his debt
is going to increase by $140 million.
Now, there is no relationship between the
$140 million to which his debt is going to
increase, and the so-called forecast of
$280,000. He does not know, I do not know,
and no hon. member in this House knows,
whether he is going to pay for those build-
ings in cash or not, and that is the whole
tiling.
If he really divorces his highway pro-
grammes, and his overall budget, then we will
get somewhere. But he is not doing that, he
is just clothing this whole discussion with his
own pleasant personality and persuasiveness.
MARCH 6, 1958
605
In term of technicality, he has not added a
thing in this last explanation-
Mr. Hanna: The hon. member is wasting
time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I say to my hon.
friend that, as a matter of fact, we will pay
for all these things which he makes, by some
stretch of the imagination, non-revenue pro-
ducing. We will pay for them all in cash. We
will apply a very large sum on the payment of
old debt and on our currently incurred high-
way debt this year.
Now, on the figures, I would say that over
the last dozen years, I suppose going back
to 15 years, we have paid everything, all the
Hydro, all the subsidies, everything in cash,
and still we have applied a huge amount on
the highway account. I think that is a pretty
good record.
Mr. Whicher: If the hon. Prime Minister is
paying for all these things with the exception
of the highway, how much is he putting aside
in sinking fund to pay these highways off
finally? How much is he putting away?
Hon. Mr. Frost: $18 million this year.
Mr. Whicher: That would not be all
applied to highways, of course?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it is on debt.
Mr. Whicher: Well, is that sufficient to put
aside?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, that would pay it all
up in 35 years.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, we know
what the $18 million is. In all fairness, the
hon. Prime Minister knows what $18 million
is. Let us say $18 million is budgeted for
each year for the last 10 years, my—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, no. It is always
increasing-
Mr. Whicher: My understanding is that $2
million of that $18 million is statutory in the
sense of— what is it?
An hon. member: "AM" and "AN".
Mr. Whicher: "AM" and "AN". That is
right, those two require a certain amount to
be set aside each year, I think it is $2 million.
Now then, it has been the hon. Prime
Minister's habit in the past few years to add
another approximately $15 million, too, mak-
ing up the $17 million that he talks about,
and when the final figures are determined at
the end of March of each year— and remem-
ber we are just guessing what they will be-
ne will increase that. But I do not think in all
fairness he can suggest that there is an overall
plan in this respect.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that what we do is this. Supposing
we have a $100 million capital works, and
we pay— as we have been paying— $65 million
in cash. That leaves $35 million that goes
into debt. Well, we increase our sinking
fund provision so that an amount will go
there to pay that balance off in 35 years
time. Now, that is what has been done.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, but then why has
that figure remained absolutely stationary
at $17 million for the last 5 years, when the
capital expense programme has not remained
constant?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Last year we put $40,729
million in sinking fund.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But let the hon. Prime
Minister explain how he made up that $41
million. It was made up of the two I spoke
of, of the $15 million budgeted and then,
after the completion of the fiscal year and
the full 12 months was determined, he knows
that he is going to have more revenue than
he said he was going to have, and that addi-
tional revenue, having no other place where
it can be put, is technically applied to this
fund, but it is not by any planned scheme
that he does this.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that, of course, we have put in
vastly more in the sinking fund than the plan
would call for, on the basis of 35 years. Of
course we have. But we have done that inten-
tionally.
Mr. Whicher: He has also underestimated
intentionally.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, no.
Mr. Whicher: Well then, he is an awfully
poor estimator, because for the past 10 years
he was under by practically $500 million.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I am conservative
with a small "c."
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, I will ask the hon.
Prime Minister how much will be put into
this fund for the year ending on March 31,
1958? He has told us that $18 million was
only—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, we have roughly
$18 million in there now, and we pay some
$85 million in cash, and put $18 million that
606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we pledged to put in, and then I say to the
hon. member that if we make more out of
income tax than we expect to, we will add
that to it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Surely that is not good
financing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why not? What is wrong
with it?
Mr. Wintermeyer: What mortgagor would
do that? What obligator would do it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I mean we are putting in
a stated amount. We have the $18 million-
Mr. Wintermeyer: $18 million is the only
stake, that is the only stake.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If we run into an economic
depression that some of the hon. members
opposite forecast, we will put in $18 million,
but if we run into better times, as we think
we will, we will put in more, but we will at
least put in that much.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Prime Minis-
ter suggest how much the net debt will
increase if we happen to run into bad times,
because this year when we had good times
it was $99.6 million. What will happen if we
have bad times?
Mr. Oliver: Perhaps my hon. friend let his
figure go, I do not recall it. Can he tell me
what we require by statute to put into the
sinking fund?
Hon. Mr. Frost: $18 million.
Mr. Oliver: That is the $18 million. He is
required to put that in each year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, actually speaking,
we are not required by statute-
Mr. Oliver: He is not required to put it
in?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No. As a matter of fact
the $18 million has been set up as the amount
which would be necessary to take care of the
debt over a stated period of time-
Mr. Nixon: What does the "S" in front of
that vote mean, is that not statutory?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Concerning the "AM" and
"AN" issues, it is statutory to put in the
amount, the others are provided by statute,
but it is not obligatory to put it in. But I
would say that during the lifetime of this
government, we have not only put that
amount in, but that we have put more in.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister is
putting us in the hole a lot more. Does he
not agree with that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I regret to say there
is little the hon. member for Bruce says that
I can agree with. I would like to be able to
agree with more.
Mr. Whicher: Does the "AM" and "AN"
series, so-called, amount to $2,441 million, is
that right?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: Well, what does the "S" mean
in front of that whole vote?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Statutory items.
Mr. Nixon: Statutory, yes. Well then, if it
is statutory, he must have to—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not necessarily, it means it
is authorized by statute but the amount is not
set.
Mr. Whicher: I just heard one of the hon.
members opposite say that we might be get-
ting on his neck. Does the hon. Prime Mini-
ster agree with that or not?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Prime Mini-
ster like us to get off his neck?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, keep on going, the hon.
member is doing all right.
Mr. Whicher: It was one of the hon. Prime
Minister's own members who suggested it.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
now that it is settled that the province is
neither in the black nor the red, there are two
items in the supplementary estimates I would
like to refer to. One concerns the teachers'
superannuation fund of $1 million, and the
other for the public service superannuation
fund.
Now, I think this last 3 or 4 years, in the
teachers' superannuation fund, we have put
either $3 million or $4 million. I am not
opposed to that, in fact, I am all in favour
of it.
But we should not make fish of one and
flesh of another.
Now on many occasions hon. members of
the Opposition, and sometimes hon. members
of the government, have risen in this House
and asked the government to entertain the
idea of some compensation to those people
on workmen's compensation who are on the
old rate of 50 per cent. I do ask the hon.
MARCH 6, 1958
607
Prime Minister to seriously consider that,
if we can put $4 million or $5 million into
these two funds, surely we can do something
to help those people out. I would like to ask
the hon. Prime Minister if he would com-
ment on that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that the situa-
tion is this, the workmen's compensation fund
is actuarily sound, they have collected the
money and have placed it in the fund, and
the payments are based upon actuarial com-
putations that are fully protected by invested
funds.
Now, unfortunately, that is not so as
regards either the teachers' superannuation
fund or the civil service fund. Due to the
actions of past governments, we found that
we were faced with great deficits in both
funds.
So what we have been doing is this, we
have been paying in the full amount that
we should pay in now, and have been put-
ting in $1 million a year in both funds in
order to bolster up the deficits that were
incurred by past administrations that appar-
ently robbed the hen roost in some way or
other by not putting in the amount of money
they should have put it. We have been
trying to restore the solvency of those funds.
Actually speaking, the contribution that we
put in does help to restore that.
Now, I forget which fund it was, but it
might have been the teachers' fund, that the
estimates of the actuaries— whom we had go
over that account some few years ago— showed
that the fund would begin to start to run
down about 1980 or somewhere around
there. Well, every $1 million we put in
postpones that. I think by now we have
it beyond the year 2000 mark, which is
quite a considerable period off. But still
actuarily the fund is not sound, although it
is underwritten by the government of On-
tario, and nobody needs to be alarmed that
they will not get their money.
But some government, it might be the
government that the hon. members opposite
would lead about the year 2000, would find
themselves having to dip into the ordinary
account to pay the teachers' superannuation
fund, and we want to avoid that for them.
Mr. Thomas: Further to that question, the
question of whether it is actuarily sound or
unsound does not enter into the picture at
this time. The fact is that we are taking
millions of dollars out of the consolidated
revenue to put into this fund. Now the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley) said he does
not think it is fair that industry should bear
the burden. Well, if the hon. Prime Minister
agrees on that, then I think some portion of
the consolidated revenue fund should be taken
to compensate these people who are trying
to exist on this measly pension they are
receiving now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Of course, I have sym-
pathy for what the hon. member says, but
here is the position. To do what he says
on the estimates that we had made, I think
last year, would mean that we would have
to take about $19 million from the consoli-
dated revenue fund to provide for the stab-
ility of the workmen's compensation fund in
connection with the widows that he mentions.
The great difficulty is this, that the problem
then becomes an enemy, there are those who
were superannuated under civil service con-
ditions of other years, who today are not
receiving the pensions that are payable to
those retiring today. Now, there is a similar
just claim for going back into that.
If we go back into that, the thing is un-
ending, and we can apply that to pensions
of all kinds and varieties.
I would say that was why this government,
back in 1950, argued for a universal old age
pension. It was recognized at that time that
we could not restore equity, we could not
restore the balance.
Take, for instance, my town. I come from
a raiload town. There were scores, and are
scores, of railroaders there who are retired on
pensions that were earned on plans that were
very adequate and very desirable plans 25
years ago, but today are totally inadequate.
It is pretty difficult to raise the pension for
one pensioner who has neither contributed to
or been contributed for under one plan, and
jack that person up and then leave the rail-
roader, or leave somebody else down in the
street, in the same position as they were
before.
Now that was the real purpose of the
universal old age pension at 70 years of age.
Now, I admit that it would be more desir-
able perhaps to come in at 65 years of age,
but after all, one has to get the money to do
these things.
Now, at 70 years of age, on a universal
basis, at $55 a month or $110 a month for a
man and his wife, that sum goes a long way
to iron out these inequities that come in these
various pensions.
I would say to the hon. member if he takes
any one of them separately, the argument is
really unassailable for doing something, but
on the other hand, remember this, in work-
608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
men's compensation alone I think the widows'
pensions would amount to something in the
order of $19 million. I think those were the
estimates we got.
Remember this: the minute we turn
around and raise a widow's pension up to the
pension of today, by means of a contribution
from the funds of the province, then how
about some poor fellow who has lost his arm
or is totally disabled, or has some other
serious disability?
We cannot isolate this, we have to deal
with him, and by the time we are through,
then we are into an unending problem, and
one that is extremely expensive.
I would repeat that this was the argument
for the universal old age pension in 1950—
although we could never restore the balances
and all the equities, we could make it fairer
for everybody. Today a single person gets
$55, and a couple $110. Now that is the
situation. I do not know how we could
better it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, in this
$1 million, there is simply an effort to build
up; it is not a scientific figure, and one would
expect the $1 million to continue for some
time until the fund is—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, if we can afford it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: $19 million for 19 years?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now, under those
circumstances, one would expect that would
be put in the ordinary budget rather than
supplementary estimates.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, as a matter of fact,
frankly, we have increased, as hon. members
will notice, on the ordinary budget, the super-
annuation provisions. We have not wanted to
place that in for this reason, if we put it there
and it becomes hardened into the budget,
then it is something that we would be bound
to meet. Now after all, I think we are only
bound to meet what we can, and therefore
we have retained the flexibility of putting it
in a supplementary estimate.
Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. Prime Minister
mean he could not drop it from the budget?
Hon. Mr. Frost: We might drop it, sure,
if we ran into difficult times next year, yes
I think so.
Vote 415 agreed to.
Vote 515 agreed to.
Vote 606 agreed to.
On vote 1,204:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to say something about vote 1,204. That is
the $5 million that the hon. Prime Minister is
so very, very proud of. He told us that he
had a letter from the mayor of Toronto saying
that there were 1,200 men at work, and that
this $5 million is a great thing for the un-
employed in the province of Ontario.
I would like to tell him right now that it
may be a good thing for the 1,000 or 1,200
men who are employed in Toronto, and we
say, if it is, then we are vey glad of it. But
I have quotations here from the mayors of
Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Brantford, Belle-
ville, Kingston, Stratford, Woodstock, St.
Thomas, Barrie, Niagara Falls and many
more, and what they say is simply this: That
the hon. Prime Minister's plan is no good
whatsoever, period!
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not for what they want to
use it for, it is not.
Mr. Whicher: Well, is this plan for Ontario
or is it for the city of Toronto? That is what
I want to know.
Hon. Mr. Frost: This is for the unem-
ployed. That is what it is for.
Mr. Whicher: Well, we have unemployed
in many, many cities besides the city of
Toronto. For example, we will take Oshawa.
In Oshawa, there are only 5 or 6 men who
would be eligible, mayor Lymon Gifford said.
Some 40 others are on relief and also
receive small unemployment benefits. He
hoped the government would include these
men under the plan. About 450 persons are
receiving relief, including 140 heads of
families.
Now, that goes all the way down in prac-
tically every city in the province of Ontario
with the exception of Toronto. The only
reason the hon. Prime Minister's plan is any
good in the city of Toronto is because they
have huge parks here where they can set
about cleaning up, and that sort of tiling.
Where there is no snow whatsoever, in Sud-
bury—I would be interested to know what the
hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Monaghan)
would say about this.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would tell my hon.
friend what has happened in Sudbury, and
he might read it. Here is a good comment.
I will take the Sudbury Star and explain it
to him.
Mr. Whicher: What date is it?
MARCH 6, 1958
609
Hon. Mr. Frost: March 1, 1958. Now listen,
I want to read this.
Mr. Thomas: St. David's Day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right.
Sudbury's board of control is hard
pressed for civic business to justify its
existence, if it must spend time in trying
to devise work schemes for 3 men, who
would be eligible for work under a survey
recently announced in connection with pro-
vincial aid schemes.
Surprising to the taxpayers of this city
is the unwillingness of the board members
to accept the fact that there is no critical
unemployment situation here. . . .
The taxpayers most reluctantly reach
the conclusion that Sudbury's controllers
have fallen victims to political propaganda
which has gratefully exaggerated the un-
employment situation across the country.
Even in the city of Toronto, where there
is always a concentration of unemployed
during the winter months, only 58 per
cent, of those eligible to work on provin-
cial aid schemes turned up to work when
the city made its appeal to eligible un-
employed to register for work, and muni-
cipal taxpayers are not forgetting that they
are expected to foot the bill for 30 per
cent, of the cost.
When Prime Minister Frost announced
the plan, he said obviously in such a plan
as this, good faith is a very necessary
condition. The projects must involve addi-
tional work and employment over and
above the municipalities' ordinary under-
takings. The government would be quite
justified in ridiculing the suggestion, from
a city of 47,000 population, that special
assistance be given to provide employment
for 3 men.
What my hon. friend is saying is this.
Here is a city that has unemployment of 3
men, and they have no unemployment prob-
lem. It is 47,000 population. My hon. friend
and the hon. leader of the Opposition, have
argued that we should give to that city an
unconditional subsidy of $1 per head of popu-
lation, namely $47,000 to take care of 3 men.
Now that is what they are asking.
Now, I just ask my hon. friend if it is
not time for a little calm consideration. This
plan is devised to help the unemployed. This
is not a plan to dish out $1 per head of popu-
lation to municipalities in areas that do not
need it. Now, on the other hand, some other
municipality may have quite an unemploy-
ment load and they might get $2 or $3 per
head of population. I would say that this is
a dandy plan and my hon. friend should sup-
port it.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I say to the hon. Prime
Minister that his plan is no good.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
that applause was for me by any chance? I
say to hon. members: "Thank you very much,
I appreciate it." In saying that there are 3
unemployed people in Sudbury, he has been
talking a lot of nonsense like he has been
doing about the whole budget tonight. I sug-
gest, if there are going to be any cheers
around here, that hon. members hold them
until I read something else to the hon. Prime
Minister.
In the city of Owen Sound, we have 3,000
people who are drawing unemployment insur-
ance benefits, and this is what the deputy
mayor of Owen Sound said:
Deputy mayor Percy England said only
4 persons would qualify for the work.
Now, what kind of an unemployment plan
is this when 4 people out of 3,000 would
qualify?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The others are being taken
care of.
Mr. Whicher: Now let me ask something
more. It is too bad the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) is not
here at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He is over at a political
meeting representing me.
Mr. Whicher: Well, he had better not
talk about this plan because if he does, he
will be sorry that he is there. In Hamilton
mayor Lloyd Jackson favours a per capita
grant of $1, or about $240,000 as the prov-
ince's 70 per cent, contribution.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Of course he would. I
do not blame him for asking for it. Does the
hon. member know how many men there
are-
Mr. Whicher: Now, just a minute, the
hon. Prime Minister told me to sit down a
few minutes ago. Would he mind doing it
this time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There are 150 men
eligible in Hamilton, and they want $200,000.
Of course, I do not blame them for asking
for it.
610
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: For one thing, we cannot
hear the hon. Prime Minister so well when
he is sitting down.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member can
bear all right.
Mr. Whicher: Well, he would not have to
whisper very loud for the hon. Minister to
hear him. He would stand to attention in
short order.
However, mayor Lloyd Jackson said that
the city has not taken advantage of the plan
because of the limitations. Hamilton has 414
unemployed men receiving assistance from
the city, and about 100 civic employees laid
off. There are about 20,600 persons seeking
employment in the city of Hamilton.
Of all the things that the hon. Prime Mini-
ster has given this province of Ontario, he
should really stand on the city hall here in
Toronto and stand to attention and say: "My,
I have done a wonderful job." And when
he does, he will be the only person, out-
side of these hon. Conservatives sitting in
this House, who believes him, because nobody
else does.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to my
hon. friend that he should read the speech
of the mayor of Toronto. I will send it to
him, and I will send him last week's speech
in which he explained the plan and said it
was a wonderful thing. As a matter of fact,
I read him a portion tonight in which he said
it was a magnificent thing. Now, may I point
out to my hon. friend, we have in this country
now, unemployment insurance. He says that
in the city of Hamilton-
Mr. Whicher: Who passed the legislation?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, let the hon. member
wait just a moment. He says that, in the city
of Hamilton, there are 20,000 people on
unemployment insurance. I think those are
his figures. Now surely he would not argue
for a minute that this province should step
in with a subsidized work programme where
we are subsidizing 70 per cent of the wages,
in order to take 20,000 people off unemploy-
ment insurance. Now, we would have a nice
amount to apply on debt if we ever did that
one.
I would say that there is no intention of
doing such a thing, now or in the future, and
if anyone had any wishful thoughts that it is
going to be done they might as well disabuse
their minds of it, because it is not going to
happen.
It is not our intention to take the 20,000
men in Hamilton, or the 3,000 or the 4,000
men in Owen Sound, and transfer them from
unemployment insurance to a relief works
programme where we pay 70 per cent, of the
wages. Now, surely the hon. member would
not ask for that.
Mr. Whicher: No, I will not ask for it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Then what is he asking
for?
Mr. Whicher: I am not asking for it at all,
but I am just pointing out the fact that the
feeling got around this province that the hon.
Prime Minister was going to be a great con-
tributor to the welfare of those people who
are unemployed in Ontario, and he has not
been. Now just in Toronto— and I think, to be
fair, he will admit I said Toronto was an
exception— they have 1,100 or 1,200 men em-
ployed, whatever the case might be, simply
because they have a huge park area in this
city. In spite of the fact that they have got
1,100 people working on this plan, there are
62,000 people unemployed, walking up and
down the streets, here.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is not the part I am
touching.
Mr. Whicher: It is very true that they are
drawing unemployment relief. No question
about it whatsoever.
But I suggest this. He has this $5 million
that he spends. If he does spend the whole
$5 million, about $3 million of it will be
spent in this city of Toronto. In a dozen or
20 cities in this province, to all intents and
purposes, the plan is of no use whatsoever.
Vote 1,204 agreed to.
Vote 1,904 agreed to.
Vote 2,109 agreed to.
On vote 1,205.
Mr. Thomas: There was one question there
in respect to the grant to Elliot Lake. Is that
an outright gift or a loan?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is a loan.
Vote 1,205 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT-
GOVERNOR
Vote 1,001 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, TREASURY DEPARTMENT
On vote No. 2,201.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, it has been cus-
tomary for the Minister in charge of Depart-
ments to make a lengthy explanation of those
matters that fall within the 4 corners of his
department. I do not think the hon. Prime
MARCH 6, 1958
611
Minister should be any exception. Would he
not give us a half-hour on this department?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that it would be a very, very great
pleasure to, but I spoke for fully 2 hours a
week ago Wednesday, and I spoke for another
half-hour tonight and I ask to be excused.
Mr. Whicher: We still do not believe him.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, there is nothing I
can say that would make the hon. member
believe me. What is the use of me talking
any more.
Mr. Whicher: He can say that again.
On vote 2201, if you are not in too big
a hurry, Mr. Chairman. This amount of $6.2
million. What is that supposed to do? Are
they stepping up the allotment of money
to these funds or—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is the matching
amount for superannuation.
Mr. Whicher: That is what?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The matching amount.
Our contribution to superannuation.
Mr. Whicher: Oh, yes, that is right. I
agree on that.
In 2,201—1 hate to bring this up again.
I really do, Mr. Chairman— but this public
debt is hanging over my head so severely
that I wonder if the hon. Prime Minister
would explain this $53 million of interest.
I mean, is there for example, any Hydro debt
in that? Any interest?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, there is.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I am sorry the hon.
Prime Minister is confused.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We get it in on the
revenue side. That is a gross item. That
is right.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Prime Min-
ister say how much is Hydro? I mean, how
much public debt?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, that is shown in
the gross debt figures. Some $12 million will
be coming back from Hydro on that item.
Mr. Whicher: In other words then, we
are paying this year about $41 million in
interest on the debt of this province.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right. That is
a lot. As a matter of fact, our interest has
fallen very much in the last few years because
of lowered interest rates. It has increased
because of the politics of the late government
but we are hoping to have that corrected.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, how can
the hon. Prime Minister say that the interest
has fallen when we are another $100 million
in the hole this year? It has gone up that
much. He means the rate is a little different.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The amount of interest
we pay is what I am talking about.
Mr. Whicher: But the amount of interest
he pays is much more than it was last year.
Is that correct, or have I made a mistake
there?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think he has made
another error.
Mr. Whicher: Now, Mr. Chairman, is it
not true that the interest that we pay this
year will be more than last year?
Mr. Oliver: Well, one would think so.
Mr. Whicher: Of course it is.
Mr. Oliver: With the debt being higher
and all that.
Mr. Whicher: Is it or not?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, I think that is correct.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister
certainly does think it is right.
Votes 2,201 and 2,202 agreed to.
On vote 2,203:
Mr. Oliver: Now we must hear the hon.
Prime Minister on this. How are we doing
in the racing business?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not know. I have
not been there since the King's Plate two
years ago.
Mr. Oliver: Well, there was more money
bet this year than last. Oh, here is my hon.
friend from Huron-Bruce (Mr. Hanna) this
is a yearly classic when we are able to get
my hon. friend from Huron up to speal<
about the racing commission. I think—
Mr. J. W. Hanna (Huron-Bruce): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to answer any ques-
tions that the hon. members of the Opposi-
tion have to ask, because I am very proud
to be on the racing commission. Also I know
the hon. members of the Opposition are very
proud that I am.
This government and the federal govern-
ment are very anxious that racing be im-
612
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
proved each year, and they are doing a lot
to bring it to a standard that each and every
one of the hon. members of this House will
be proud of.
We feel that the commission is something
to be proud of because I see that $4,294
million was received by the government this
year from racing, and the federal government
is very anxious— we are to have a meeting
with the federal Department of Agriculture
in Ottawa— to return to the racing sport of
Canada their .25 per cent, which they have
been receiving, and I am sure that no one
can find any fault with the people of the gov-
ernment endeavouring to insure that racing
will become more up to date every day.
The members of the racing commission-
Mr. Bigelow, Mr. McKee and Mr. Macintosh
and myself— are very proud to realize how
much racing has been improved in this
province of Ontario in the last 2, 3 or 4
years.
If there are any further questions I will
be glad to hear from the Opposition. I
might say that I am sorry that the hon.
member for York West (Mr. Rowntree) is
not here. The New Woodbine track is in
his riding, and to the hon. members who are
fond of good sport, and are looking for some
place where they will be proud to take
their wives, may I say I am sure they will
have very little to say against racing in the
province of Ontario, after visiting the New
Woodbine.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member
could tell this House whether The Depart-
ment of Agriculture provided him with the
material for his little address.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, while my hon.
friend has given a very full and detailed
explanation of this classic in the province
I do have one question that I might ask
him— and this in all seriousness— is the racing
commission giving consideration to what is
known as night racing? What is their posi-
tion in regard to that suggestion, which
comes from many quarters, that we should
allow night racing in the province?
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I thought
the hon. Prime Minister protected only his
hon. Ministers.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well this involves a mat-
ter of government policy. I would say that,
in the past, there has been some agitation for
night racing. As a matter of fact, there have
been some concessions from the standpoint
of permitting racing in the evening, which is
made possible by reason of the long hours
in the daylight saving period. Now, I would
say quite frankly, that I am not a racing man
myself, I do not know my way around these
tracks very much. While my hon. friend
from Huron-Bruce is quite an expert, I am
not.
But in my studies and dealings with racing
some time ago, I must say that I was not a
bit impressed with night racing, and I have
to be impressed now, for this reason.
Night racing emanated from the United
States— that is, racing under lights— and all
sorts of scandals and difficulties and crooked
business cropped up. Our adjoining state of
New York was full of it, as my hon. friends
here know.
I made some inquiries. I did not go down
to look at harness racing in some of the
other states, but I was strongly advised to
keep our province out of it.
Now I would say this, that there was a lot
oi money going through the pari-mutuel
machines of this province and I am rather old-
fashioned enough to think that there is enough
going through without starting up another
big gambling business in the province. Quite
frankly that is what I think, and if our people
want to bet, there are plenty of places to do
it on the present harness tracks and on the
thoroughbred tracks of the province, without
getting them embroiled in something else.
I am one of those who doubts that it would
benefit Ontario at all, for this reason: if we
get into the big league in harness racing, and
we get into night racing, then we are compet-
ing with some of the big tracks in the United
States, and we are going to get horses that
are imported from the outside.
I think that some of our own harness people
had bitter experiences in going down and en-
tering their horses on American tracks.
Now, the answer, as I see it, is that in
harness racing, and in thoroughbred racing,
there is a pretty good job being done. It
would take a lot of convincing to show me
that our people ought to embark into another
big field of betting and gambling under pres-
ent conditions. I think myself that we are
far enough into it at the present time.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, if we take
this money in the afternoon, what is the
difference in taking a little bit at night?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say that the
difference is this, that it involves a totally
different class of racing. It is not as simple
as transferring the afternoon racing to the
evening. It is not as simple as that at all.
The minute we get into the evening racing,
we get into another class entirely, and we
MARCH 6, 1958
613
are going to get into the international type of
racing, and we are going to get into competi-
tion with the international horses that are go-
ing to be here. I do not think that this is
going to be for the benefit of the farmers of
this province because it is not, it is going to
be for the benefit of other people. Now, mark
my words, that is what it is for.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, before we
pass that vote, I feel that I would not be
going out of line if I paid a little compli-
ment to the hon. racing commissioner. He
is in my area in the south of Bruce county,
and there have been so many compliments
passed across to Mr. Speaker, to the hon.
Prime Minister and to the hon. members of
the government that I would like to pay one
to the hon. member for Huron-Bruce in the
south of Bruce county. He is very highly
regarded in that area.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, highly regarded
or not, I want to know how we did in the
racing business this year. Was it a bigger
year than former years? Did we take in more
money? Did the province get more money?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: How much more?
Hon. Mr. Frost: $4.6 million, that is right;
$4.3 million last year— a little less.
Mr. Oliver: We are gaining, not fast
though.
Votes 2,203, 2,204 and 2,205 agreed to.
On vote 2,206:
Mr. Oliver: On the theatres something has
just got to be said. Last year we had quite
an elaborate discussion of good films and
bad films. I would like to ask the hon. Prime
Minister in a general way, what is the picture
as he sees it in respect to theatres generally?
When we discussed this matter a year ago,
and the year before that, there was pretty
clear evidence that the theatre business was a
diminishing one. There has been some indi-
cation that there has been a reversal in that
trend. What is the condition generally of
theatres as the hon. Prime Minister sees it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that the picture of course has not been
a bright one, the effect of television and ease
of travel to larger places has made it very
difficult for small places for some times past.
As a matter of fact, it is pretty much of a
diminishing trade, unless a theatre is catering
to a type of audience as applies in some cases
were there would not be ease of communica-
tion to other places.
Now, television has made a great differ-
ence. On the other hand, it has not affected
the larger theatres in Toronto and elsewhere.
The larger theatres have done as well or
better than before, certainly as well as before.
In other theatres they are running into
difficulties.
But I think the effect of television has
worn off. That has been the experience in
other jurisdictions, and therefore it might be
at least hoped that the bottom has been
pretty well reached, because there is wide
television coverage in the province. Now
that the bottom has been reached, there
should be some improvement from now on.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman I wonder if
the hon. Prime Minister could tell us approxi-
mately how many pictures were banned this
year by the censors?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am sorry, I do not have
that information but I could get it for the
hon. member.
Vote 2,206 agreed to.
On vote 2,207:
Mr. Oliver: I wanted to know in respect to
that, how much is outstanding or any in
default, and what is the general picture?
That is the second mortgage business, is it
not? Money has been paid in years gone by
and now the government is collecting it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, as hon. members
know, the purpose was to facilitate the pur-
chasing of low cost housing. The period
covered was from May, 1948, to December,
1949, when the federal government came
into the field and province retired.
The total number of applications were
14,695, and the province advanced $16.61
million. That is in round figures.
As of January 31, this year there was out-
standing, of that, $5,513 million.
In other words, something in the order of
$11 million has been repaid, something over
that. The rate is 3.5 per cent., the number
of loans repaid in full as of January 31 were
7,252, the number of loans outstanding was
7,443, upon which there is owed now $5,513
million. Total losses to date are $2,185.74.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the hon. Prime Minister could tell us when
the payments will be all in on this housing
mortgage.
614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: They are loans, and it
would be difficult for me to say. The rate of
interest is low, and very possibly people
might continue them on because of the low
rate of interest.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Are they all 20 years?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Vote 2,207 agreed to.
On vote 2,208:
Mr. Wintermeyer: Excuse me, would you
permit one question on 2,208? On the last
page— I did not realize that— that, too, was
2,208. The hon. Prime Minister will note that
an item of $1.5 million bonus for rural, prim-
ary and secondary lines under the rural Hydro
has been a recurring thing each year. Why
does he consider that a capital payment, could
it not be ordinary?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it has been so placed
in the Act as a capital payment, but I would
assure my hon. friend that, although it is
capital, we have paid it in cash. That is one
of the things that we have retired.
Now, the amount is very much less than
it was. If the hon. member would go back
to last year, he would find that the amount
was $8 million or $9 million, something of
that sort.
The reason for the reduction is this: south-
ern Ontario has reached pretty well the ab-
sorption point in extensions. This year, with
the extension, the coverage of the area to
two-thirds of a mile, there will be some 2,700
taken on this year. But as a matter of fact,
with the extent of the rural system in Ontario,
the cost can be absorbed in the ordinary way,
and further subsidization is not necessary.
Now, this $1.5 million really applies now
only to northern Ontario, to the developmental
area. Southern Ontario now has reached the
point where 90-odd per cent, of the farmers
are covered, and further subsidization is not
required in the south.
Mr. Oliver: Did the hon. Prime Minister say
that this applied only to northern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, for this reason, that
the south is self-supporting.
Mr. Oliver: Yes, but with the change in the
load requirement there will still be a lot in
southern Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Just the same, it is self-
supporting and can carry itself. I am glad to
tell this to the hon. leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Whicher: Well, if it was self-support-
ing, why was it not put through long ago?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Because it has just reached
that fine state under this government, that is
why.
ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
Vote 1,501 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
PRIME MINISTER
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I may as well take
the Prime Minister's Department— that is a
highly contentious one.
Votes 1,401 and 1,402 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, tomorrow
I will take the estimates of The Department
of Economics. Mr. Gathercole is away to-
night. I will take that tomorrow morning.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do now rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. H. M. Allen: The committee of supply
begs to report certain resolutions and begs
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. Oliver: The Department of Economics,
are those the estimates the hon. Prime Minis-
ter intends to call tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes. Before I move this
adjournment of the House, may I say we
will take The Department of Economics
tomorrow morning and the items on the
order paper, ordinary bills on the order
paper, and follow that tomorrow afternoon
with either Throne or budget debate. I told
my hon. friend that we might not use the
Throne debate again but my hon. friend
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) is ill, and
he wanted to follow my hon. friend for
Waterloo North. So we will have our speakers
on Throne debate tomorrow afternoon. Now
on Monday, we will proceed with the esti-
mates of The Department of Mines.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.20 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 26
ONTARIO
Hegfelature of Ontario
Betmtea
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, March 7, 1958
Morning Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Friday, March 7, 1958
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 617
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr Warrender, first reading 617
Estimates, Department of Economics 617
Queen's University, Kingston, bill respecting, reported 622
Waterloo College Associate Faculties, bill respecting, reported 627
City of Chatham, bill respecting, reported 627
Village of Port Perry, bill respecting, reported 627
Village of West Lome, bill respecting, reported 627
Board of education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, reported 627
Town of Fort Frances, bill respecting, reported 627
City of Fort William, bill respecting, reported 627
Schools Administration Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 628
Cancer Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 628
Cemeteries Act, bill to amend, reported 628
Tourist Establishments Act, bill to amend, reported 628
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 628
Statute Labour Act, bill to amend, reported 628
Highway Improvement Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 628
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 630
617
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, March 7, 1958
11 o'clock a.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House, the following:
1. Report of the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion for the calendar year, 1957.
2. Report of the workmen's compensation
board of Ontario for the year 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Assessment Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are several
amendments here, some of no significance
really, a tidying up. Some have significance.
This bill is going to the municipal law com-
mittee and will be explained in greater detail
later on.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Municipal Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this case too, the
bill will be going to the municipal law com-
mittee for full consideration and explanation.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I should
like to answer a question asked last night by
the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher).
I may say I had to spend a very great deal
ol time in order to get this information for
him. Having assumed this office only on
February 4, I may say there are some of
these answers that are not at my fingertips.
It was in connection with the censoring of
films by the film board.
The answer to his question is this, that a
total of 575 films were reviewed by the
board. There were approved without any
eliminations or changes, 448. There were
approved with eliminations, 42.
A breakdown shows this, that there were
then approved for adult entertainment, that
is with children not present, 49. There were
approved for adult entertainment, after being
censored— that is changed, altered with por-
tions of the film eliminated— 25. Approved as
restricted, now I must admit I do not know
what that means, but in any event there
were 4. That is without any alteration.
Approved as restricted with alteration, 4.
That is, there were 8 films in that class. What
they are, I am unable to say. I thought that
adult entertainment covered the point but
there is apparently a new refinement intro-
duced since I had anything to do with this
matter and it covers 8 films.
If my hon. friends opposite are interested
in what is a restricted film, I would be glad
to take them up to the censor board and
show them one of these films. Perhaps these
restricted films are ones that are meant for
hon. members of the legislative assembly. I
do not know.
Now, 3 were not approved. That is, 3
eliminated entirely. I have the names here
but that is the situation. That totals 575.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves Mr. Speaker do now
leave the chair, and the House resolve itself
into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
On vote 301:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I am just a little disturbed
about this vote, and when I am a little dis-
618
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
turbed, it is time that it should be explained
in some detail.
I notice that the vote for salaries is over
$100,000 more this year than last. Now this,
of course, is the vote for the "brain trusters"
for the hon. Prime Minister. After last night,
I am just wondering if what we have done
so far by way of advisors to the hon. Prime
Minster has added to his confused explana-
tions, in respect to debt and interest. I am
rather wondering if we are wasting our money
somewhat.
Now the hon. Prime Minister last night,
apparently on the advice of these highly paid
economic technicians, told the House that
even though the debt had been increased by
$100 million, it was not necessarily so that
the actual increase was taking place, and
that although there was an increase in debt,
it did not necessarily follow that the interest
on that debt was higher than in former years.
Well now, if that is the sort of advice that
my hon. friend is getting from these highly
paid men, I have some doubt about the
wisdom of granting an increase of over $100,-
000 in salaries to them, and I think the hon.
Prime Minister should tell the House, at this
time, just what he thinks about the advice,
not about the advisors but about the advice
that he gets from his advisors. I say this
because, if what he says in the House eman-
ates from these fellows, then I suggest to the
House that perhaps we are paying too much
for too little.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say, first of all,
to my hon. friend that concerning the con-
fused explanations that he speaks of last night,
the confusion— as far as I can ascertain and
gather— really existed only in the minds of
himself and his hon. followers, not in what
would be termed the reasonable mind.
Now as I say, when I went to law school
a great many years ago now, I learned there
that in law there is the person who is de-
scribed as the reasonable man. My hon.
friends here, who have attended law school,
recognize that he is a person who is set up
in law as the average citizen one has to deal
with, and "the reasonable mind" is the view-
point, not of a person who is extreme in his
views, but the reasonable person.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
country lawyer type.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right, the country
lawyer type is a very good type. The country
doctor, the country lawyer and farmer, and
the man who works in a plant, and so on.
Now I would say to my hon. friend that
there is no possibility of my appealing to any-
body other than the reasonable person, and
I point out that the confusion which the hon.
leader of the Opposition claimed existed, did
so in a very small segment of this House, and
we always find that in humanity, that there is
an area that is difficult to—
Mr. MacDonald: To value.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right, we do the
best to put up with them.
The advice I received in connection with
the Provincial Treasurer's Department, of
course came from the Treasury officials who
were here last night. Now I point out that
The Department of Economics is different.
The treasury explanations really do not eman-
ate from The Department of Economics, but
from the Treasury officials.
Now, The Department of Economics: it is
one with which I had much to do many years
ago in forming. I think my hon. friends will
agree that the requirement of such a depart-
ment is to be able to study, in a general
way, the trends that affect— and are likely
to affect— us in this province.
The Department of Economics has per-
formed a very, very useful service and will
perform a more important one as days go
along. As a matter of fact, the department
really had its beginnings with the now
Deputy Minister of that Department (Mr.
Gathercole) who, as a young man, came to
the government about 15 years ago, from
McMaster University, which is of course, a
very fine institution.
As we developed we found, for instance,
that it would be of great benefit to evaluate
trends. We went into the federal-provincial
conference in 1945. At that time the econ-
omics branch of the federal government was
under the direction of such men as Mr. Skel-
ton, Dr. Skelton, and others, and there was
a great mass of material before the con-
ference in the form of the Green Books,
which no doubt the hon. members have seen.
I would say that, in going there as Provincial
Treasurer, I found that we ourselves had
been able to give comparatively little study
to these questions which dealt with the prob-
able trends of things in years to come.
After that, we formed the bureau of statis-
tics and the Treasury branch. At that time
we had Mr. Chater as the statistician. The
compilation of statistics in the department
grew, until about a year ago, I think it was,,
we formed The Department of Economics.
Now the purpose was, I say this to the
hon. leader of the Opposition, to have The
Department of Economics separate and inde-
MARCH 7, 1958
619
pendent from the Treasury branch, so that
we could get a very objective and indepen-
dent viewpoint as to the trends that would
take place, not only in business but in many
other things. The Department of Transport
has found very valuable the incidence and
the effects of taxation, and the incidence and
effects of the use of highways. I would say to
my hon. friend that there are different points
of view in connection with that, and it was
felt that The Department of Economics would
render valuable service, giving an independent
viewpoint in connection with certain of those
factors.
There were different views last year in
connection with the economic trends in this
country. There were evidences a year ago at
this time, very definite evidences, of recession
conditions. Some other governments and some
other agencies took the different view that
there were not evidences of recession and
that, in fact, the matter of inflation was the
thing to be met.
As a matter of fact, we took the opposite
view as was indicated by the policy this
House and this government adopted a year
ago. At that time, we felt that it was a
mistake to take certain restrictive steps in
connection with our economy, notably the
hard money policy and the high interest rate
policy, which would strike for instance, at
house building and things of that sort.
Therefore we in this province intentionally
went out and increased our spending in con-
nection with highways and public works,
partly because we felt we needed to do those
things, but also because we felt that it helped
the economy.
Now that viewpoint has, I think, been ob-
viously accepted by all parties. I notice that,
for instance, the Liberal group now in the
House of Commons have completely reversed
their point of view from a year ago, so that
after all, I would say to my hon. friend, that
perhaps the advice we got from our Depart-
ment of Economics was pretty good advice.
We were going to run into levelling off condi-
tions.
Now provincially, of course, we have not
got the powers of a central bank and things
of that sort, and perhaps what a provincial
government can do to alter economic trends
is limited, but within the capacity of a prov-
incial government I think we did a very great
deal.
My hon. friend referred to interest rates.
That really has nothing to do with the subject
matter of this estimate, but I would say to my
hon. friend, of course, the reason for that is
this.
Although debt is greater in dollars, the
interest rates upon which that debt was in-
curred is very much less than 15 years ago,
with the result that the interest rate, the cost
of servicing the debt, actually has been re-
duced in some particulars over those years,
because of the fact that we are able to borrow
money at 3 per cent, and, as a matter of
fact, as low as 2.75 per cent.
Now, that is the point, and with the more
realistic policy obviously being followed at
Ottawa, we are going to find a very drastic
reduction in interest rates. There is every
evidence of this, and I think it is going to
benefit us here, of course, very materially
with the huge amount of borrowing and re-
financing we are going to have to do in this
province.
I think that answers the points that were
raised by my hon. friend, and I hope that it
will rescue him from the doubts that have
beset him.
With regards this department, the salaries
have been increased. That is intentional. I
think, with an expenditure of an ordinary
account of some $600 million— it is approxi-
mately that— with a capital programme that
is verging on the $1 billion a year, that we
should have the best advice.
I would say this, that our department is
able to talk business with the banks and with
other governments on a basis of equality, and
I would say that our department is recognized
by all agencies in Canada as one which is
thoroughly competent, which of course is a
highly desirable thing.
Through The Department of Economics,
there are transfers of personnel to other serv-
ices in the government, which of course,
reinforce those other services. Mr. D. J.
Collins, for instance, is a young man of great
ability. While he was not definitely attached
to The Department of Economics, neverthe-
less that was really his origin. He has be-
come the Deputy Minister of Transport.
Mr. Farrell, who is with the department,
is one who, from a research standpoint, has
been doing a lot of work for me. If I have
made errors in the description of that work,
I can assure hon. members that it is not
his fault. It is due to my own outlook, as
my hon. friend has said, as a country lawyer.
Mr. Whicher: What is the use of having
advisors if the hon. Prime Minister does not
take their advice?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well I do endeavour to
take their advice insofar as my mental capa-
cities permit me. Now, Mrs. H. G. Rowan
620
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was chancellor to The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs. Mr. R. Cooke, a young man
from overseas, as a matter of fact, a very
able young fellow, who majored in prob-
lems of highways, has been transferred to The
Department of Transport. Mr. Verbrugge,
who majored in the matter of the economics
of hospitals, was transferred to the Ontario
hospital services commission.
Now I would say that the development
of personnel there has very much helped in
other departments. I am not looking to
bringing new men into the service to do the
job, but I think it is highly important to
develop the personnel we have. I think one
of the great possibilities we have in the
Ontario civil service is to develop the ap-
proximately 35,000 employees we have, be-
cause we have very great abilities and talents
there, if we give them the opportunity. I
think we are tending toward the develop-
ment of our own services.
I think that that is the place where we
can make very great advances in our civil
service. With the men and women we have
there, thousands of them, with opportunities
to come along and to assume executive posi-
tions and to really have the opportunity of
devoting their talents to the problems of this
province, there are very great possibilities
ahead for us.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a few brief remarks in connection with
this.
I think the function and place of an
economics department in modern government
is an obvious one. I do not think there is any
further need to defend it or to dispute it.
There is related to it another problem
which I raise now without pursuing it.
Since inevitably a fair proportion, some
pioportion, of the time of The Department
of Economics is used for the political pur-
poses of the party in power— inevitably so,
they are under its instructions and they dig
out the answers to suit its political purposes
—how can the picture be kept in balance by
something of an equitable provision of
resources to opposition parties?
This is something that Rt. hon. Mr. Diefen-
baker and his colleagues were very disturbed
about when they were in opposition in
Ottawa. I do not know how they have altered
the picture now they have come into power,
but I think it is something which has to be
examined in all Legislatures.
However, Mr. Chairman, the question that
provoked my rising is really a follow-up one
that came from the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion, and has been elaborated on even more
now by the hon. Prime Minister's indication
that many of these people are being moved
out into other departments.
If they are being moved out into other
departments, what is the explanation for such
an increase in salaries— are more personnel
being brought in, new recruits?
A specific question I wanted to ask is this:
What is the size of the personnel, and par-
ticularly how many part-time people are
hired by The Department of Economics,
thinking for example of students in the sum-
mer time? I think this is a good procedure,
but how many part-time personnel are
brought in for 3 or 4 or 5 months in the
summer time?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, with our
Department of Economics, as a matter of
fact with the Treasury branch, we have
endeavoured— and I think the hon. member
will agree, to make the services of this
department available to hon. members inso-
far as is practicable.
I think the hon. member has discussed
these things with Mr. Gathercole and others,
and I appreciate that, I am glad that that
is so. Many other hon. members of the
House— the hon. Opposition financial critic
( Mr. Wintermeyer ) for instance— have ob-
tained information from The Department of
Economics and from the others, and also the
hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay).
A great many have availed themselves of
that.
I would say that I do not want The De-
partment of Economics nor indeed do I want
the Treasury Department or any other offi-
cials to be rubber stamps for my particular
view or for any political view. I endeavour
to have our officials be themselves, and to
express their views to me and to others, from
this standpoint that the thinking and free-
dom of action should be stimulated as far
as is practicable, within any government or
business organization. We have, I think,
endeavoured to accomplish that.
Now Mr. Gathercole tells me that there
are 43 members of that department at present.
This is less than the number was 8 months
ago, due to the transfers to other depart-
ments which we hope to make up for, and
we will make up for, by getting bright young
fellows from our universities as we are able
to pick them up.
The hon. member for York South knows
that there is a good deal of competition for
men nowadays. Mr. Gathercole says we take
on about 10 post-graduate students during
MARCH 7, 1958
621
the summer to do particular jobs and par-
ticular work. Now, in addition to that, we
have endeavoured to utilize the services of
the economics departments of various uni-
versities.
Among others whom I can just name off-
hand, who have been doing particular pro-
jects for us, is Professor Knox at Queen's. He
is a very busy man, whose services we would
like to utilize more, but he is engaged in cer-
tain post-graduate work and studies himself
for his university. But we have used Dr. Knox
whenever we could get his services.
From the University of Toronto, of course,
it is well known that we have used Dr. Mal-
colm Taylor a very great deal, and also his
staff. We have used Professor McGregor of
that same department to quite an extent.
Then there is Professor Riley of Western
University. I mentioned Dr. Jackson of the
Ontario College of Education the other day;
he has done an immense amount of work for
us in matters of study, education, school
grants and that sort of thing.
But specifically the answer to the hon.
member's question is, 43 members, which is
somewhat less than a year ago, but we hope
to recruit the staff up again, and there are
about 10 post-graduate students doing work
during the summer.
Mr. MacDonald: There is only this obvious
comment, that if a lot of higher priced help
who are more experienced have been moved
off into other departments, and the govern-
ment brings in people who normally are
going to start at a lower salary— there are
fewer on the staff now than there were 8
months ago— if the department is asking for
$100,000 more, there must be a very healthy
cushion in the budget for a heavy recruiting
programme far beyond what is there now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: On the advice of the
Deputy Minister the salaries for 1958-1959
have been raised some $57,000, and that is
included in the appropriation total.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Gathercole, of course, has
advised the hon. Prime Minister in respect to
salaries. The figure I have here is that in
1956-1957, he spent $156,000 in salaries, and
this year he is asking for $267,000. Now
that certainly is a lot more than $57,000
according to my figuring.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is in two years.
Mr. Oliver: In two years?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: 1956-1957, that is one year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. leader of the
Opposition is taking 1956-1957 and 1957-
1958 as two years
Mr. Oliver: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Frost: These are the estimates as
I have it. Salaries in 1957-1958 were $210,-
000, in 1958-1959 will be $267,000, that is
an increase of $57,000. Travelling expenses
are $5,000 each year. Publications, mainten-
ance and things that come under that item
were $28,000, as compared with $48,000 this
year. Special studies were $14,000 in each
year. Special studies would include specific
studies, regional studies and things of that
sort.
Vote 301 agreed to.
Mr. Oliver: In respect to the specific studies
in 1956-1957, I appreciate that the public
accounts are a year behind, so that there is
a year in between, but in 1956-1957 the
$14,000 was spent in salaries and expenses to
McGregor, Taylor, Martin, Ogilvie and Tattle.
Now I imagine that was in preparation for the
hospital insurance, would that be right? That
apparently was the main investigation in that
particular year.
Now, could the hon. Prime Minister tell me
what this $14,000 was spent for last year?
Was there a particular study? Or was it spent
in various directions, and who got the money
last year out of that fund?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Apparently it was used to
reduce the debt last year.
Mr. Oliver: It was not planned at all-
Mr. MacDonald: What we find out when
we dig a little.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report that it has come to a certain
resolutions, and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee; Mr. H. M. Allen in
the chair.
622
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON
House in committee on Bill No. 17, An Act
respecting Queen's University at Kingston.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, in considering this bill, I wish the
hon. members would also take into considera-
tion the principle of the bill following, that is
the bill respecting Waterloo College. Now the
point at issue in these bills is the power of
expropriation, which both bills have in varying
degrees.
In the question of Waterloo College, there
is a general power of expropriation of part
of that new university. That general power of
expropriation has not been the subject, as far
as I know, of any opposition on the part of
the people of Waterloo, or the Kitchener area.
This bill is sponsored by the hon. member
for Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer ) . I
regret he is away today, but I am in favour
of this bill and I am also in favour of the
Queen's University bill.
In the Queen's University bill, there are
specific powers of expropriation requested. As
a matter of fact, it may have been that, had
Queen's University asked for the general
power of expropriation, there might have been
little comment about it, but Queen's Univer-
sity, instead of asking for a general power of
expropriation, asked for a specific power
which covered some 12 properties that they
wanted to expropriate.
I have given this a good deal of attention
because I have had some letters directed to
me about the Queen's University bill, and
therefore I have looked into them both.
I would point out that the University of
Toronto has general powers of expropriation
and they are using these powers.
The University of Toronto here in the last
year has expropriated, under the powers in
their bill, all of the area lying west of the
university, lying north of College Street, south
of Harbord Street and east of Spadina
Avenue.
Of course, there are some problems of hard-
ship in that area. On the other hand, here
is the university faced with and endeavour-
ing to get ready for, a flood of students who
are going to be 4 times as great in number,
in the coming 20 or 25 years, as the present
university population.
Of course, the problem of the University
of Toronto might be somewhat different, it
is debatable and indeed it is more than
debatable that there should be two univer-
sities here in Toronto, and that is being ad-
vanced by very thoughtful students of the
university picture in this area.
However, that is really not applicable to
what I am referring to, other than to say
this, that at the time of the expropriation
last year, of this very large and expensive
area west of the university, the question
came about as to whether the university might
better go to the outskirts of Toronto or Metro-
politan Toronto and acquire their new land.
One place that was discussed was in the
area of Aurora, another area that was looked
at was in the Markham district.
Now, of course, the great problem for
the university people is this, that if a staff
is to look after problems in, say, this area
the problem of commuting from one area
to another, which is a highly expensive and
time-consuming matter. If a university staff
is to look after problems in say, this area
here, where we have an immensely expen-
sive plant and equipment, and the personnel
is to be transferred out to Aurora or the
township of Scarborough, or some other place,
where other university buildings are, then
the time element involved in staff transfers
is very great.
After looking at the whole thing the judg-
ment was, and I agree with it, that the Uni-
versity of Toronto is committed to the area
where it is, because of the immense invest-
ment there is in plant and equipment.
If a new university is required in the
Toronto area, then it has to be a distinctly
new operation, and of course then, perhaps,
there is practicability to its location being
on the perimeter of Greater Toronto.
The problem of Waterloo College is dif-
ferent. Here is a new school, a new uni-
versity, made up of two colleges which are
presently in operation in the Kitchener area.
They asked for general powers of expropria-
tion. And the committee in its wisdom gave
them that, and there was no objection from
the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and I see no
reason for denying them that power which
also is possessed, I think, by Western Uni-
versity as well as the University of Toronto.
With Queen's University, the situation is
different. Queen's University, instead of ask-
ing for a general power, asked for a specific
power to deal with some 12 properties that
are involved and are necessary to them for
very large expansion that they want to get
ahead with this year. It is a multi-million dol-
lar proposition in the city of Kingston, with
these properties they feel are necessary for
their purposes.
Now I have looked into this. These 12
properties of course involve old families in
Kingston, they involve people who are up in
years who hate to leave their premises and
MARCH 7, 1958
623
their properties, and I am in full sympathy
with them. On the other hand, what do you
do in this age in which we live?
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
May I just ask the hon. Prime Minister— so he
may put the whole thing before the House—
if he caused a study to be made of the claim
that Queen's University could have utilized
land they already possessed?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I have not other
than this, that the Queen's University board is
a very highly qualified board and, after all,
I do not think it is our problem what they do
any more than we would with Waterloo Col-
lege, which has a general power of expropria-
tion in the area.
What I did do was this, generally speaking.
In Kingston, we could compare the situation
with the people of Iroquois, for instance, who
did not want to leave their beautiful little
town and go to another one, no matter how
nice it was. But there was the great matter
of public interest in Canada, and the necessity
of expropriating really the entire site of the
former Iroquois and moving the people to a
new location. That was done in the public
interest. There were all sorts of disruptions to
family life, and in the historical connection
of people with the community.
I did this, I had a chat with Mr. Gill, the
chairman of the Queen's board. Mr. Gill is
the president of Canada Life, and with his
board has recently engaged in a campaign to
raise $4.5 million for Queen's University, and
they have done a very excellent job, and this
land is part of the requirements of Queen's
University in the big expansion programme.
Now, I asked Mr. Gill about this, and Mr.
Gill told me that these properties were ab-
solutely necessary for the development of the
university. He told me that he would person-
ally go to Kingston and see each one of these
families, and explain the situation to them,
and, as a matter of fact, he left for Kingston
yesterday to go down and see them personally
He assured me, as he assured the committee
on private bills, that they have offered to
these people, I think— and I do not think
there is any dispute about this— very hand-
some remuneration for their properties. He
said he was perfectly prepared to do this,
and he gave me his word on it, that if any
person was dissatisfied with the remuneration
offer, that they were prepared to let it go
to arbitration, putting the floor of that offer
under any offer that was made. Now, I think
that is a very generous thing, as hon. mem-
bers can well understand.
If these people, were to go to arbitration,
the arbitration board might make a totally
different evaluation from the offer that was
made. The offer then would have no mean-
ing. But Mr. Gill told me that they would
be prepared to leave the floor there, as to
the offer that was made, if settlements were
not made. I do not think there could be any
more reasonable or fairer proposition than
that.
Now, of course, it is too bad to see some
person up in years, say 80 years of age, who
has lived in a house, all his or her life, have
to move at that time. I am completely sym-
pathetic to that point of view. Myself, I
would dislike having to alter my life and to
move.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, what
should we do in these cases, in a growing
province, where this university is one that
we are depending upon to give us the men
and women who can do the job in the sputnik
age, when we are going to be faced with 4
times as many students as they have today?
What are we going to do about it? After all,
there is on the other side of the question,
there is the great matter of public interest,
and I think we have to view that from the
standpoint that these people will not be
injured.
It is true that their lives are dislocated, it
is true that they are going to meet adjust-
ments; these things we regret, but I think
that it can be done in a way which will not
make it a financial hardship for them, and that
the transition could be as easy as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I now have had some
experience in this matter. I made a promise
to this House some 4 or 5 years ago, at the
time of the St. Lawrence undertaking. Hon.
members realize the difficulties of moving
6,000 or 7,000 people last summer.
I went down at the request of the council
of the town of Iroquois, and I opened the new
town, which was an entirely different one
from the old Iroquois. As a matter of fact,
I motored down to the old Iroquois, in which
nobody lived, and it looked like a deserted
village. Of course, it was a deserted village,
because it was about to be demolished.
Then I went through the new town, and I
did not have a single, solitary complaint from
anybody, not one in that day I spent there.
I went down there among the people, I was
with Mr. Davis, the reeve, who had been,
as hon. members know, one of the people
who greatly questioned the possibility of dif-
ficulty. I went with him and I say not one
person came to me with a complaint.
I think that is a practical application of
what I am saying: those people did not want
to move from old Iroquois, of course they did
624
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not. They did not want to leave their homes,
every brick in their buildings was a friend of
theirs. They did not want to leave, but in the
end, when it was done— it was done, I think,
in an atmosphere of decency and understand-
ing—with the result that we have a new
community there, and as I say, we have a
people who showed every evidence of entire
satisfaction with what was done.
I by no means say— the hon. member for
Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cass) is here, it is his
area— I by no means say that every wrinkle
has been ironed out, because no doubt there
are some, but nevertheless, in the great over-
whelming total, it has been done.
I would say, in response to these questions
which have been raised, that I am satisfied
that Mr. Gill and his board will treat people
there decently, and will help them in this
thing that is really necessary for that univer-
sity and that community, and for the general
public interest that we have.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, we agree at
once of course that it is necessary that a
great university like Queen's should have
not only the right, but the opportunity, to
expand to meet the challenges educationwise
of our times.
But I think the hon. Prime Minister men-
tioned this, there is another duty that falls
on the shoulders of legislators, and that is
to protect the public interest. In this par-
ticular case, two things I think should be
remembered. One is that this matter was all
quite thoroughly discussed before the com-
mittee on private bills. Now there was not
what one would call unanimity of opinion
amongst the hon. committee members, in fact
I think the vote was some 14 to 11, which
indicates that, on both sides of this question,
very strong views were given expression be-
fore the committee.
Now, there is just this one thing that I want
to point out. I have received considerable
correspondence, and I presume the hon.
Prime Minister has too, and I have had
interviews with a number of people from
Kingston, some of whom were graduates of
Kingston and keenly interested in the expan-
sion of that university.
One gentleman who was in to see me was
himself a graduate of Queen's, and he was
quite strongly of the view that the land that
Queen's had now under its control, was quite
sufficient for expansion purposes. That is
why I questioned the hon. Prime Minister
on this point. I think we should, in some
real way, satisfy ourselves as to that matter.
If the land that they presently have is all
right for expansion purposes, that should be
taken into consideration.
I do not know whether the hon. Prime
Minister has read the editorial in the Kings-
ton Whig-Standard, but I want to read it to
the House because I think all members will
agree that the Kingston Whig-Standard is a
good solid newspaper.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, I read it.
Mr. Kerr: We all got it.
Mr. Oliver: Well I do not care whether
the hon. member got it or not. I want to
read it into the record because it points up,
as the Kingston Whig-Standard says, a
situation.
Now, the last 3 paragraphs said this:
In effect, Queen's will be telling Kings-
tonians to move over, whether they like
it or not.
As we have said before on this question,
expansion is necessary and the land must be
acquired, but this does not excuse the fact
that the threat of expropriation is a club
which has been ruthlessly handled by
Queen's, or at least by agents acting on
Queen's behalf.
Let the Legislature, when it considers
this private bill, remember what freedom
is and how the passage of this bill will
transgress that freedom, and if the bill is
still passed, let Queen's be wary indeed of
using such arbitrary powers.
Expansion is necessary and the univer-
sity must grow bigger, but if bullying is
to be a quality of that bigness, then what
Queen's used to be is infinitely preferable
to what it is going to be in the future.
Now, I think on our shoulders, as legis-
lators, this is quite a serious responsibility,
and I just doubt whether we should let this
bill go at the present time, as my hon. friend
has suggested it should. I would be satisfied
if the hon. Prime Minister made a further
examination on that one particular point, as
to the land that is presently available.
I suggest this after the interviews I have
had with Mr. Askill, who is a graduate of
Queen's himself, and whose father was quite
closely connected with the management of
Queen's University. He was quite strong in
his statement that the land Queen's now has
under its control would be suitable for this
expansion.
The only other point— and it was mentioned
by the hon. Prime Minister— is this, that
apparently in these houses that are to be
MARCH 7, 1958
625
expropriated and torn down, to make room
for a bigger Queen's, live a lot of people who
are, as the hon. Prime Minister said, old or
disabled in some way. The valuation that
would be put ordinarily on those houses, I
suggest to the House, would not take fully
into consideration the inconvenience that it
would cause those people, who would have
to move away where they would need to have
a car to get around, and where they would
need certain particular services that are pres-
ently available to them in their own location.
If there is to be expropriation, some way
or other, I think we ought to protect, not
nominally, but fully, the rights of these people
in that locality.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
I attended the meeting that morning of the
private bills committee, and I heard the dis-
cussion on both sides. I think that one would
be convinced of the need for an extension to
the university, there is no doubt at all about
that, and those opposing the expropriation
admitted that the price offered by the univer-
sity was a fair one. They were agreed on that.
But their main concern was this. Some of
these homes were income homes. They had
been providing a living to the owners because
of students in the university having rooms
there. Now, there was no consideration given
to that at all, and I think there should be,
because there was one individual there, one
gentleman 82 years of age, and it was his
only means of livelihood. He had a house-
keeper there to look after the students who
were renting rooms from him.
Another point that I am a little bit con-
cerned about is this, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to get clarification from the hon. Prime
Minister. Here we have a private company
applying for powers of expropriation. Are
we creating a dangerous precedent? They are
without a doubt a private company. We agree,
I think, the need to extend the university is
there, but nevertheless a private company is
seeking powers of expropriation from this
Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that, of course, this runs with both
bills. I mean we cannot treat Queen's any
different from the way we treat Waterloo
College— with Waterloo there is nothing I can
investigate because they are given general
powers.
Now, I would say that, if the Legislature
in its wisdom wants to hold up these bills
and go into it, as a matter of fact, I think
then we perhaps ought to review it with both
Western and Toronto that have broad powers
— review the whole thing.
I think, myself, that the matter of holding
these bills up is one that we should ponder
over. If Queen's is to lose a year in its expan-
sion programme, I would say it is a serious
matter. Do not let us have discussions about
the problems of these days and the problems
of higher education if we are not going to
facilitate these things.
Now I am not saying that we should be
rushed into anything, but I point out that it
is a matter of importance.
Now, concerning the bill, Mr. Gill yester-
day gave me this. As a matter of fact, he has
gone to Kingston and is there now.
The proposed bill grants powers of
expropriation only in their respect to 11
properties, and Queen's needs these for its
necessary expansion programme. The
university has endeavoured to find alterna-
tive methods of acquiring these properties,
and has negotiated for them, but without
success. The university promises to con-
tinue to exhaust, to the limit, the pro-
cedure of negotiation.
Liberal prices have been offered in every
case. The university has been willing to
pay, not only 100 per cent, of today's prop-
erty values, but has added, in every case,
an amount of 20 per cent, thereto.
In addition, the university has been will-
ing to pay more on compassionate ground
(which is the point that I think was men-
tioned) in cases where hardship has been
involved, and has already spent some
thousands of dollars for such needs. The
university further convenants that, if it is
entrusted with the powers under this bill,
it will continue to follow the same course.
Now Mr. Gill gave me his word personally
on that yesterday.
Well, the university is a public body. Its
efforts to expand, in order to provide for its
share in the oncoming increase of university
registrations, are at stake. Expropriation
powers have been granted to the University
of Toronto, to the University of Western On-
tario, and we believe this week to Waterloo
College, and therefore it is reasonable that
Queen's should have these limited powers in
order to fulfil its responsibility to the prov-
ince, and to the country, in the way of an
increase of buildings in order to graduate more
students.
The full board of the trustees of the uni-
versity have carefully considered this bill, and
have given the principal and chairman full
backing on the efforts they are making.
626
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now that is all I can give hon. members.
The point is this. We have given these gen-
eral powers to other universities. This is a
case in which specific powers are requested
by Queen's University. Perhaps if they had
asked for general powers, we would not be
faced with difficulties from specific people. I
think probably that is the difference, but I
would say to the House that I think the prob-
lem is this.
Are we competent? Are we going to set
ourselves up as a board of review to see
whether or not these universities need these
things? Supposing Waterloo College steps in
and wants to expropriate some land. I do not
think that we want to be in the position
that we have to pass upon whether they
should take it or not. I would not want to
pass on whether or not the University of
Toronto should take the lands that they have
taken, involving several hundred people.
This is a matter that I think must rest with
the board. Surely we cannot audit what they
do. The board is there, but if it is felt that
the matter should be reviewed then, of course,
they are all in the same position. We cannot
make fish of one and flesh of the other.
Now, all I can do is this. I think I give the
House the assurance, from the chairman of
the board who is a highly reputable citizen
of this province, that these people would be
dealt with more than fairly. I think perhaps
we had better follow the advice of the private
bills committee which, after all, reported this
bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Chairman, just before you put the vote there,
might I say that I do not think we should
overlook at all, in this discussion, the fact
that there are adequate rights of appeal to
anybody, in expropriation proceedings —
whether it is done through an arbitrator,
through the county judge, or through the
municipal board— there is the right of appeal
on the question of valuation and fair value as
far as to the court of appeal, and I presume if
the amount involved is large enough, even on
to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Therefore, in respect to the remarks from
the hon. member for Oshawa, it would seem
to me— and I am just giving this as an off-hand
view— if it could be shown that a certain
property was acquired, and the value given at
the time included a right such as he has sug-
gested there of boarding-house facilities and
so forth, that that would be proper evidence
to use in arriving at a proper valuation on an
expropriation procedure.
Section 1 agreed to.
Mr. W. Murdoch (Essex South): As a mem-
ber of this private bills committee, it was
quite apparent to the hon. members there,
that the big fault, and possibly the reason
why the bill did not get wider support
in the committee, was the fact that it is
quite evident that there was a very poor
public relations job being done by the uni-
versity officials. There were many thing that
came out that, more or less, proved to the
hon. members that they had made very
little attempt to negotiate with the owners
of the properties. It would seem to me
that we are on dangerous ground, giving
boards expropriation powers such as this.
It is my opinion that we should restrict such
powers to elected people, for instance, coun-
cils and elected bodies, because by and
large, the elected bodies do a little better,
in a more sympathetic way, than a college
board would.
The people in the homes found that they
could not get answers to the correspondence
when they were asking questions, and it was
also brought to light, in the meeting, that
the officials of the university said they would
not actually need the homes, and the people
could live in them for some time, but that
they would use part of the lots.
Well, it was quite evident again that the
people living in those homes did not know
that until they came to the committee meet-
ing. In other words, it was quite apparent
that perhaps they were basing their whole
approach to this on the fact that they would
get expropriation powers and authority, and
they did not do the proper job of working
with the people on that level, and of speak-
ing as officials of the university to neigh-
bours with whom they must get along.
Now, with regard to the boarding school
aspect, I think that this is only brought in as
it were because I believe that dormitories
are going to be built. I think it is part of
the immediate programme of the university,
to build dormitories, and these homes will
not be used. There just will not be anybody
in them when the dormitories are built.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 17 reported.
MARCH 7, 1958
627
WATERLOO COLLEGE ASSOCIATE
FACULTIES
House in committee on Bill No. 16, "An
Act respecting Waterloo College Associate
Faculties."
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to the House,
in connection with these expropriation bills,
that there is a case coming up in the court
of appeal in the next few days in relation
to compensation. I have asked the hon.
Attorney-General to have a solicitor there,
a counsel there, not for the purpose of inter-
vening but for viewing the procedures and
the attitudes which are taken.
Now, I also propose to do this; I have
asked the hon. Attorney-General to look at
the matter of expropriation, not only the
powers of taking, but the matters of compen-
sation, and we are going to have a look at
that. As a matter of fact, frankly I have
some misgivings about the powers in the
Waterloo bill, I think the Waterloo powers
are much too broad. Under the Waterloo
bill they may expropriate the Parliament
Buildings.
I think perhaps we should have a look
at these powers of expropriation contained in
many bills, and I have asked the hon. Attor-
ney-General to look at that and see what
the situation is, and probably there are some
things that should be done in matters of
expropriation to assure that the rights of Her
Majesty's subjects are fully preserved and
protected.
Mr. J. Root ( Wellington-Duff erin). Mr.
Chairman, I would just like to say some-
thing on that. I am very pleased to know
that the hon. Prime Minister is asking the
hon. Attorney-General to have a look at this
problem of expropriation. I raised the point
in the House the other day about the attitude
of one of the commissioners and I think the
people of Ontario are getting to the point
where they just wonder what rights they
have left. I was not at the committee on
private bills on the day the Waterloo and
Kingston bills came up, but I agree with the
hon. Prime Minister that this Waterlo bill does
give a lot of power.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We are going to have a
look at it all.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 16 reported.
CITY OF CHATHAM
House in committee on Bill No. 9, "An
Act respecting the city of Chatham."
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 9 reported.
VILLAGE OF PORT PERRY
House in committee on Bill No. 11, "An
Act respecting the village of Port Perry."
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 11 reported.
VILLAGE OF WEST LORNE
House in committee on Bill No. 13, "An
Act respecting the village of West Lome."
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 13 reported.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR CITY OF
SAULT STE. MARIE
House in committee on Bill No. 32, "An
Act respecting the board of education for the
city of Sault Ste. Marie."
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 32 reported.
TOWN OF FORT FRANCES
House in committee on Bill No. 35, "An
Act respecting the town of Fort Frances."
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 35 reported.
CITY OF FORT WILLIAM
House in committee on Bill No. 40, "An
Act respecting the city of Fort William."
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 40 reported.
628
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 46, "An
Act to amend The Schools Administration
Act, 1954."
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 46 reported.
THE CANCER ACT, 1957
House in committee on Bill No. 74, "An
Act to amend The Cancer Act, 1957."
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 74 reported.
THE CEMETERIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 75, "An
Act to amend The Cemeteries Act."
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 75 reported.
THE TOURIST ESTABLISHMENTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 76, "An
Act to amend The Tourist Establishments
Act."
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 76 reported.
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 77, "An
Act to amend The Municipal Unconditional
Grants Act, 1953."
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 77 reported.
THE STATUTE LABOUR ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 78, "An
Act to amend The Statute Labour Act."
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 78 reported.
THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT,
1957
House in committee on Bill No. 79, "An Act
to amend The Highway Improvement Act,
1957."
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Will these permits
be issued as a matter of routine, or should
a person make certain they are going to get
a permit for an entrance onto the highway
before they build their house, or after they
build their house? Would they be held up?
As my hon. friend knows, along the highways
outside of the cities, almost the entire build-
ing programme for the communities are along
these highways.
Is there any charge for this?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
I may say to my hon. friend that the purpose
of this subsection is to indicate definitely that
a permit is necessary. A permit has always
been required, and it should be obtained
before the building is proceeded with, in case
for any reason such construction would not
be approved.
Usually, as is suggested permits are issued
as a matter of routine, but especially since
there is such a tendency for what amounts
to subdivisions to develop along the high-
ways, and in co-operation with planning and
design, by a great many townships. That is,
such subdivisions are required to be approved.
Only upon approval are permits granted— this
is done to prevent entrances being established
indiscriminately.
Mr. Nixon: Does the hon. Minister say that
that I cannot open a gate? I cannot hang a
gate along the highway without a permit from
him? I am afraid I am going to find myself in
jail very shortly if I want to get out of a field
onto the road.
Mr. Oliver: With a whole book of permits.
Mr. Nixon: I have to have a permit for
every gate I hang along the highway, is that
not what that means?
Hon Mr. Allan: Well, it means that the
hon. member is asking for an entrance on the
highway.
Mr. Nixon: But we cannot construct a gate.
Hon. Mr. Allan: As a means of access to
the King's highway.
Mr. Nixon: That is what gates are used for.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is as a means of
access. The hon. member can construct any-
thing as long as it is not a means of access.
Mr. Oliver: Well, what would one want a
gate for?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, why not have a per-
mit if it is a means of access?
MARCH 7, 1958
629
I think, Mr. Chairman, there is no difficulty
in this connection. It is a procedure that has
been in effect for years. The hon. member
from Brant knows that.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I did not know it, no.
I know when the Hydro commission came
along to build their lines, they opened gates
onto the highway. Did they have permits
from the department for that?
I never though of such a thing, or heard of
such a thing before, that I could not open
a gate onto the highway without getting
a permit from the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, as I have
already pointed out, this refers to someone
who intends to have access to the highway.
Of course the gate is evidence of such access.
Section 3 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the new subsection be amended by strik-
ing out, "with the approval of the Minister,"
in the first and second line and by striking
out "him" in the second line and substituting
"the Minister," so that it would read: A
county may at any time, submit to the Minis-
ter for his approval a by-law covering
estimated expenditures on roads supplement-
ing the by-law submitted under subsection 1.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I move
that this subsection be amended in exactly
the same manner as section 3.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I make a
similar amendment concerning section 8 as it
affects a city, town or village.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Nixon: Just before the bill is reported,
I would really like to have some clarification
on this business of gates. Am I supposed to
have a permit that I can show to a policeman
that I have a right to have a gate opening
up onto the highway? If I have, if I must
have those permits, would the hon. Minister
send me 8 right away please, before I get
arrested? How much are they? I will pay
him right now.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, if he
tempts me too much and it was possible to
have him arrested, I might do so. The hon.
member knows very well that for anything
he already has, he does not need a permit.
Mr. Nixon: Not if I got it illegally?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No. Anyone who has
property adjoining a highway has entrances.
They have gates, they have anything that
exists at the time that the thoroughfare be-
comes a highway, and they do not need a
permit for it because they already have it.
But if, as could be possible in a growing
community like St. George, there was a
desire to sell off lots and to establish gates
for access to serve all those lots, a permit
would be required, and then the matter
would have to be decided as to whether the
permit would be issued for a subdivision
entrance or whether it would be for a private
entrance.
Mr. Nixon: Is there any charge?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I do not think there is
for a permit.
Mr. Nixon: The hon. Minister mentioned
that a person might buy 2 or 3 acres adjoin-
ing a village or a town, and seek to subdivide
that, and want a gate into each lot. It is
quite understandable that this might provide
some inconvenience.
What the department is doing, of course, as
the hon. Minister well knows, is putting it on
every highway, every King's highway in the
province, far away from any village or town.
He is going to say to every farmer on high-
way No. 10, running to Owen Sound: "If you
are going to open a gate on that highway, you
are going to have to have a permit." Now,
is that what the hon. Minister wants to do, or
does he want to seek to correct and deal with
this particular situation that he mentioned?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The purpose is to help the
person whose property adjoins the highway,
and to make certain that he does not do some-
thing that is going to create an embarrassing
situation for himself. That is, that the thought
here is to impress upon a person that, before
he does anything, he should apply for a
permit.
If the permit is not granted, which is un-
likely in the usual course of procedure, then
the person knows before he has put up a
building or made any expenditure or commit-
ment, that the permit will not be granted.
Individual private permits are granted to
matter of routine, and there are practically
no restrictions on them.
Mr. Oliver: Why are they required then, if
they are granted as a matter of routine?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The purpose of the permit
is to make sure that whatever is being under-
taken along the highway fits in with the plan
of our control of highways. If permits were
630
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not required for a gate or a building. A gaso-
line station or similar building might be built
upon a location for which an entrance permit
would not be granted. The station would be
built and someone would suffer, whereas if
he had applied for a permit in the beginning,
no one would suffer.
Mr. Oliver: That is all right so far as a
building is concerned, but so far as an open
stretch of field is concerned, I think it is
ridiculous.
Hon. Mr. Frost: This applies only from
the time this becomes law. It does not affect
any of my hon. friend's gates at all. If he
wants to put a new gate on, then he should
get a permit.
I would say that there have been some
very difficult cases arising from new high-
ways and highway construction, that people
have gone to a great deal of expense in put-
ting in foundations, for instance, for a house
or something of the sort, and then have
found that they have not complied with the
highway requirements, and they found that
what they did was not in accordance with
the regulations. Now, as a matter of fact,
the purpose of this is to try to prevent those
tilings happening before they take place.
Now there have been several cases of
that. I have had some quite embarrassing
ones, I can assure the hon. members involv-
ing that point.
Mr. Oliver: What I will advise my people
to do now along the highway is cut the
piece out of the fence of sufficient width
to get their vehicles through. But nobody
bothers much about a fence now along the
road, so I will advise him not to put a gate
on it. Then he will be all right. I think
that would be sound advice.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, of course, remember,
he has to get through the ditches and every-
thing, and he might break an axle doing that.
Mr. Oliver: Well, the ditches are all filled
up now, all filled in.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Since 1934, the hon. mem-
ber means.
Mr. Oliver: Yes.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I may say that
I really think that a certain measure of control
should be exercised by the hon. Minister. I
am reminded of the state of affairs from West
Hill to Oshawa. If they had been allowed
to establish places along there, it would not
be a highway at all. It is just as well that
the hon. Minister has exercised control in that
area, because if they had been allowed to
build haphazardly— well, it would not be a
through highway at all.
Bill No. 79 reported.
Mr. Frost moves that the committee of the
whole House rise and report certain bills with-
out amendment, one bill with amendment,
and begs leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment, and one bill with
amendment and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in drawing
to your attention the fact that it is 12.45 may
I say, sir, that on the resumption of the House,
p.m., we will proceed with the Throne
debate.
It being now 12.45 of the clock, p.m., the
House took recess.
ERRATA
(Wednesday, March 5, 1958)
Page Column Line Correction
554 2 36
1 42
557
Change "Mr. Gordon" to "Mr. H. A. Worton ( Wellington
South)".
Change "Mr. G. J. Monaghan (Sudbury)" to "Mr.
Worton".
From page 554, column 2, line 49 Where "Mr. Gordon" appears, change to "Mr. Worton".
to page 557, column 2, line 10
No. 27
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, March 7, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, March 7, 1958
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Price, Mr. Spence, Mr. Boyer 633
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Root, agreed to 650
633
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, March 7, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. H. J. Price (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
may I take this opportunity to offer my
congratulations to the hon. member for Peel
(Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. member for
Glengarry (Mr. Guindon) for their fine
speeches in moving and seconding the motion
for an address in reply to the speech from
the Throne.
During the recess of the House, we were
saddened to learn of the passing of two of
our colleagues - Fletcher Thomas of Elgin
and Thomas Pryde of Huron. Although they
are no longer with us, they leave us the heri-
tage of their good deeds and unselfish service
to Ontario. I had the privilege of friendship
with Fletcher Thomas. He stood for some-
thing here in Ontario, and we shall miss him.
To the new hon. members of the House,
elected since our last session, I extend my
heartiest congratulations. I am sure we all
hope their political endeavours will continue
to be crowned with success, and that they
will enjoy many years of public service.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer con-
gratulations to hon. Dana Porter who recently
vacated his seat in this Legislature to accept
the appointment of Chief Justice of Ontario,
and to become a member of the appeal court
of Ontario. Hon. Mr. Porter is one of our
finest citizens, and with his great aptitude,
both as a scholar and legal counsel, will, I
am sure, bring distinction to his new post.
During his many years in the House, he has
served the province in turn as Minister of
Planning and Development, Provincial Secre-
tary, Attorney-General and, latterly, as Prov-
incial Treasurer and discharged his duties
ably. We will miss him, but our best wishes
go with him to his new high office.
It is said that "where there is no vision, the
people perish." Mr. Speaker, if there is one
thing that has characterized the government
led by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost),
it may be summed up in that single word
"vision." Here we have been given leader-
ship inspired by a great vision in the service
of the people of Ontario. His many accom-
plishments, any one of which would make a
government great, testify to his leadership.
To you, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is
a pleasure to see you once again presiding
over this assembly. We all esteem the high
office that you so ably fill, and we would also
congratulate your new Deputy Speaker, the
hon. member for Middlesex South ( Mr. Allen )
who is being reared in a good tradition. Your
impartiality to all the hon. members of the
House is appreciated.
Turning now to the business of the day,
I would like to comment on a subject that
we all recognize as one of great importance.
This subject is education.
On an earlier occasion, I recommended to
the House that one facet of education,
deserving of our attention, is education for
citizenship. Much can be done in our public
schools along these lines. The more our
children know about our system of govern-
ment, the better opportunity they will have
to become useful citizens. This is something
we should not forget. The place our boys
and girls should learn how our government
is operated is in public school.
I hope the hon. Minister of Education ( Mr.
Dunlop) will assure us, some time during
this session, that our youth are getting a firm
grounding in the principles of our political
system, and of the views of the political
parties of which it consists.
During this session, legislation has been
introduced for student loans. This is a great
advance, and will give many students the
opportunity of obtaining higher education
which otherwise might have been denied
them. We have been assured that the interest
on these loans will be kept nominal.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest
to the hon. Minister of Education that the
students should not be required to commence
repayment until the second year following
graduation.
While we are also discussing this particular
subject, I think too it might be wise to forego
any interest charge unless they become in
default in their payments which, as I have
suggested, might come due on their second
year following graduation. That is a point
634
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which I think some of the other hon. mem-
bers have favoured too.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. mem-
bers realize that thousands of students who
could be classed as gifted or superior are
not financially able, in some cases, to com-
plete their high school courses. This is a
great wastage. The community is being de-
prived of the maximum potential contribu-
tion of which these people are capable.
Now, I would like to make a suggestion
to the hon. members of this House which
would enable us to assist these young people
and, at the same time, make a contribution
to the community as a whole. My thought
is not new. It was conceived and put into
operation as long ago as 1832, right here in
this old city.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we
should seek out the young people who are
gifted, or of superior intelligence, in grades
7 and 8, and enroll them in our private
schools— where the cost of their education
and other requirements could be met by
The Department of Education of Ontario. I
believe there would be many benefits to such
a system. In the first place, it would help
raise academic standards of our private
schools. In addition, it would serve to develop
better understanding by bringing together
boys and girls from families in different
income brackets.
It seems to me to be most important that we
give every opportunity to the boys and girls
upon whom God has bestowed more intelli-
gence than the average. I would suggest, to
the House, that we would thus enable them
to make a contribution to the community
which would be worth many times the small
cost of providing them with the educational
opportunities to which they have a right.
In many cases these are the very people
who, later in life, will be seeking student
loans, but I suggest to the House that, up
until now, we have not been selecting them
young enough for special education— which
is what I believe we should do.
The cost would not be too high, in com-
parison to the advantages to be gained by
such a programme, which would be incal-
culable. This, I think, is what Premier Fer-
guson had in mind when he was Minister of
Education in 1927.
Mr. Ferguson said, as reported in the
Toronto Globe in 1927:
Premier Ferguson continued that, by his
scheme, sons and daughters of the poorer
citizens of the rural areas should have at
least a part of the educational advantages
which come to children of richer families.
The boy who needs education in this
country, said the Premier, is not the wealthy
man's son, but is the poor man's son who
cannot bear the expense of going to a
great centre and living there while he is
acquiring his education and, as Minister
of Education, I propose to take it to him.
I suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker, that
it is this programme, enunciated by Premier
Ferguson, which we are extending today.
Mr. Thomas Kidd is also reported in the
Toronto Globe, in his address in reply to
the speech from the Throne, in 1927, as
follows:
We are endeavouring to develop a high
type of citizenship so that we may rely
less and less on law for the elevation of
morals and more and more on character
and knowledge. In this regard, our educa-
tional institutions have the opportunity to
render supreme service to the state. I think
they occupy the foremost place in the
responsibilities of the government.
Mr. Speaker, education today is still our
biggest problem, and it is by this avenue that
the greatest contribution can be made to the
youth of Ontario.
Another subject which has more than usual
importance for me is the matter of housing.
I referred briefly in the House last year to
the new housing development project which
is taking place in my riding, known as South
Regent Park. Since the last session, 120 row
houses have been constructed in which 450
people are now living. Before the end of
1958, it is anticipated that there will be a
total of 255 row houses and 5 apartment
houses of 96 apartments each, accommodat-
ing, in all, 731 families.
In addition to South Regent Park, and
North Regent Park which I have mentioned
previously, there is another low-rental hous-
ing development which I expect will be com-
menced in the spring. It was recently an-
nounced by Central Mortgage and Housing
that they had approved a loan of over $1.3
million for a low-rental project to be con-
structed in the area below Bloor Street,
bounded by Sherbourne Street on the west
and Parliament Street on the east.
Now, this is not exactly the type of low-
rental housing that I had in the other section
of the riding because this is a limited divi-
dend proposition. Nevertheless, the rentals
will be kept low, but it is not contributed to
MARCH 7, 1958
635
by the 3 levels of government as are the
other two projects.
Speaking of housing, this brings me to
the next matter I wish to discuss today, which
was touched on by the hon. member for
Parkdale (Mr. W. J. Stewart) in his address
to the House last Monday. I refer to the
problem of juvenile delinquency. The hon.
member will recall that the hon. member for
Peel made reference in his speech to the
fact that the family is the basic unit of our
society. When homes are broken because
families are unable to find proper accommoda-
tion, or for other reasons, such misfortunes
contribute to the problem of juvenile delin-
quency. Of course, the broken home is not
the entire problem, because children coming
from fine homes are not immune to becoming
delinquents— but in many cases, there is
something lacking in their home life.
One of the basic causes of delinquency is
the failure of the family through separation,
divorce, unemployment or sickness. Another
great root cause is lack of good youthful
discipline.
I am not aware that delinquency has be-
come the problem that the remarks of the
hon. member for Parkdale would indicate.
However, I have not the slightest doubt that
it will increase, if our housing situation is
not corrected by the building of more low-
rental homes and apartments.
If children are not subect to proper disci-
pline at home, it places an additional burden
on the school teachers who, in some cases,
are expected to discipline the children when
the real responsibility lies with the family.
If, however, pupils become unmanageable,
the solution is to send them to one of our
training schools, in the hope that by correc-
tive measures they can be brought into line.
Last spring, I had the opportunity of visit-
ing the Gait Training School for Girls with
the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr.
Myers). I must say that, contrary to what
certain hon. members have said in the House,
I found that the school was in very capable
hands and that the children are getting good
supervision. My chief concern is whether or
not they are being properly fitted to resume
their place in our regular schools when they
are permitted to return home. I have
discussed this with the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Dymond), and he
assures me they are getting psychological and
religious training which he feels will help
them to become properly rehabilitated.
It must be quite obvious to many hon.
members of the House that we do not have
a sufficient number of recreation centres in
our larger cities. This is an important step
towards the elimination of juvenile delin-
quency. Youth should have good recreational
facilities to use their leisure time to good
advantage.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a request of the hon. Minister of
Planning and Development (Mr. Nickle),
about renaming Regent Park South. The
hon. Minister will recall that we attended
the opening of Regent Park South last spring,
marking another milestone in housing develop-
ment in this province.
However, I am not certain the hon. Minis-
ter realizes that eventually this project will
necessitate the taking over of a very old
street which is called St. David Street. Now,
Mr. Speaker, this street has been in existence
for many years, and it bears the name of
the original ward from which the provincial
riding takes its name. What I am requesting
the hon. Minister to do is to commemorate
the name of St. David, the patron saint of
Wales, by calling this whole housing develop-
ment south of Dundas— "St. David's Park."
This, Mr. Speaker, would avoid a great
deal of confusion which has resulted in the
similarity of names, and what is more im-
portant it would commemorate the name
which has great historical significance to
that part of the city. I hope the hon. Minis-
ter will give sincere consideration to my
request, which I can assure him will be very
popular with the residents of this old section
of Toronto.
There exists in the world today a great
deal of inequality, and I view it as part of
government responsibility to temper this in-
equality wherever and whenever possible.
One of the contributory causes of crime and
juvenile delinquency today is poverty, and
poverty, in turn, means had housing. Until
we seriously endeavour to eliminate these
two basic factors, we will be unable to make
any worthwhile progress in this connection.
There is nothing I know of that can con-
tribute more to the well-being, both physically
and mentally, of our youth than a provincial-
wide physical fitness programme. Many of
the hon. members will appreciate also that
much can be done toward the improvement
of relations between the various countries of
the world through the medium of sport.
I would suggest, in all seriousness, that we
should consider the formation of a depart-
ment with a director and commission to be
known as The Department of Youth and
Recreation. If such a department were estab-
lished, we would, of course, require camps
636
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the type that were built at Lake Couchi-
ching in the early 1930's. This is a matter
that I throw out for the consideration of the
hon. members who are interested in the pro-
motion of sport and health in the interest
of youth of the province.
We look forward to the commencement of
our hospital plan, which begins on January
1, 1959. The plan, which is based on sound
actuarial principles, is this government's
answer to socialized medicine. No plan, in
my opinion, where the individual does not
pay for the services he receives, can ultimately
succeed.
This can be a very costly and expensive
business unless skilfully handled. Our aim is
to have a hospital insurance scheme that will
work and be of benefit to all.
We recognize the need for enlarging our
hospital accommodation. I have noticed
recently that many hospitals are securing
estimates for enlargements, and that already
many hospitals are making plans for expan-
sion.
One aspect worthy of our attention is the
fact that we will require more convalescent
and chronic patients' hospitals.
Our old-age homes should have 25 per
cent, of all their beds set aside for an infir-
mary, with all the necessary facilities.
I recently had the opportunity of visiting
the Ontario hospital for the mentally ill in
St. Thomas. I was very impressed with the
treatment and care the patients are receiving.
Everything possible is being done to fit these
people to be released and assume their place
in society as soon as possible.
As we know, great strides are being made
in the medical profession in the whole field
for the prevention and treatment of mental
illness. It is certainly one of the great features
of our hospital plan that care of the mentally
ill is to be included.
Here in Ontario, we are on the threshold
of one of the greatest and most monumental
experiments ever undertaken by any govern-
ment for the welfare of its people in a free
enterprise system.
There has been a great deal of attention
focused recently in the press on the problem
of humane slaughter. I recognize that this
is largely a federal matter, but it is one which
I wish to bring up at this time as it is a
subject of interest to a great number of my
constituents. A bill has now been intro-
duced in the House of Commons, known as
Bill No. 241, which will go a long way toward
the better handling and treatment of animals
in order to render them unconscious before
being slaughtered. I believe a similar bill
has recently been introduced in the United
States. I have discussed this matter with some
of my colleagues who are in the House of
Commons in Ottawa, and they assure me that
the bill will become law.
I recall that, on other occasions, some
hon. members have brought up the subject
of the members' restaurant. At least, for my
part, the restaurant facilities for the hon.
members seem to me to be totally inadequate.
Surely an adequate space could be found
somewhere in the building where proper
restaurant facilities could be provided, and
catering facilities arranged. I think this is a
matter that all the hon. members would wel-
come a solution to, as there must be a num-
ber who are not happy with the present
arrangements.
Some of the hon. members, Mr. Speaker,
were fortunate in being able to go on the
members' tour last August through the north-
ern sections of Ontario. This was a great eye-
opener for members such as myself who had
not had the opportunity of seeing the tre-
mendous development that is taking place in
the north. The trip was most enjoyable and
instructive. A trip of this type should be
conducted on an annual basis, as it gives the
hon. members a chance to see something of
this great province which they represent, and
at the same time it affords the electors an
opportunity to meet some of the hon. members
of this House.
The hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Mapledoram) and his staff are to be con-
gratulated on his excellent arrangements. I
have one suggestion to offer. When another
trip is contemplated, could we consider char-
tering aircraft where possible — due to the
time factor.
I know that I found it was a little bit too
long to be away at that particular time, and
I am sure other hon. members felt the same
way. We enjoyed the trip and it was impos-
sible to see as much in any shorter time, but
if we could consider the chartering of an air-
craft, it would speed the trip up a little bit
and, in that way, we could see just as much
and it would hurry it up so we could all return
in the shortest possible time to our work.
Some of the hon. members found they had
to return before the trip was over, although
I am sure they would have enjoyed staying on
and seeing the whole thing. We all recognize,
Mr. Speaker, that an annual tour of this type
has many advantages.
Recently I had an opportunity of passing
through Woodstock and was attracted by
the fine architecture of the buildings at the
MARCH 7, 1958
637
Ontario hospital for the mentally ill. Not
only is the architecture of the buildings
attractive, but the grounds are well land-
scaped. Each floor I understand has a
solarium, and it struck me as being some-
thing worthwhile and I think the credit goes
to the hon. Minister of Health ( Mr. Phillips )
and to his department, for using a little
imagination.
I am sure that the people who are there
appreciate the fact that the surroundings are
well landscaped, and that they have an
opportunity to sit out on balconies there,
which are provided on each floor, and to use
the solariums which I understand are at the
end of each floor.
Too many of our buildings look like insti-
tutions, and if we can get away from this,
I think it will help to make these people
feel they are in a home away from home,
when they must be confined to such places.
I would now like to turn, Mr. Speaker,
to a subject which, in the future, will receive
a great deal of attention by governments. I
believe that The Department of Welfare
may have made some preliminary investiga-
tion in the subject of contributory pension
plans. I refer to a basic contributory pension
scheme on a provincial basis. There are
various schemes in effect throughout the
world, which we could well look into.
The type of plan I envisage would be a
basic plan only, but would be contributed to
by both employee and employer, until the
employee reached 60 or 65 years of age,
when he or she would retire. Whatever
monies were put away during the employee's
working years would belong to him. This
would give him financial independence.
There are many benefits to such a pro-
gramme, as I am suggesting, one of which is
to relieve the Government of the heavy cost
of the present pension scheme to which the
benefactors do not contribute.
I have always considered old age pensions
in recent years to be grossly inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned this on other
occasions but I just wish to say that the
increase of $15.00 a month in the old age
pensions is greatly appreciated by the pen-
sioners of my riding.
I have a great many elderly people living
in homes in the southern section of the
riding who were certainly very much in-
terested in this thing, and it is something
which I know they and we as hon. members
of this House appreciate.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word
during the Throne debate about immigra-
tion. We must seek to bring out to this
country the best immigrants that it is possible
to get, not only from the United Kingdom
and the Scandinavian countries, but from
northern Europe and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker,
one thing we must not overlook is that we
should make the immigrants coming to
Canada feel at home so that they can make
a real contribution to the future of this
country, and be accepted as full-fledged
Canadians.
With the coming of the St. Lawrence sea-
way, we are bound to see the development
of seaport and shipping facilities throughout
the Great Lakes. This will give us a tre-
mendous opportunity to explore various export
markets for our products. We should be
alive to the new potential which the seaway
will open to the interior, which is something
we have been deprived of up until this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a
matter of importance to the Queen City of
Toronto— that is, the matter of a subway. I
have suggested previously, and other hon.
members have too, that some provincial
assistance be given. While I do not favour
the province giving any outright grant in the
way of assistance for a subway, there would
be considerable merit in assisting Metro to
secure the necessary funds, possibly as a
loan to be repaid from revenue.
Before closing, I would like to quote an
excerpt from an address by the late hon.
Howard Ferguson at Orillia in 1924.
We spend money on opening up our
country, and in developing the material
side of our national life. Is it not much
more important that we should develop
the human side? There is no work so
transcendentally important as that of
moulding and building up our human life
—the very foundation of our being. The
stronger we make the individual, the
greater and prouder will be our nation-
hood in the future . . . Making the under-
privileged and handicapped youth of the
province of Ontario into good citizens, I
regard as the greatest problem before my
government today.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we are
making rapid progress in solving the prob-
lems facing this Legislature, particularly in
the fields needing our most serious considera-
tion which include housing, health and
education. It is a real honour, Mr. Speaker,
to be a member of this assembly during the
days when so much worthwhile legislation is
being enacted for the advancement of our
people.
638
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): This is the
third time that I have had the privilege of
taking part in a Throne debate.
I first wish to congratulate you, Mr.
Speaker, on the dignified and impartial way
in which you carry out your duties as Speaker
of this assembly. Secondly, I want to thank
you for the pleasant manner with which you
have always received me when I wished to
discuss with you matters pertaining to your
office.
Also, I wish to congratulate the hon.
member for Middlesex South (Mr. Allen)
on being elected Deputy Speaker. I know
that he will carry out his duties in a fair and
impartial way.
Also, I wish to congratulate the hon. mover
and seconder of the address given in reply
to the speech from the Throne. I was greatly
interested when the hon. member for Peel
( Mr. Kennedy ) spoke of some of his
experiences during his many years as hon.
member of the Ontario Legislature.
After listening to the hon. members of the
government give praise to the hon. Prime
Minister and other hon. Ministers of the
government, to which I have no objection
whatsoever, I would be remiss if I did not
take this opportunity to praise our hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver) for
the fine manner in which he carries out his
duties.
He is one who has always given me every
assistance since I became a member of this
Legislature, one who I say contributes greatly
to the debates of this House. I would say,
after listening to him for 4 sessions, that he
is one of the most able speakers in this
legislative assembly.
We have another hon. member in our
party, the hon. member for Brant ( Mr.
Nixon) who is the dean member of this
Legislature. I know that if he would relate
his experiences in the Legislature, we would
have another very educational afternoon.
Also, I would like to commend all the
other hon. members of our party for the part
they have played in the debates of this
session.
I would like to discuss the agricultural
industry of Ontario. For the past 4 or 5
years, it has been a major area of depression
in an otherwise booming economy. The
farm income has been steadily declining. As
a result, the farmers have been caught
between the stationary or declining income
and the rapidly rising cost of farm operation.
Only a few decades ago Ontario was an
agricultural province. Today, Ontario is the
most extensively industrialized province in
Canada and future prospects are for even
more industrialization. This shift in the basic
nature of our provincial economy, and the
extraordinary prosperity accompanying our
rapid industrial expansion has tended to
minimize the steadily worsening position of
Ontario farmers in relation to other industries.
When agriculture was king in Ontario, the
provincial government devoted much of its
time and a sizeable segment of its money, to
the farming community. In recent years as
the problems of the farmers have increased
and the plight of the agricultural industry
has worsened, the provincial government has
devoted less and less time and still less money,
to working out solutions for the serious crises
confronting farmers. I am convinced that the
present government is not meeting its respon-
sibility to the Ontario farmers.
I say the government will have to decide
whether, in its judgment, farming is funda-
mental and should be saved. The govern-
ment must recognize that the present difficul-
ties of farmers can be solved only by direct
and specified action. In the present farm
crisis extraordinary means are required. I
believe agriculture is a basic industry essential
to the prosperity of Ontario and of Canada.
The farmers are not asking for more than
their fair share of general prosperity, and
deserve nothing less than their fair share.
I believe there are some things this govern-
ment can do to assist the farmers. For
example, our farmers should not be expected
to meet the full competition of competitive
countries whose living standards are lower
than ours. Their cost of production, because
of climate and low wage scales and other
reasons, is lower than that of the Ontario
farmers. Our farmers, in order to overcome
such competition, must sell their products
below the cost of production. How do hon.
members expect the farmers of Ontario to
thrive under conditions such as these? Prices
closely related to the cost of producing farm
products in Ontario are essential, if the
farmers are to establish and maintain their
farms and equipment in first-class condition,
and at the same time provide for themselves
and their families a decent standard of living.
Something must be done to eliminate these
adverse conditions which face the Ontario
farmer of today.
In the speech from the Throne, it says
colleges will be expanded to facilitate more
teaching and research work. I have always
believed that industry has benefited from
research. Why, then, would not the farmers
receive more benefit from an extensive
MARCH 7, 1958
639
programme of research in many phases of
agriculture? Our agricultural colleges and
our agricultural schools have done much to
increase our production over the past number
of years. Now, today, we are facing over-
production in many fields of agriculture.
I suggest the government of Ontario should
undertake a large programme of research for
new uses of agricultural products. New
products would increase trade and a greater
prosperity for the country as a whole. I
would also suggest a greater study of markets
in Canada, in the Commonwealth, and
throughout the world.
I say this because, during August of last
year, while accompanying the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) on
his tour of industries and mines in northern
Ontario, I visited some of the local stores.
In these stores I was greatly surprised to find
potatoes, from the United States and Prince
Edward Island on display, selling at 10 lbs.
for 59 cents. At that same time potato growers
from western Ontario were receiving 75 cents
to 80 cents for a 75-pound bag of potatoes
and were forced to cease harvesting, as that
low price would not cover the cost of harvest-
ing. I found no Ontario potatoes on display
at all.
Our graders are government inspectors so
therefore the grade must be satisfactory. I
believe The Department of Agriculture could
do a lot more to assist the farmer by way
of marketing techniques. In southern Ontario,
we have a surplus of a product while in
other parts of Ontario they are bringing the
same product from Prince Edward Island. I
ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Goodfellow) why conditions such as these
are allowed to exist?
I would say The Department of Agriculture
in Ontario has a responsibility to deal with
this problem before it is too late.
I have always believed that subsidies on
first-quality agricultural products would help
solve some of our agricultural product
surpluses in the province of Ontario.
I heard time and time again that, if the
Diefenbaker government was elected last
June they would do great things for agricul-
ture. Also, we have heard many times in
this assembly what the Diefenbaker govern-
ment was doing.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to point out
one of the things they did not do. They
forgot the Ontario farmers when the bill
advancing interest-free cash loans to western
farmers, on stored grain, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to cash
loans to farmers on stored grain in western
Canada, but I do say that the Diefenbaker
government segregated the Ontario farmers
from the western farmers and that I believe
that interest-free cash advances on stored
grain should also be made available to the
Ontario farmers.
I know that on election day, March 31,
the Ontario farmers are not going to vote
for the Diefenbaker government.
Hon. government members have stated
that half of the federal taxes are collected
in the province of Ontario. If this is true,
then Ontario farmers are paying half the
interest on cash advances on stored grain in
western Canada. I say that if cash advances
on stored grain, interest free, were made
available for farmers in Ontario, many farmers
would benefit by it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal for a
few minutes with another way in which I
believe this government can offer direct
relief to farmers. This is in regard to county
roads. At the present time, there are 9,384
miles of county roads in Ontario. The counties
and The Department of Highways share the
costs on a 50-50 basis and the department's
share in the fiscal year ending March 31,
1957, was $12,042,792.32.
During the past several years, The Depart-
ment of Highways has not added a great deal
to its 11,000 miles of primary and secondary
roads either in new construction or in the
taking over of existing county and township
roads.
I would like to add my remarks to those
of the hon. leader of the Opposition in
suggesting to this government that it should
determine upon a policy of incorporating a
definite number and kind, of county roads
into the provincial highway system each year.
In some counties, some $600,000 a year is
spent on county roads, of which half is
obtained from the provincial government.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we appreciate this
50 per cent, assistance by the department
but I might remind the House that the
provincial government collects 100 per cent,
of all licence fees and gasoline and diesel
taxes.
The 50 per cent, of road expenditures paid
by the county is a charge, not on the motorist,
but on the property owner. The motorist
using county roads does not pay the whole
cost of maintenance and construction. The
property owner does. In many cases the
motorist and the property owner are one
and the same man.
640
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
However there is, in my opinion, a
difference between the two for tax purposes
that can be clarified only by transferring,
to the motorist, the cost of providing him
with satisfactory roads.
The principle of gas taxation is that the
motorist who drives the most miles uses the
most fuel and therefore pays the most money
in taxes. This principle of taxation was
enunciated at great length last session when
the government announced its increase in the
diesel fuel tax. It was contended that, because
a vehicle got more mileage burning diesel
fuel than if it burned gasoline, the driver
should pay a higher tax per gallon of diesel
fuel so that, in the long run he would be
paying about the same tax per mile.
Now, the gasoline and fuel taxes are the
measure used to equalize taxation between
different classes of vehicles according to their
use of the road. Why could not the same
principle be applied to payment for use of
county roads as well? That is, why could
not maintenance and construction of county
roads be cared for by the department
through its gasoline and fuel taxes, instead
of through property taxes?
One property owner may have several
vehicles and use the roads a great deal, and
pay the same property tax as another property
owner who has none, or one vehicle, and
seldom uses the road.
Mr. Speaker, the pattern of use of roads
is changing in many ways. County roads
are becoming less and less mere streets for
the farmers living along them and simply
access roads to producing farms.
County roads today, particularly in southern
Ontario, are used by more and more motorists
for a variety of reasons. Some county roads
have become major links between existing
provincial highways and carry a heavy load
of passenger and commercial vehicles, travel-
ling, not from farm to farm, but from city
to city.
Heavier and heavier highway transports
and commercial vehicles are using lightly-
built county roads. These vehicles are
presenting unexpected problems of mainten-
ance and repair, particularly during the spring
thaw and the "half-load" season.
The tourists also use our county roads in
increasing volume in travelling to and from
recreation areas. In some counties of Ontario,
this tourist traffic, at peak vacation periods,
greatly outnumbers local traffic.
In addition to tourists, the increasing mobil-
ity of all the people of Ontario is placing a
greater and greater burden on county roads,
above and beyond the traffic of a purely local
nature. However, the local property owner is
still paying for 50 per cent, of the cost of
maintaining these county roads in good condi-
tion.
I believe that the Department of Highways
should note the changing pattern of service
afforded by county roads, and since the pro-
vincial government receives all the fuel tax
and licence fee revenue, it should assume a
greater share of the cost of county roads
generally.
The government could accomplish this in
either of two ways:
1. The department, on a planned basis,
could incorporate into the provincial highway
network each year, that portion of the county
road system which serves as a major connect-
ing link between existing highways, and those
which are the most heavily travelled arteries
of our tourist trade.
2. An increase in the provincial share of
maintenance grants.
Incorporation of segments of the county
road system, into the provincial highway net-
work, would benefit some areas more than
others. However, the increase in the provin-
cial grant would bring a uniform and wide-
spread benefit to farmers and rural taxpayers
all over Ontario by bringing about immediate
reduction in their property tax.
If the government thinks that these pro-
posals and suggestions are impractical, I would
like to refer briefly to the experienc of North
Carolina in the same matter.
In that southern state live 4 million people.
More than two-thirds of them live rural or
semi-rural lives. They are spread over an area
of more than 50,000 square miles. The great-
est depth of the state is 503 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Great Smoky Mountains.
Road builders in North Carolina are faced
with a wide variety of geographical conditions,
ranging from a knife-edged mountain range
to spongy tidal swamps. Roads rise from sea
level to more than 3,000 feet above sea level.
Now southern Ontario can, with some jus-
tice, be compared in a broad way with North
Carolina for the purposes of illustrating my
remarks.
Southern Ontario is roughly 400 miles wide
from Windsor to the Quebec border, and
some 250 miles from Toronto to North Bay.
Its area is probably about 70,000 square miles.
Of Ontario's 6 million population, some 5
million will be living in southern Ontario.
MARCH 7, 1958
641
Now, in North Carolina, in the 6 years from
1949 to 1955, the state paved 15,000 miles of
county roads. This tremendous programme
of construction was in addition to the state's
6,218-mile system of major highways, so that
in 1955 the state, with an area of 50,000
square miles, had more than 21,000 miles of
paved roads outside its urban municipalities.
Now 95 per cent, of the population in the
state of North Carolina lives within one mile
of a paved road.
Governor Luther Hodges in 1955 said:
Our paved rural network has unquestion-
ably made for the better life on our farms
and our small communities. Everywhere
along the road system I see schools,
churches, and industries springing up.
The state of North Carolina has assumed
exclusive responsibility for building, improving
and maintaining every foot of rural road
within its boundaries.
The cost of this scheme was accomplished
without a property tax. All monies come from
motor vehicle registrations, gasoline taxes, and
like all other states, federal aid. The important
point is that:
The roads are paid for by those who use
them.
The cost of the scheme was $350 million.
The results of this programme are spec-
tacular. New school construction has tripled
since the roads were completed, and the
largest consolidated rural school system in the
world was made possible.
Farm income in North Carolina has steadily
increased faster than the national average.
Farmers now count their savings in the annual
market hauling time in days, instead of hours.
Dozens of new industries have located in
the state, and most of them did not locate in
the cities. Instead, they chose sites along
state and secondary highways. They still had
abundant labour because farmers could speed
to and from factory jobs and still enjoy rural
life.
In this way, farmers were able to increase
their incomes, and there were noticeable signs
of general improvement in living standards.
Of equal importance are the social, cultural,
recreational and human advantages that the
road programme has produced. It has meant
daily newspapers, daily mail, quick and easy
access to the many advantages of city selling,
shopping and social life.
Mr. Speaker, these are some of the advan-
tages, and real advantages they are too, that
an imaginative and determined rural road
programme would effect.
I wish to point out, particularly, the location
of industry along good roads outside cities,
and the prosperity that this decentralization
brings with it to its own area.
We are all concerned with the spectacular
mushroom growth of our urban centres, and
the rapidly rising costs of public services
which urbanization entails. Many of us are
very much concerned with the declining pro-
portion of our population living in rural areas.
There is, at the present time, a continuing
flight from the land. From 1945 to 1955 the
proportion of the Canadian population living
on farms declined from 25 per cent, to 15 per
cent., and the Gordon commission predicts
that, by 1980, there will be only 7 per cent,
of Canadians living in rural areas.
It is an open question whether or not this
enormous concentration of populations is
desirable. Decentralization of population and
industry has been, and is being, argued for a
variety of reasons.
Civil defence authorities urge decentraliza-
tion to reduce the number of major targets in
case of atomic war, and to create a rural and
semi-rural support area for the dispersal of
population from urban areas, should there be
an attack.
Decentralization of industry would mean
that assessment would be more equalized
throughout the province. It is better to have
a province in which all regions and areas enjoy
an adequate and decent level of prosperity,
than it is to have one or two vast metropolitan
centres of great wealth and great problems
and, by comparison, a semi-depressed area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that one of the
ways of lifting the state of depression, which
has afflicted agriculture for the past several
years, is to decentralize industry to some
extent, tap the reservoir of smaller city and
rural labour at its source, rather than driving
people from farms and smaller cities, and
crowding them into larger and larger cities.
This would raise the per capita income of
farmers, and restore a measure of prosperity
to the agricultural areas.
It is not in accordance with our system and
tradition of government for the government
to accomplish the decentralization of popula-
tion or industry by statute.
Industry is free to locate where it will, and
should remain free to do so. However, good
transportation is one of the great levelling
factors, and I believe that a great programme
of rural road construction would assist in
effecting decentralization and increasing the
prosperity of rural areas.
I have given an example of what can be
done, and I recommend to the government
642
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that it study this example in greater detail.
Such a study, to be followed by action and
accomplishment, would produce, I am sure,
vast benefits for all the people of Ontario.
Now, I might say last year I dwelt for some
time on rural education. Since I prepared this
speech, there has been a change in the grants,
but I attended the education committee the
other morning and I am still at a loss to know
where they are going to help and where they
are not. So, I might say that I am going on
with the remarks I gathered, and I will say,
Mr. Speaker, that I have the highest regard
for the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Dunlop).
The Royal commision on education, in its
report of Dec. 2, 1949, on page 12, stated:
If, in any year, the scarcity of trained
teachers develop, it will for the most
part be the children in rural areas whose
education will be jeopardized. We view
such possibility with concern, and sincerely
hope that emergency plans, sufficient in
scope, will be introduced to ensure an
adequate education for all children in our
elementary schools.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a clear cut warning
of the Royal Commission, to the government,
about the specific injustice to rural education
that would occur if the government did not
take action.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this govern-
ment has not acted on this warning, and that
the education of children in rural areas in
Ontario has been, and is being, jeopardized
by the government's inadequate measures to
cope with the problem facing rural students.
For example, I want to refer specifically
to the complete failure of the government's
grant system, to bring justice and equity to
rural education, and to point out that the
basis of awarding grants is completely un-
realistic, because it has failed to even halt
the deterioration of rural education.
To illustrate my thoughts, I will refer to
the department's own statistics. The figures
I will quote will be from the Minister's
report for the year 1955-1956, the last report
unfortunately that was available at the time
of preparation of these remarks.
I might say that I have the hon. Minis-
ter's 1955 report here, page 76, table 32. It
gives the number of male and female teach-
ers in the cities, towns, villages, rural, subur-
ban Toronto and Metro Toronto and the
salaries that they received.
Total number of teachers in the province
was 22,018. Average salary for elementary
school teachers $3,130. There were 1,564
male teachers and 6,585 female teachers in
rural elementary schools. In other words,
33 per cent, of the total number of teachers
were teaching in our rural areas.
Education:
1955 REPORT p. 76 Table 32
Public schools salaries: (including principals)
Cities
M F
Towns
M F
Villages Rural
M F M F
Suburban Metro
Toronto Toronto
M F M F
Total
Teachers 1,866 5,196 680 2,233 228 702 1,569 6,585 799 1,847 1,477 3,609
Median 4,760 3,900 3,600 3,050 3,270 2,700 2,860 2,600 4,260 3,690 4,990 3,980
Totals: Teachers
Median
Overall total
M F
5,214 16,804 22,018
3,690 3,010 3,130
Rural teachers total
M F
1,564 6,585 or 33 per cent, of the total number of
teachers in the elementary schools.
MARCH 7, 1958
643
The number of female teachers in rural
schools was 6,585 of 16,804 or 39 per cent,
of all female teachers in Ontario.
Their average salary was $2,600 per year.
According to these figures, the depart-
ment's own, a male teacher in a rural area
receives $1,900 per year, on the average, less
than the male teachers in cities, $740 per
year less than teachers in towns and $410
less than teachers in villages.
Female teachers in rural areas receive
$1,300 less than female teachers in cities,
$1,000 a year less than teachers in towns,
and $100 a year less than teachers in villages.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, at this point,
to emphasize these figures.
According to the department's standard of
teacher training there is no distinction
between the academic qualifications of male
or female trainees, and no difference in the
courses they must take and the standards
they must meet.
Why then is there a difference in the rates
of pay of male and female teachers? I feel
that since they are required to meet the
same standard of academic achievement, the
same standard of training, and to do the
same job in the schools, for the most part
they are entitled to the same rate of pay. I
can see no reason why female teachers at
all levels of the school system should be paid
considerably less than male teachers.
The continuing practice of this discrimina-
tion is entirely out of keeping with the
practices in all other professions. I know of
no reason that will justify it.
I know that school boards use the excuse
that, because of lack of funds, they cannot
pay the same rates. But this is merely an
excuse and not a reason.
Let us look at the figures again, a little
more closely. There were 1,866 male teachers
in cities (exclusive of Toronto) and 1,569
male teachers in rural areas, or about the
same number. Of the male city teachers,
830 (or almost 50 per cent.) receive $5,000
a year or more while there were only 77
rural male teachers (or 5 per cent.) receiving
$5,000 per year, or more.
In the city schools, 327 (or 16 per cent.)
were receiving $6,000 a year or more, while
in rural areas only 19 (or 1.2 per cent. ) were
being paid $6,000 a year or more.
Metropolitan Toronto schools had a total
of 1,477 male teachers whose average salaries
were $4,790, or $1,930 more than the average
salaries of male teachers in rural schools.
Of this group of 1,477 teachers, 321 (or
almost 22 per cent.) were paid $6,000 per
year or more.
Among the 5,196 female teachers in city
schools exclusive of Metropolitan Toronto,
1,476 received $5,000 per year or more, while
of the 6,585 female teachers in rural schools,
only 21 received $5,000 per year or more.
Of the 3,609 female teachers in elementary
schools in Metro Toronto, 905 were receiving
$5,000 per year or more.
Mr. Speaker, of the 8,805 female teachers
in Metro Toronto and other city schools,
2,381, or almost 30 per cent, were receiving
$5,000 per year while of the 6,585 female
teachers in rural schools, only 21 or 3 per
cent, were receiving $5,000 per year or more.
I think the answer is obvious. At a time
when Ontario is facing a crisis in the number
of qualified teachers, the enormous difference
in the salary schedule for teachers in city
schools, compared with teachers in rural
schools, will react to the detriment to rural
education. The better teachers will be lured
to the centres paying the most money. Rural
schools will get what is left.
The very condition which the Royal
commission, in 1949 viewed with alarm, is
with us in full force.
The hon. Prime Minister and this govern-
ment are fond of telling us of the wonders
they are doing for rural education. But the
government never tells us that the standards
of rural education are being destroyed under
their regime.
How long can this system continue with its
present unfairness, its present inequalities,
and its present injustice before this govern-
ment recognizes the peril and assumes its
responsibility to change it?
We hear constantly about the government's
scheme of grants, paying some rural areas as
much as 92 per cent, of its approved educa-
tion costs.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, on the evidence
presented by the hon. Minister's own report,
that the present system of paying grants to
rural areas is unsatisfactory and completely
inadequate to meet the problem. As long
as rural teachers are paid $2,000 per year
less than teachers in cities no system of
government grant that permits this situation
to continue is fair, equitable or just.
Mr. Speaker, a teacher in a rural school
generally has a much more difficult job than
a teacher in a city school. The teacher in a
rural school is generally alone and unable to
644
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
call readily upon the advice of a principal,
superintendent, or other teacher.
The teacher in a rural school has to teach
35 or 40 students, ranging in age from 6 to
16 years, and taking courses in 8 different
grades. She has to be trained to provide
instruction and examinations for 8 different
grades and requires, therefore, an extensive
academic background. This, I submit, is a
much more difficult task than that facing
most city teachers who teach 30 to 35 pupils
in one grade, roughly of the same age. The
city teacher has the support of a principal
and other teachers.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that teaching in a rural
school requires that a teacher have a more
extensive academic background, a more
mature personality, and a more extensive
period of training at teachers' college than
is required for teaching in an urban school.
Rather than being the poorest paid
segment of the teaching profession, teachers in
rural schools should be the best paid, and I
submit that if the government was alert to
the realities of the situation, and to its respon-
sibilities, it would work out its grant system
in such a way that the teachers in rural
schools would be at least as well paid as
urban teachers, if not better paid.
The government has a prime responsibility
to provide equality of educational oppor-
tunity to all students in Ontario. It is not
meeting this responsibility, to the students
of rural schools, and its grant programme is
not providing equity or justice.
Teachers in rural schools, because of the
greater difficulty of their jobs, should be paid
a bonus by the government, or the govern-
ment should establish a system of financial
incentives that will attract the best qualified
teachers into the rural schools.
The government's programme to date has
been entirely unsatisfactory, and the discrep-
ancies I have pointed out today are the
measure of the government's failures in the
field of rural education.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
now that the Deputy Speaker is in the
chair, may I congratulate him upon being
elected to that position and upon the very
impartial way that he carried out his duties.
I would also like to refer to our Speaker,
and to congratulate him upon the manner in
which he presides in the House and also, very
particularly, to thank him for the many kind-
nesses which he shows to the individual hon.
members of this Legislature in these particu-
lar weeks, and at all times of the year. The
Speaker's assistance and guidance in various
matters has been very much valued by my-
self during the few years that I have been
in the House.
At the beginning of the session the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) spoke to
the House in moving the reply to the speech
from the Throne. It was that kind of address
which we expect from the hon. member for
Peel, kindly and good humoured, and telling
of the love he has for his native land.
Then the eloquent hon. seconder of the
motion, the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon) represented the 4 newest hon.
members of the House, all supporters of the
Frost government, and all of whom are
making many friends among their fellow hon.
members and among the officials of the vari-
ous departments.
Others have referred to two former mem-
bers who have died during the past year,
Mr. Thomas and Mr. Pryde, and they are
sincerely missed. May I also refer to the
passing of two friends, Deputy Minister
Douglas Crowe, of The Department of Travel
and Publicity, and Colonel Young, the Prime
Minister's executive assistant. Both had
given splendid service to their departments.
It has been very pleasant in this debate to
hear hon. members of the Liberal party pay
tribute to their distinguished hon. leader
( Mr. Oliver ) and it is very evident that they
have an admiration for him within their party
which I, and I am sure, many other hon.
members outside their party have for the
hon. leader of the Opposition.
I might say that I have known him, at
least by sight, for many years for, as a weekly
newspaper man in the days before I got into
politics more actively, it was my practice to
attend the Liberal conventions, and the Con-
servative conventions as well, and once in
a while the C.C.F. conventions if I could
not arrange for someone else to go in my
place.
It was always something of a pleasure to
hear the hon. leader of the Opposition when
he came into our part of the province to
speak because he is, as we all know, an ad-
mirable speaker. I can hardly sympathize
with him, of course, in the rather limited
scope of success that he had in our part of
the province. Perhaps, it was not entirely his
own fault, but I will not even wish him
success in the future.
I will say this. Many years ago, it was
my privilege to meet the hon. leader of the
Opposition on a hot summer day in my home
town of Bracebridge in Muskoka, when he
MARCH 7, 1958
645
had just become a Minister of the Crown of
this province. He was going on a tour
through the province, visiting various build-
ings, and it so happened that our newspaper
office is in the same street as some of the
provincial buildings in the district capital of
Muslcoka.
Seeing the newspaper office there, he
asked one of the officials if he might meet
the editor. I was sent for, but I was working
hard at the time and it took me a little
while to wash the printer's ink off my hands
and perhaps arms and maybe face. But it
was a pleasure to go and meet him in the
street in front of one of these buildings and
talk to him a short time.
I am taking some time about this, but I
want to say that there was a matter, at that
time, of very particular interest to us in
Bracebridge concerning the provincial govern-
ment policy and I made bold to ask him
about this. I would say though, Mr. Speaker,
that it was as hard to get anything out of
him about that particular policy as it is
today to find out what his intentions are
concerning a certain date in the month of
April.
If I may make a prediction however, for
what it is worth, I would like to suggest
this; that the present hon. leader of the
Opposition will be succeeded by himself as
the leader of the Liberal party at that time.
In making this small contribution to the
present debate, I would like to acknowledge
the loyal and helpful contribution made to
the administration of public affairs in this
province by the civil servants, both at head-
quarters here in the capital city of Toronto
and throughout the province. Regularly a
member of this House, particularly one from
the rural areas, must take a matter which
concerns a constituent to some civil servant.
No matter how small a matter it may appear
to the official concerned, it always is given
attention.
In this connection, I was much interested
in an editorial which appeared in an Ontario
town weekly, The Advance-Times, published
at Wingham, the home town of the hon.
member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Hanna). The
editor is Mr. Barry Wenger, who has just been
elected president of the Ontario division of
the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association.
Last summer, like a gentleman from
Muskoka District, Reeve Jack Johnston, of
Monck Township, Mr. Wenger had served
on an advisory committee of The Department
of Public Welfare. I can hardly do better
than to quote Mr. Wenger's comments.
The editorial began by referring to the
change in mothers' allowances, and stated
that the new plan was one which would be
of benefit to the families concerned, giving
a realistic approach to the matter of family
costs, which can and do vary from one
part of the province to another. It then
continued:
Your editor has spent one day of each
week all summer working, along with other
members of the provincial committee on
children's boarding homes, on a specific set
of problems handed over to that body by
The Department of Public Welfare.
When we approached the task last June,
we were tinctured with the common feeling
that most government welfare employees
are a hard-hearted lot, bent chiefly on
saving money for the deparment which em-
ploys them. To our very sincere pleasure
we have found that such an attitude can
spring only from ignorance. Without excep-
tion we found that the people who admin-
ister the various public welfare Acts, from
the Minister (Mr. Cecile) down, are con-
cerned with one thought only— how best to
serve the unfortunate citizens of the prov-
ince and the children for whom they are
responsible.
Yes, that is a big statement, but appar-
ently the day of the tough and bloodless
relief administrator, who sticks in our mind
from depression days, is over. From the
things we have seen in the Parliament
Buildings in Toronto, we now realize that
the surest way to lose a job with The
Department of Public Welfare would be to
demonstrate lack of sympathy for those who
apply to that department for guidance or
assistance.
Perhaps no other aspect of man's develop-
ment over the passing years is more appar-
ent that his real concern for those less for-
tunate than himself. If there is any redeem-
ing feature for an age which has produced
a Hitler and a Stalin, this new sense of
public responsibility must be that saving
grace. We note with deep satisfaction that
this growth of human compassion has been
most active in the 15 years immediately
behind us.
This quotation referred particularly to The
Department of Public Welfare. I am sure that
all hon. members of the House would concur
with what was said, and we would think of
the hon. Minister of that department and the
very able Deputy Minister, Mr. Jim Band.
What has been said about the offices of this
department will apply, I think all will agree,
646
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the civil servants of all the other depart-
ments.
Again this year, the Legislature meets here
to conduct the annual business of the prov-
ince, and to endeavour to advance the well-
being of Ontario citizens. It is evident from
the remarks of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and some of the other hon. speakers that
the federal election campaign of the present
time is distracting them constantly. They have
their minds upon the political welfare of their
friends in the Dominion field.
On 3 occasions, in the earlier years of our
history, the Legislature adjourned during fed-
eral election campaigns. In 1887 the Ontario
House met, heard the speech from the Throne,
and then adjourned until after the Dominion
election day. This was the course followed in
1891, as well. In each case the Conservative
leader of the Opposition, Mr. Meredith, ob-
jected to this course and said the Legislature
should carry on with the province's business.
In each case, when the Legislature recon-
vened, however, Mr. Meredith was able to
express his satisfaction that the Liberal admin-
istrators had failed in their electioneering
attempts.
In one of those years, some of the members
from eastern Ontario were detained on their
trip to Toronto by reason of heavy snow-
storms. One of them, Mr. Evantwel, was to
second the reply to the Throne speech, and
Mr. Meredith said he supposed this member
had been busy trying to collect the dead and
wounded in his section of the province.
In 1874, the Ontario House finished the
Throne speech debate and some other business
before recessing for the federal vote. In 1940,
when the election called by Mr. Mackenzie
King was held March 28, the session of this
House was over, having lasted from January
11 to February 26.
These are the precedents, and I think the
people of the province will applaud the differ-
ent decision of our hon. Prime Minister that
we should carry out our duties to the people
of Ontario by meeting here and diligently
acting upon the business brought before us,
during this particular time.
There are a few matters on which I wish
to speak, but first may I express appreciation
to the Speaker and the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Nickle) for the new chairs pro-
vided for the hon. members' desks in this
House. They replace chairs which may indeed
have been 100 years old.
The photographs of the first Legislature of
Ontario after Confederation, in the old Parlia-
ment Buildings on Front Street, show chairs
of at least the same design, and the desks,
too, are the same. The records of 1892 and
other years in that period suggest that the
desks and chairs were indeed brought here
from the former building, and I have heard it
said that the same applies to the clock on
the north wall. It can hardly be said that
the province has been put to great expense
over the years for replacements. The other
day the hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Fishleigh) suggested a new kind of drapery
for the windows; I think it is of interest to
note that the various window drapes, and the
ones in the gallery openings, were placed
there soon after this building was opened be-
cause of the acoustical difficulties encountered
in this chamber, which is 4 times the size of
the old one.
Now that we have the efficient public ad-
dress system to which the hon. member also
referred, this necessity would seem to have
disappeared.
I wish to speak of the tourist business for
just a moment. Recent reports by The
Department of Economics show that Muskoka
district has the greatest amount of accommo-
dation in tourist resort establishment of any
county or district in the province of Ontario,
and indeed our entire economy is based upon
the tourist business.
In these days, we see a continuing growth
of population in this province, and other
jurisdictions on the continent. There will be
a continuing growth of travel business, but
we must remember that this business is
highly competitive. Even now, Canadians
are spending more in the United States for
holidays than Americans coming here, and as
in other matters of trade we should be
anxious to do all we can to reverse such a
situation.
The Department of Travel and Publicity
is to be commended for their programme of
the past year. I am sure hon. members
approved of the Ontario supplement
published by the New York Times— which
provided comprehensive data and descriptions
of our great province.
At the same time, I speak for the people
of my area in urging upon the government
an even greater publicity programme inviting
those from afar to visit this beautiful
province for holidays. I am glad this can be
made possible with this year's substantial
increase in estimates.
In the future, the tourist establishment
business will grow to a tremendous degree,
and we should all be concerned that visitors
to Ontario should be able to enjoy modern
accommodation of good standard.
MARCH 7, 1958
647
Resort owners in large number need
financial assistance greater than they can get
today to improve their properties. They do
not ask for gifts but for a better rating than
they have. There is no question of seeking
capital to begin new resorts. It has been
stated that this is an industry that runs for
only a few months and therefore is not
stable enough for improvement loans. I can
hardly agree with this viewpoint, because the
operators have put many thousands of dollars
into their establishments.
This matter is very well known to hon.
members of this House, especially in the
northern part of the province. We have
heard about it different times this particular
week and I bring it again to the attention of
the hon. Minister (Mr. Cathcart) in the hope
that some plan may be worked out whereby
those engaged in what is an important
industry in this province will be given a
better status to enable them to borrow as
they may need to do to improve accommo-
dation.
Mr. Speaker, the significance of tourism
in the economy of this province simply can-
not be stressed too highly. The other day
I said that the travel industry ranked fifth
among the 5 basic economies of Ontario.
The gross value of production in manufactur-
ing and industry is now $10.7 billion;
agriculture over $1 billion; minerals now up
to a record $739 million; forest products
$625 million, and travel is now said to be
$300 million.
Yet take tourism out of the picture entirely,
and all other industries and all parts of
Ontario would suffer, especially agriculture.
We have the opinion of Professor L. Dudley
Stamp, of London University, recently quoted
by The Winnipeg Tribune.
Tourism is the most important industry
today without any exception whatever. It
employs more people and has a larger
turnover of money than any other.
Now we have proposed improved credit
standing for established tourist resort estab-
lishments, either through a guaranteed loan
or a revolving fund. Such a fund can be
compared to the home improvement loans,
but would be for the purpose of improving
accommodation for visitors to our province.
The position is that we have excellent
publicity for travel in and through Ontario
by the department concerned under its able
hon. Minister. We have a fine inspection
service and the inspectors are all more like
promoters for the tourist industry. What
we should make certain is that the plant—
the accommodation available— is of the best
possible. Great camps demand this.
I want to pay high tribute, however, to
those resorts which have done their best to
make their establishments increasingly com-
fortable and attractive— and they are many
indeed.
On the subject of a revolving fund, I notice
that the 3 Toronto dailies have commented
favourably on the establishment improvement
loan proposal, and no doubt in time we
will have similar approval from other Ontario
newspapers.
I would like to refer to the establishment of
a new provincial institution of interest to the
district of Muskoka and to the province gen-
erally. On October 21, I was honoured to be
one of those taking part in the opening cere-
monies for the first course for municipal fire
fighters held at the new Ontario fire college
at Gravenhurst. The Hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) referred to this new provincial
institution when he spoke earlier this week.
The Ontario fire marshal and his staff con-
ducted this initial course at the new college
property, and the newly-renovated lecture hall
and the grounds were used for a week's study
as to methods for combatting atomic fires—
the first such course given in Canada. The
necessity for this kind of study is an illustra-
tion of the problems which the atomic age
has brought upon us.
Other buildings on the college property are
being remodelled so that courses can be
resumed this spring, and it is planned to have
the official opening of the whole institution at
a time which will coincide with the meeting
in Ontario of the Canadian Fire Marshals'
Association.
The decision of the government to establish
the fire college at its Muskoka location was
taken on August 14. It is significant that this
is the first fire college in Canada. It has been
operating in Toronto on a limited basis, giving
courses from time to time to municipal fire-
men, until the time when the college could
be set up on a more permanent basis, with
adequate buildings, and grounds for field in-
struction. It was previously necessary for those
who were to have a high standard of efficiency
in fire-fighting to go to schools in the United
States, principally at Norfolk, Virginia.
Those who will be attending the college,
from the nearly 500 municipal fire depart-
ments in Ontario, will have the advantage of
an attractive site, with commodious buildings
for their accommodation and for instruction
648
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
classes, with ample grounds for training pur-
poses, and with a shoreline on beautiful Mus-
koka Bay on Lake Muskoka for recreation.
The Gravenhurst location is central in the
province, and well served by transportation
routes. The site is a property formerly owned
by the National Sanitarium Association. The
buildings were formerly used for accommoda-
tion of the hospital staff, and include a
3-storey dormitory building, a recreation hall
which now will be used for lectures, and resi-
dences. These buildings and other facilities
on a 120-acre property are ideal for the pur-
pose.
In making the announcement about the fire
college last August, the hon. Prime Minister
said it would be the latest step in tying to-
gether all the fire-fighting techniques in On-
tario. In this respect, this province has made
important advances in recent years in the
modernization of municipal fire-fighting serv-
ices. Standardization of hose threads through-
out all of the province was one of the big
undertakings in this respect. More recently
we have had the development of mutual fire
aid, based on county and district areas.
With reference to the fire college, I should
mention very particularly the interest which
the hon. Attorney-General is taking in this
project. He has been a visitor at the property
and is well acquainted with the advantages of
the location, and is keenly interested in the
programme to be carried out there.
Also the Ontario fire marshal, Mr. William
J. Scott, Q.C., a member of the Attorney-
General's Department, has been giving de-
voted leadership in all of the programmes
benefitting the cause of fire protection in the
province.
The advanced training to be given at the
fire college during each spring, summer and
fall has similarly brought forth his enthusiastic
attention to the tasks involved in arranging
for these courses at the fire college. Mr.
Ernest Barrett is the director of the college
and has with him a competent administration
and instruction staff.
In this matter, Ontario again takes leader-
ship in Canada, and this college will prove
its importance in providing a greater degree
of efficiency in fighting that great enemy of
life and property, fire.
There are matters of which I would like
to speak which concern other forms of safety.
The speech from the Throne refers to major
steps which have been initiated to improve
Ontario's traffic situation, these being the
responsibility of The Department of Transport
and The Department of the Attorney-General.
The efforts which have been made in the past
few years, for the protection of people and
property on roads and highways, deserve com-
mendation, and later in the session there will
be opportunity to learn more of the pro-
gramme planned.
Safety in the out-of-doors is yet another
important matter. It seems that each year,
in hunting season, there are individuals or
groups who become lost and who go through
experiences, in some cases, which are harrow-
ing.
Then again, the hearts of people in all
parts of the province were touched by the
tragic deaths of two Toronto teen-agers,
Robert Petersen and James Duffy, which oc-
curred in bush country in Muskoka in the
icy and driving wind of a February week-end.
What happened to cause the untimely deaths
of the two boys will be established in due
course by a coroner's jury.
In the light of published reports, a sug-
gestion has been made here, however, that
a booklet be prepared by one of our govern-
ment departments, dealing with precautions
to be taken for survival in case of becoming
lost in unsettled areas during extreme weather
conditions. The Department of Lands and
Forests issues rules or suggestions for such
a purpose with respect to hunters. The
proposition is that such a booklet be distribu-
ted among youth groups.
No doubt there is a lack in many organiza-
tions of this kind of information, but it should
be mentioned that such information already
is available and is acted upon by the Boy
Scout and Girl Guide movements. Other
bodies issue books or give training for those
of older years who are engaged in activity
where such knowledge might, on occasion,
be required, and we think of airmen in that
connection.
Far from the recent tragedy having the
effect of discouraging young people from
going into the bush and learning the ways
of outdoor life, there should be more such
out-of-doors training. Skill of this kind of
bushcraft can be valuable at any time. Civil
defence authorities tell us of the importance
for the public in general, and particularly
those in urban communities, to learn and
understand sufficiently to be able to act upon
the rules for survival under all conditions.
Another question of importance to the
district I have the honour to represent, and
to several other parts of Ontario, is the matter
of water safety, especially with respect to
operation of motor craft.
The great increase in the numbers of
pleasure boats over recent years on our lakes
MARCH 7, 1958
649
and streams has brought conditions which
have caused many to question whether some-
thing more should be done to give greater
safety for those using the waters— not only
for the benefit of boat operators but also
swimmers.
Is it advisable to lay down new rules and
regulations? Would a system of licencing
boat operators in the same manner as motor
vehicle drivers are licenced improve the situa-
tion? Answers to questions like these take
a variety of forms and there are real
differences of opinion.
The legislation in this matter is federal,
and the regulations of The Canada Shipping
Act appear to be sufficient to deal with most
of the dangerous practices which may appear.
These regulations require, for instance, that
all kinds of craft carry lights when operated
at night. Legislation also exists for the
protection of smaller boats from the waves
created by speeding motor boats, as if
simple courtesy and thoughtfulness were not
sufficient in this respect.
Perhaps recent developments may call for
certain changes. It should be made clear
that two persons should be in a boat towing
a water skier, for instance, one to watch
the skier the other to drive and watch the
water ahead, and perhaps there is a lack in
legislation in that respect.
If the legislation is ample, or nearly so,
there are difficulties in the matter of enforce-
ment. Up until the summer of 1956, the
only police who could act upon this federal
legislation were the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. If a provincial officer or a municipal
constable wished to lay a charge, he had to
arrange with a Royal Canadian Mounted
Police officer, who often was at some distance
away, to take the information, and enter the
charge.
On one of his visits to Muskoka, I was
able to point this out to the hon. Attorney-
General, and I am glad to say that he took
action in this matter, made representations
to Ottawa, and as a result was able to obtain
a ruling which made it possible for the
provincial and any municipal police to lay
information under the Canada Shipping Act
regulations governing operation of small craft.
Even so, it is not possible for all of the
police officers concerned to try to regulate
boat traffic, for in Muskoka district alone
there are said to be 30,000 power boats, and
in the Ontario Provincial Police Barrie district
which includes Muskoka there is an estimated
total of 70,000.
In this area there are few mounted police
officers; there are none located in Muskoka,
and where charges are laid for dangerous
operation of a motar boat, the work of
investigation generally has fallen upon
provincial officers, the expenses are met by
the province but the fine if any goes to the
federal treasury.
I believe it is to the credit of the province
that the need for some form of protection
in the enforcement of federal regulations has
been seen, and some attempt is being made
to meet the situation.
Just as the number of accidents on the
highways is the result of increasing vehicle
traffic, so the number of accidents on the
water is the result of the increase in boating.
Just as enforcement of traffic rules on the
highways by adequate police protection has
its effect in reducing accidents, so the question
of water safety calls for greater enforcement
of the regulations.
There are several Ontario Provincial Police
Patrol boats on inland waterways. While I
believe their original purpose was not particu-
larly for the purpose of enforcing the federal
small boats legislation, it should be evident
that they are doing so to some extent, and
they serve a good purpose by doing so.
At the same time, the large summer
population in the resort areas makes it
impossible for the Ontario provincial police
officers available to maintain a steady patrol.
The summer season brings many additional
duties to the police officers in these areas,
and the water patrol cannot always be car-
ried out.
I do not know how the matter might be
separated out from The British North
America Act's division of federal and provin-
cial responsibilities, but in this matter it
would be better if the province had full
control of the situation. The Canada Ship-
ping Act regulations must cover boating in
all parts of Canada, from the ocean coastal
areas to inland streams and rivers. A
province knows its own problems and can
legislate more particularly to meet local
conditions. As it is, the province is called
upon to provide police to carry out what
enforcement there is and yet any revenue
from fines escapes us.
There is this further question. Would it
be desirable to licence boat operators? I
have not much enthusiasm— in fact, I have no
enthusiasm-for this proposition, but I can
see that the main advantage in giving a
permit to a driver would be the test which
he or she would be obliged to take, which
650
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would give an opportunity for instruction in
the Rules of the Road for Boats.
One of the largest organizations of sum-
mer residents in Muskoka is the Muskoka
Lakes Association, with a history of service
going back over 60 years. The question of
licencing boat operators was debated at their
annual meeting last August, but the members
did not take a definite stand, and instead,
decided to investigate the possibilities of boat
driving schools being set up under proper
authority.
I would suggest that those who have been
involved in accidents in recent seasons
generally have been the kind of persons to
whom licences or driving permits would
have been given, for they would likely have
passed the tests which would be required.
The test, it is true, might have had a salu-
tary effect in impressing many drivers with
the need for safe driving, but on the other
hand I believe it can be questioned whether
licencing, a costly system to set up and
enforce, would very substantially reduce boat
accidents. It is not accidents alone that cause
concern, but the irresponsible manner in
which some boats are operated.
To sum up, I believe the situation calls
for greater education of those who will be
using boats as to water safety rules, which
are included in the booklet Rules of the
Road for Boats, issued by The Canada
Department of Transport — together with a
greater degree of law enforcement on the
waters.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr.
Speaker, I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the adjournment of
the House, I would say that when we resume
on Monday, there will be bills and items
from the order, and I take it, the resump-
tion of the debate with the possibility that
there will be at least one department esti-
mates made available.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Has the hon. Attorney-General any idea
what department it will be?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I will try and get that
information for the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion in a few moments and give it to him in
his office.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.05 of the clock
p.m.
No. 28
ONTARIO
Legislature of Ontario
Bebates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, March 10, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 10, 1958
Report, commissioners of estate bills: 653
Report, standing committee on labour, Mr. Morningstar 653
Diversion of certain waters into the Winnipeg River, bill respecting,
Mr. Connell, first reading 654
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 654
Estimates, Department of Mines, Mr. Spooner 655
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to , 679
65a
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, March 10, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
clerk had received from the commissioners of
estate bills their report in the following case:
Bill No. 3, An Act respecting St. Peter's
Church, Brockville.
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice Lebel
The Honourable Mr. Justice McGillivray
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1
March 6, 1958
Roderick Lewis, esq., q.c,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Re: Private Bill No. 3, An Act respecting St. Peter's
Church, Brockville.
Dear Sir:
The undersigned, as commissioners of estate bills
as provided by The Legislative Act, RSO 1950,
chapter 202, section 57, having had the said bill
referred to us as such commissioners, now beg to
report thereon.
It appears, from the petition filed herein and from
the information disclosed on the hearing before us,
that an alteration is necessary to clarify certain words
in the recital of the bill; and that an amendment
to paragraph 4 of the bill is necessary to assure that
trust funds, arising from the sale of the lands in
question, will be applied for the same purposes and
for the benefit of the same persons as directed by the
original deed of the said lands.
Your commissioners accordingly recommend as
follows:
1. That immediately following the word "rectory"
in line 13 of the preamble to the said bill, there be
inserted the following words: "situated on the said
lands" so that the preamble, as amended, will read
as follows:
Whereas the rector and wardens of St. Peter's
Church, Brockville, by their petition have repre-
sented that, under and by virtue of a deed bear-
ing date of September 6, 1852, from Mary Eliza-
beth Jones, the lands and premises referred to in
section 1 were vested in the Right Reverend John,
Lord Bishop of Toronto, in trust, to hold the same
forever to and for the benefit of the rector for the
time being of St. Peter's Church, Brockville; that
by section 4 of an Act incorporating the synod of
the diocese of Ontario, being chapter 86 of the
statutes of the province of Canada, 1862, the sub-
ject lands became vested in the incorporated synod
of the diocese of Ontario; that it is onerous and
impractical to maintain and keep the rectory
situated on the said lands; and that it is desirable
that the vestry of St. Peter's Church, Brockville,
be enabled to sell such lands and premises with the
consent of the bishop of Ontario and the executive
committee of the incorporated synod of the diocese
of Ontario; and whereas the petitioners have prayed
for special legislation to authorize the sale of such
lands and premises; and whereas the vestry of St.
Peter's Church, Brockville, the bishop of Ontario
and the executive committee of the incorporated
synod of the diocese of Ontario have consented to
this petition; and whereas it is expedient to grant
the prayer of the petition;
2. That paragraph 4 be amended by striking out
in the last line the words "for St. Peter's Church,
Brockville" and inserting in place thereof the words
"for the benefit of the rector for the time being of
St. Peter's Church, Brockville, with the right to use
such proceeds, or any portion thereof, to provide a
rectory for the said church."
Paragraph 4, as amended, will read as follows:
After payment of the expenses of obtaining this
Act, and of all proper and reasonable costs, charges
and expenses of effecting and carrying out such
sale or sales, the incorporated synod of the diocese
of Ontario shall hold the net proceeds thereof in
trust for the benefit of the rector for the time being
of St. Peter's Church, Brockville, with the right
to use such proceeds, or any portion thereof, to
provide a rectory for the said church.
We are of the opinion that the provisions of the
bill, as above amended, are proper for carrying its
purposes into effect, and it is reasonable that the
said bill, as above amended, do pass into law.
The bill, duly signed by the commissioners, and
the petition therefor, are accordingly returned here-
with.
We have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servants,
( signed )
A. W. Lebel, j.a.
G. A. McGillivray, j.a.
Commissioners of estate bills.
Mr. Speaker: The bill, together with the
report of the commissioners of estate bills
thereon, will be referred to the standing com-
mittee on private bills.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. E. P. Morningstar,
from the standing committee on labour, pres-
ents the committee's report and moves its
adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment.
Bill No. 92, An Act to amend The Work-
men's Compensation Act.
Bill No. 93, An Act to amend The Labour
Relations Act.
Motion agreed to. t
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
654
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
DIVERSION OF WATERS INTO THE
WINNIPEG RIVER
Hon. R. Connell moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to authorize the govern-
ment of Ontario and the Hydro Electric
Power Commission of Ontario to enter into
an agreement with the government of Mani-
toba and the Manitoba Hydro Electric Board
respecting the diversion of certain waters into
the Winnipeg River and the power generated
from such waters."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
Report of the board of governors of the
University of Toronto for the year ended
June 30, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, may I
say that a year ago it was our pleasure in
this House to extend congratulations to the
runner-up, the Canadians, loser of the games
overseas, and at that time to congratulate the
winners and all of those who had partici-
pated. At that time I think we were good
losers.
On this occasion, I think we want to be
equally good winners. We want to congratu-
late the winning hockey team, the Whitby
Dunlops, on their great showing, and to con-
gratulate the runner-up, and also those who
participated, with the earnest hope that these
games will contribute to understanding and
good will in the world.
Yesterday I caused a telegram to be sent
to Mr. Blair, the manager of the Whitby
Dunlops, which read:
Hearty congratulations. All Canada
thrilled with prdde at your victory and
the fame of canada rings around the
WORLD.
I am sure this expresses the views and the
wishes of us all. This is a great victory. On
the other hand, had the Whitby Dunlops
lost, we would still congratulate them for
their fine sportsmanship and for the way they
have carried high the good name of our
country which we hope, as I say, will con-
tribute to good feeling.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I share of course the
good wishes of the hon. Prime Minister in
congratulating the Whitby Dunlop team on
their great victory overseas. It is a victory
not only for Canada, but for amateur sport
generally.
Sometimes I think we tend somewhat to
overestimate the value of amateur sport, but
in this particular sense, it is an indication of
what amateur sport can do, and I hope that
the victory overseas of this great team will
transplant, into the minds of Canadians gen-
erally, the value of amateur sport and what
it can do for the young people of this country.
Mr. T. D. Thomas ( Oshawa ) : Mr. Speaker,
I would like to join the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. leader of the Opposition in
expressing the great unanimity of feeling on
this occasion. Whitby, Mr. Speaker— part of
it, anyway, or a small portion of it— south of
highway No. 401 is in my riding. Naturally,
I would be interested, but on the other
hand too, I am very much interested because
some of the players on the team are Oshawa
boys.
We are very proud of the team. I feel
that we would like to join the hon. Prime
Minister in supporting his sending of the
telegram to the Whitby team.
I agree with him that, although it was
important that we win, I think the most
important thing is the creation of a better
understanding between the east and the west,
and if they have accomplished that, then I
think they have done two fine things, in
winning for Canada the international trophy
and creating a better understanding between
Russia and our own country.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Mr. Speaker, I had intended
to mention this matter today, but when the
hon. Prime Minister mentioned it, I felt the
subject was covered very adequately.
Speaking on my own behalf, however, I
would like to join with those who commended
the team, but more on a local basis, because
this team is, after all, from my riding. Whitby
is the county seat of the county which I
have the honour to represent.
Now this team, the winners of the Allan
Cup, last year, first started out under some-
thing of a handicap. At the beginning of
that season, I think all of their followers saw
in them great possibilities, but some saw even
greater possibilities, and believed from the
very start that here was a team of cham-
pions and, clinging tenaciously to that faith,
they backed them every inch of the way.
The slogan which they developed for the
team has become something of the nature of
a war cry or a battle cry, "Go Dunnies Go!"
MARCH 10, 1958
655
a cry that resounded not only across the
length and breadth of Canada and indeed
this continent, but now all around the world.
I saw the team play their last game on
their home ice on January 27, and at that
time, speaking on behalf of this government,
I had the honour to present them with
a very small donation towards their expenses.
I said that, although I was very much
impressed with their skill as hockey players,
I believed that they were taking on an even
larger assignment than playing a game. On
going to other continents they were going
in something of the nature of ambassadors
of Canada, and this they have done, I think,
with as equally great a skill as they have
shown on the ice.
Their home town and community today is
extremely proud of them, as I am quite sure
we are in this province and this nation. I
think it is very fitting indeed that some
record of their achievement should be writ-
ten into the official records of this House.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome a number of students
who are present today to watch the pro-
cedures of the House. They include students
from the George T. Mackie school, Scar-
borough, from the North Agincourt public
school, Scarborough, and from R. H. Mc-
Gregor school in this city.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that the hon. members of the House would
want me to extend to the hon. member for
Lambton East (Mr. Janes) our sincere sym-
pathy in the great bereavement he has sus-
tained in the loss of his wife. Mrs. Janes
was very well known to all of us, and we
exceedingly regret her passing, and we ex-
tend to her husband the hon. member for
Lambton East, our deepest sympathy.
Mr. Speaker, as you know there is this
evening the customary government dinner for
the press, and I would like to adjourn, if
it is possible, around 5.30 p.m. or sooner
if we possibly can. But that, of course, is
dependent upon the estimates that we will
be considering.
Concerning night sessions, I think perhaps
it would be well if I state this now. It will not
be possible to hold a night session on Thurs-
day or next Monday, March 17, a week from
today. If possible, I would like to hold night
sessions tomorrow night and on Wednesday
night.
Now possibly, on Thursday, we could com-
mence at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
Tomorrow, I should like to have the esti-
mates of The Department of Public Welfare
in the afternoon and The Department of
Public Works in the evening. That is on
Tuesday. On Wednesday, we will probably
take the estimates of The Department of
Reform Institutions, and then spend the
balance of the time on the budget debate.
We could take the Reform Institutions esti-
mates at night and have the budget debate
in the afternoon, but we can arrange that as
we approach Wednesday. That will take care
of those two days, and I will give the House
particulars for the balance of the week.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply, Mr. H. M. Allen in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines): Mr.
Chairman, in presenting the estimates of The
Department of Mines for the coming year, I
would like to draw the attention of the hon.
members to some of the very great advances
that have been made by the mining industry
since the department's estimates were con-
sidered a year ago.
During the calender year 1957, the mines
of this province attained a total production of
about $740 million. This is only the prelim-
inary estimate compiled by the Dominion
bureau of statistics, and when the final returns
based on more complete information are avail-
able, the total will be so greatly augmented
that it will almost certainly reflect an increase
of a full $100 million over the previous
record established in 1956.
Early in this session, I introduced in this
House a report of the department covering
the year 1957, and I recommended then that
it be retained for reference by the hon. mem-
bers. I refer now to a graph on page 2 of the
report, which I think tells more clearly than
words of mine just how great, how constant,
has been the increase in the productivity of
our mines during the last quarter-century.
It was only 25 years ago, in 1932, that the
entire mineral production of Ontario totalled
about $90 million less than the increase of
1957 over the previous all-time record high.
Since 1945, that is in a space of only 12 years,
the annual production has spiralled from
$190 million to 4 times that figure.
Last year saw the completion of all the
necessary and costly preparatory work at 9
mines throughout the province, and these
656
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are now adding their output to the national
and provincial economy. Of these 9 mines,
6 are uranium producers— 2 in the Bancroft
area and the other 4 at Elliot Lake. Three
copper mines, 2 at Manitouwadge and the
other at Cashabowie in the far western part
of the province, also got into production
during the year.
All together, in Ontario in 1957, there were
about 85 mines of one kind or another in
production. Some of these, of course, were
not independent operations but rather a part
of a major overall development. However,
they are tabulated, and in total they repre-
sent a truly gigantic industrial complex.
Taking a somewhat longer view of the
situation, a feature that is even more encour-
aging than the number of new mines in pro-
duction, or the overall total of mining opera-
tions, is the large number of mining
enterprises that are proceeding with develop-
ment work in preparation for an early start in
their productive operation.
At the end of 1957, there were 20 mines
throughout Ontario preparing to come into
production, and more than half of them will
most certainly be producing before the end
of this year. Five of the 20 are uranium
mines in the Elliot Lake area, and another
will produce uranium in the Bancroft field.
In the Sudbury district, 5 separate nickel and
copper mines are being prepared for produc-
tion.
I must add though, Mr. Chairman, that on
the other side of the coin the picture is not
so bright. In 1957 we saw operations sus-
pended at 24 mines in Ontario. I would hasten
to add, though, that the situation leading to
the close-downs was not as serious as it might
appear on the surface. To begin with, 5 of
the affected mines were relatively small
operations in the Cobalt camp. Because of
the situation peculiar to the industry in that
particular area, it is not at all unusual to see
mines close for a relatively short period and
then reopen again with renewed vigour.
The fact, too, that the contract with the
Canadian government, for the sale of cobalt,
has expired has certainly had a depressing
effect on the mines of that area.
Of the remaining 19 mine closures, there
were 12 that were only in the development
stage, and work was suspended before actual
production could be started. In nearly every
case these were copper properties and the
close-down was brought about by simple
mathematics. The market price of copper fell
off so badly during the year that the mine
managements decided that continued opera-
tions under the circumstances just would not
be warranted.
I think that one need not be an in-
veterate optimist to believe that the current
market condition is a temporary and passing
phase, and that when the price is restored
to a normal level, operations at most of these
mines will be resumed, with great benefit to
the province and to the entire nation.
The mining industry of this province gives
employment to nearly 60,000 people. These
are the ones who are directly employed in
mining operations. It would be impossible
to estimate the number of thousands of others
who are engaged in fabrication, or other
forms of manufacturing, which could be
termed secondary steps in the development
of our mineral resources.
Mr. Chairman, the mining industry is one
of the giants of Ontario's economy, and I am
proud to be the administrative head of the
department of our government that is respon-
sible for the overall general supervision of
this great industrial complex. The establish-
ment of any mining enterprise is not a project
to be entered into lightly, the simplest opera-
tion is an immensely complicated business,
and from the point of view of dollars and
cents there is no such thing as a small mine.
In most cases, hundreds of thousands of
dollars must be spent on exploratory and
development work before the first ore is
brought to the surface. May I quote one out-
standing example, the Elliot Lake uranium
range. At a fairly conservative estimate it can
be said that the mines in this area have
spent $315 million in bringing the plants into
production.
It is perhaps fortunate that the government
does not have to concern itself directly with
the raising of funds for the development of
the mining industry, but I feel that any gov-
ernment support for the private enterprises
which can be given through the operations
of The Department of Mines is, in a sense,
direct support for our whole way of life and
the economy that makes that way of life
possible.
We must recognize that the mining in-
dustry itself defrays the cost of government
assistance to it. That is to say, the charges
levied against the industry, in the form of
taxes on profits and fees for licences, leases,
mining permits, and so on, more than defray
the whole operating costs of the department.
That, of course, is as it should be. It has
always been the policy in this province that
revenues collected from the mining industry
be commensurate with the profits of the in-
MARCH 10, 1958
657
dustry. That is, a fair balance should be
struck between the interest of all the people
of Ontario, who after all are the original
owners of the lands from which the minerals
are extracted, and the great investment of
capital and knowledge made by those who
recover the natural wealth.
In the budget speech a year ago, a forecast
was made that the department's total ordinary
revenue would amount to $17,591 million for
the fiscal year ending March 31 of this year.
This estimate was about $8 million higher
than the actual revenue for the previous fiscal
year, and unfortunately subsequent events
have proved that it erred on the side of
optimism. The present estimate of revenue
for the year ending March 31, 1958, gives the
revenue for this year as $11,109 million.
This is greater by about $2 million than
it has ever been before.
I should like to interject a word of explana-
tion now as to the reason that the year's
revenue was less than had been expected.
The difference can be accounted for by
serious depreciation in the price of copper
and some other base metals, of which I
spoke a few minutes ago, and the unfore-
seen delays in the opening of some uranium
mines and the greatly increased cost of min-
ing operations.
It is obvious that these factors would
result in a reduced profit, and that the
reduced profit would be reflected in a re-
duced profit tax.
As I said earlier, there is every expecta-
tion that the setback in price, which has had
so adverse an effect on the industry, is a
temporary one only. That expectation, how-
ever, has not been allowed to affect our
estimates of the revenue which the depart-
ment expects in the fiscal year 1958-1959.
In that period, we are budgeting for receipts
totalling $15,651 million.
This estimate is based largely on the
anticipated profits and the corresponding
taxes of the uranium mines which are now
in production, or will be in production early
this year.
The original estimate of ordinary expen-
diture in the current fiscal year was for $1,562
million. It appears now that this might be
scaled down by nearly $100,000 to $1,464
million. However, since the appropriations
of the Ontario fuel board were turned over
to The Department of Mines, the total ex-
penditures for the department for the pres-
ent fiscal year will show on the statement
as about $1,620 million. For the year begin-
ning next April 1, we are estimating that
expenditures will total $1,758 million.
The main office of The Department of
Mines is the centre of the administrative
services. It handles all operations that are
not otherwise allocated to specific branches,
including accounts in mine assessment, pub-
lications and publicity. Included in the main
office vote are the cost of operating the office
of the mining commissioner. The commis-
sioner fulfils a unique function in the gov-
ernment.
The hon. members will recall, Mr. Chair-
man, that the mining court was dissolved two
years ago, and in its place the office of the
mining commissioner was established to ad-
judicate disputes with a minimum of for-
mality and expense. During the calendar
year 1957, there were nearly 2,000 orders
and judgments issued by the commissioner.
The total for all main office expenditure for
the year 1958-1959 is estimated at $492,000.
This sum is covered in vote 1,101.
Individually, and as a group, the depart-
ment's staff of geologists perform a service
vital to prospectors and to the whole mining
industry. The provincial geologist staff now
consists of the assistant provincial geologist,
5 geologists stationed at Toronto and resi-
dent geologists at Cobalt, Swastika and Port
Arthur, with an acting resident geologist at
Kenora. Arrangements have been made to fill
one vacancy that now exists on the Toronto
staff, and additionally this year it is hoped
that the office at Timmins, which is now
vacant, may be filled, and that a permanent
appointment may be made at Kenora.
Provided that office space becomes avail-
able, it will be most desirable to add 3
additional qualified geologists to the Toronto
staff. Each year these staff geologists, and a
number of equally well qualified men, lead
field parties into strategic areas of the prov-
ince to map and report on the geology there.
These reports are subsequently published
and, together, they form a comprehensive
library of the known geology of a great part
of Ontario.
Apart from the leaders, the personnel of
the field parties is made up principally of
students of geological science at Canadian
universities. As there is always keen com-
petition to acquire the services of these
students, it is not always possible to have
as many parties in the field as we would like.
During last year's field season, we had
11 parties at work in various parts of the
province. Because of a scarcity of suitable
personnel, this was considerably less than the
658
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
usual season's work, but we hope that, in the
field season of 1958, it will be possible to send
out 14 parties. Of these, 4 will be engaged
in southern Ontario. There will be one party
at work in the Blind River area, and two in
the vicinity of Sudbury. One party will be
sent to the Timmins district and another will
be at work south of Kapuskasing. There will
be another working north of Espanola, an-
other along the north shore of Lake Superior,
and 3 west of Port Arthur.
The cost of maintaining these field parties
is estimated at $140,000, and is included in
vote 1,102.
In recent years, the use of geophysical
methods of prospecting has been greatly in-
creased. While it is not my intention now
to go into a long explanation of the modus
operandi, I would like to point out that a
plane flying with instruments, at a given
height, may disclose anomalies which can
assist in the interpretation of geological con-
ditions over a very great area of land in a
much shorter time than would be possible
for a party travelling afoot.
The aeromagnetic survey gives basic infor-
mation which must eventually be correlated
to the events on the ground, but the air
survey gives the strongest possible indication
of just where that work should be done.
This year, we are carrying out an areo-
magnetic survey in the Cochrane district. I
might point out in passing, that it was as a
result of such a survey conducted in 1949 that
work was undertaken to bring the iron mine
at Marmora into production.
Another service of the geological branch
has become a tradition in Ontario. Each year,
in a number of strategically located communi-
ties, government geologists conduct week-long
classes for prospectors. The interest in these
classes has been maintained at a very high
level, and I think there can be no question
but that the interest in prospecting and min-
ing matters, generally engendered by them,
has had a highly beneficial effect on the min-
ing industry in this province.
Relatively, this programme of classes is very
inexpensive. I have found it necessary to allot
only $6,000 for the work in the coming year.
The total estimate for the geological branch,
for the fiscal year 1958-1959, is $227,000,
covered by vote 1,102.
The mines inspection branch, made up
entirely of graduate engineers, with a suc-
cessful record in industry prior to their
employment by the department, is responsible
for supervising the actual operation of mines
in Ontario.
Engineers are stationed at various points in
the province convenient to the mining areas.
In accordance with the provisions of The
Mining Act, they check the working plans and
proposed equipment of new operations and
the maintenance of mine equipment, including
that used in shaft hoisting following its in-
stallation. Working conditions and the safety
of operations are under constant check.
The staff, under the direction of the chief
engineer of mines, now consists of an assistant
chief engineer and 3 other engineers in To-
ronto. There are 13 other engineers stationed
at outside points in the province. On February
1 of this year, a second engineer was stationed
at Elliot Lake to cover the uranium mines of
that area.
The investigation of accidents is another
function of the inspection branch. The
enormous expansion of the industry, during
the last few years, has provided a severe
test of safety measures and practices.
The accident rate in mines reflects the
excellent co-operation of the industry in the
interest of accident prevention, and bears
out our contention that Ontario has one of
the best and most workable Mining Acts in
the world.
The Department of Mines and the mining
industry have always recognized silicosis as
one of the hazards of mining. A great deal
of valuable work and research on methods
of eliminating the conditions, through which
the health of the miners is seriously affected
by the inhalation of silica dust, has been
accomplished by a number of agencies,
notably the Maclntyre Research Foundation.
It is essentially a long-term project, but the
results so far available indicate that very
real progress is being made.
Toward the end of 1957, the department
retained the services of Dr. John F. Patter-
son, a well-known specialist in respiratory
diseases, to make a complete independent
study of the full situation. It is confidently
expected that this will prove to be a real
contribution to the other work that is already
going on.
The inspection branch supervises and
directs the work of the mine rescue stations
which are strategically spotted in mining
areas throughout the province. Except for
the superintendent and a small full-time staff
at each station, they are manned by
employees of the mines. The full cost to the
government of operation is refunded by the
mining industry. There are now 8 rescue
stations and 15 sub-stations throughout the
province.
While, naturally, the hope is that these
mine rescue teams may never be called upon
MARCH 10, 1958
659
to prove their worth, miners in the mining
industry are very happy that they are at
hand in case they should be needed. They
stand in much the same position as the fire
department in a city. If they are needed at
all, they are needed urgently and immedi-
ately.
Training of mine personnel in rescue work
proceeds the year round in every mine in
the province. A competition is held every
year to select the most efficient team in the
province. The winning team, in 1957, repre-
sented Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited.
The estimated expenditure for all the
activities of the inspection branch, in the
coming year, is $166,000, appearing in vote
1,103.
Other very important services to the min-
ing industry are rendered to the department
through the operation of 3 laboratories. The
first of these is the provincial assay office in
Toronto, from which mining companies,
prospectors and others can receive scrupu-
lously accurate analyses of the mineral values
of samples they submit.
While there is a set scale of charges for
this work, the total revenue derived does not
begin to reflect the volume of analytical
work done by the laboratory.
The Mining Act provides that a stipulated
number of free assay coupons are given with
the recording of claims, completions of
assessment work, and on other occasions.
This provides a real incentive to prospectors
and claim owners to prove up the property.
During 1957, more than 4,000 routine assays
were made, and a considerable volume of
special work was performed by the provincial
assay laboratory. The estimate for this work
during the coming fiscal year is $66,000.
Our second laboratory is the Temiskaming
testing laboratory which has been operated
at Cobalt by The Department of Mines for
the last 36 years. It meets a very particular
need of the cobalt and silver mines of that
area, in providing facilities for bulk sampling
of the ores, and determining their market
values. Normally, the fees received from the
mines more than cover costs, although in
1957 there was a small deficit in operations.
The financial success of the operation in
the coming year will depend, to a large
extent, on the strength of the market for the
metal cobalt. Since the completion of the
contract with the general services administra-
tion of the United States on March 31 of last
year, mining of this material has dropped off
almost to zero. However, new markets are
being sought and it is to be hoped that a
revival of the industry will result.
Cost of operating the Temiskaming testing
laboratory, as shown in vote 1,104, during
the coming year, is estimated at $80,000.
There is one feature of our mine safety
programme that I should be very happy to
have any hon. member of this House see in
operation. I refer to our third laboratory, the
cable testing laboratory in the east block.
The Mining Act requires that lengths from
every cable that is used in mine hoisting, in
Ontario, must be tested here at semi-annual
intervals. The series of rigorous tests is cul-
minated when the cable is stretched in a
machine capable of exerting as much as 1
million pounds of tension. Tension is exerted
gradually, until the powerful cable snaps.
Since this is the only machine of its kind
in the British Commonwealth, and one of the
very few in the world, tests are frequently
made for mining companies and other in-
terests outside the province. The fees for the
test, although they are moderate, are suffi-
cient to insure a slight profit on operations
throughout the year.
The cost of operation for the next fiscal year
is estimated to be $43,000, and is covered
also by vote 1,104.
The cost of the operations of the sulphur
fumes arbitrator is defrayed entirely by the
companies with which his duties are con-
cerned. The expenditures of the department,
in this respect, are refunded by the companies
each calendar year.
In order to finance the operations for one
year from April 1 next, we are asking for an
advance of $20,000 which will be covered by
vote 1,105.
It is not expected that this amount will
cover all the costs for the coming fiscal year.
For, since the estimates were prepared, it
has been learned that a number of treatment
plants, other than nickel and iron smelters,
will be involved in the administration of The
Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act. It is pos-
sible that a Treasury board will be required
to cover costs for part of the year, and a bill
is presently before the House permitting the
assessment companies involved to a total of
not more than $30,000.
The mining lands branch, numerically the
largest branch in the department, is also res-
ponsible for a large part of the revenue paid
into the consolidated revenue fund by the
department. The activities of this branch are
covered in considerable detail in the report
which I mentioned earlier, and the estimated
cost of the operations for the year ahead
amount to $318,000.
660
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, during the last few years,
since natural gas began to come into general
use in the development of Ontario's industry,
and to become in general use by domestic
users, the Ontario fuel board has taken over
a very important place in the daily lives of a
great many of the people of this province.
Although the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines
Limited and the Northern Ontario Pipe Line
Corporation do not come so directly under
the purview of the fuel board, as do others,
since they are operating on a federal charter,
Ontario's interests are very directly involved
to the extent of some $35 million of provin-
cial government investment in them.
Moreover, there is gas at both ends of the
Trans-Canada line, the source of supply in
the west and billions of cubic feet in storage
space in former producing wells in south-
western Ontario.
The board does enter into this picture in
a direct way, as its authority is complete in
connection with the operation and construc-
tion of gas lines built by companies operating
on a provincial charter.
It is a very large field in which the board
operates, and as would be expected in a work
of this magnitude, certain difficulties do arise
from time to time. Because it is necessary
for the several companies to deal with large
numbers of individuals, over whose land the
transmission lines have to pass, it is inevitable
that there should be some differences of
opinion as to the actual value of the land, the
fair and correct assessment of any damages
resulting, and an equitable settlement with
the land owner concerned.
I would say that the number and serious-
ness of these disagreements has been greatly
over-emphasized. Now, we in the depart-
ment are planning new legislation to streng-
then the powers of the board, and to improve
the methods of settling disputes. Conferences
are now being held by interested parties and
organizations, such as the Ontario Federa-
tion of Agriculture, gas distributors and
others, with a view to presenting legislation
at this session of the House.
The Ontario Fuel Board Act of 1954, as
amended to date, is designed, and I would
like to emphasize this, to give full protec-
tion to the individual consumer of natural
gas, and to the farmer whose property could
conceivably become involved in expropria-
tion proceedings.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
should like now to read certain sections of
the Act to show just how thoroughly these
rights are protected. Section 15, subsection 1,
reads, and I quote:
The board may control and regulate the
production, storage, transmission, distribu-
tion, sale, disposal, supply, use of natural
gas in Ontario and may make orders with
respect thereto.
Subsection 2 :
Where an order is made under subsec-
tion 1, and agreement has not been or
cannot be reached as to the amount to be
paid by a person to another person, the
board, after having given such persons an
opportunity to be heard, may by order
fix such amount.
Section 16, subsection 1, Mr. Chairman, says:
Without restricting the generality of sec-
tion 15, the board may make orders fixing
the rates, meter rentals and other charges
to be made by ultimate consumers of natu-
ral gas.
And subsection 2:
No new rates, meter rentals or other
charges, and no alteration of existing rates,
meter rentals, or other charges to be
charged to ultimate consumers of natural
gas shall be put into effect until ordered
by the board.
Section 3:
No order shall be made under subsection
1, without a hearing, unless the munici-
pality or other interested party and the
gas utility concerned consent thereto, but
the board may without a hearing and with-
out consent make an order under subsec-
tion 1 other than an order increasing rates
effective for a period of not more than
one year pending the final disposition of
the application thereunder.
And subsection 4:
Where the rates, meter rentals and other
charges are those to be paid to a publicly
owned utility, and the Ontario municipal
board has made an order with respect
thereto, the board shall have regard to
such order.
Subsection 5 of the same section 16 reads:
Every gas utility shall make available
to the board, on demand therefor, the in-
formation, financial statements and other
MARCH 10, 1958
661
material that the board may at any time
require for its purposes, and that in the
opinion of the board pertain to the rates,
meter rentals or other charges paid to the
gas utility by ultimate consumers of natural
gas.
And finally, I would like to quote section
17, which states:
The board may, at any time, and from
time to time re-hear or review any applica-
tion before deciding it and may by order
rescind, change, alter or vary any order
made by it under this Act or any other
Act or under The Fuel Supply Act, The
Natural Gas Conservation Act or The Well
Drillers Act.
Now perhaps it is not necessary to point
out that the basis for rates and rentals charged
the ultimate consumer are based on the actual
capital investment and the operating costs of
the operation.
The chairman of the Ontario fuel board
expressed this very well in a statement to the
press last July. He said, and I quote:
The board considers the actual cost of the
plant and actual operating costs, and limits
the company's return to a fair percentage
of the actual investment and operating
costs. The board is not concerned with how
these returns would affect the price of the
shares or the eventual possible dividends
that might result.
That is the end of the quotations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask hon.
members to please take note that stock pro-
motion by the individual companies, and
the methods by which they choose to dispose
of their stock, is not the direct concern of the
board or of The Department of Mines, al-
though I can assure the hon. members of this
House that other legislation does offer fully
adequate insurance against any improper
manipulations.
If I may interject a slightly personal note,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that
the whole question of operating gas distribu-
tion systems is one in which I was actively
engaged for some time, in a capacity other
than my present one. I think I can claim a
fair share of knowledge as to how they
operate, and how they work in conjunction
with municipalities.
Now, as I pointed out earlier, an order-in-
council passed in February transferred the
appropriation for the Ontario fuel board to
The Department of Mines. The board is
responsible for administering regulations
respecting the drilling and operation of gas
and oil wells in the province, and for the
production, as stated before, and the price
and distribution of natural gas.
It regulates the insulation of appliances
and, under the terms of The Municipal
Franchises Act, it also is responsible for
approving the terms and conditions of the
franchises granted for the distribution of gas.
Under the terms of The Gas Pipe Lines Act,
it is responsible for issuing authority for the
construction of gas transmission lines.
The total estimated cost of operating the
board for the coming year is $193,000, as
shown in vote 1,107.
Now that, Mr. Chairman, takes care of all
the ordinary expenditures we anticipate
during the coming year.
There remains one item of capital expendi-
ture for the approval of this committee. I
refer to item of $1 million which, since 1952,
has been voted annually for the construction
of mining and access roads. These roads,
which in nearly all cases are built much more
cheaply than they could be, if they were of
the full highway specifications, have proved
their worth many times over.
Ontario's northland is a veritable treasure
house of mineral and forest products. This
treasure can never be fully tapped until
means of ready access are available. Only a
small part of the thousands of square miles
is yet open to the prospector, the miner and
the lumberman. But a very substantial start,
in opening the untouched wilderness, has
been made through the medium of these
roads.
To the end of 1957, nearly 400 miles of
these road projects had been completed. This
represents 50 separate projects. The total
government expenditure on this rather
impressive mileage to the end of March will
be just about $5 million.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks
today, I want to pay a very sincere and well-
earned tribute to the individual members of
the staff of The Department of Mines. Al-
though their numbers are small, about 225
people altogether, the volume of work they
accomplish and the number of details that
must be handled in a highly skilled manner
makes this, I think, one of the most efficient
departments in the government. The calibre
of work that these people perform, I suggest,
makes the label "civil servant" a title of
honour.
On vote 1,101:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I intend to speak
662
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
only briefly, and about one particular matter.
It may be that what I have to say runs over
from The Department of Mines into govern-
ment policy.
I want first of all to congratulate the hon.
Minister upon his review of The Department
of Mines. He is, as the House well knows,
a new hon. Minister, and it would seem that
he has a very close and understanding grasp
of the department over which he presides.
Now, the point I want some elucidation on,
from the hon. Minister or from the govern-
ment, has to do with expenditure and revenue
of that department and one other.
There are two departments of government,
of course, which deal most extensively with
natural resources in this province. One is the
one over which the hon. Minister presides,
The Department of Mines, and the other is
The Department of Lands and Forests. What
I want to know from the government is what
the policy of the administration is in respect
to natural resources taxation generally.
In The Department of Mines, we have a
department which, as the hon. Minister just
said, will return to the consolidated revenue
fund a very substantial profit on the year's
operations. Next year, they expect a profit
of over $10 million.
Now, in The Department of Lands and
Forests, exactly the opposite is the case.
These are two departments which deal
with natural resources, and one would be
justified in concluding, I would think, that
these two departments should have the same
aim and the same goal in mind. They both
tax the natural resources of the province, yet
one department returns to the consolidated
revenue fund a handsome profit at the end
of the year, and the other is in a deficit
position so far as the forecast of expenditure
and revenue is concerned.
I think the House is entitled to know from
the government just where we are going with
respect to these two departments. It may
well be that, insofar as The Department of
Mines is concerned, we are not giving the
proper stimulus, or adequate stimulus, to
these new mining areas. It may be that what
we are giving is too small altogether in order
to foster the growth of those communities
and to open up new areas for mining in this
province.
The government, I think, should be in a
position, and should welcome the oppor-
tunity, to say to the House just what their
policy is in respect to taxation on natural
resources in this province.
Are we to have one great department that
returns a big profit to the Treasury, and
another one which operates in a deficit posi-
tion?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Well,
I would answer the question of the hon.
leader of the Opposition by saying that it is
natural enough that we would have one area
that would return a profit and one that per-
haps that would be in a deficit position.
Actually speaking, The Department of
Lands and Forests, I think, about breaks
even, but unfortunately we have two dif-
ferent positions.
Take, for instance, the return of mineral
taxation in Canada. Of course mineral taxa-
tion returns a profit to the government con-
cerned. That is very notable, for instance,
in the province of Alberta, where I think
there is perhaps the most spectacular case
of a return from a natural resource. The
expenditures on conservation are compara-
tively small in those cases.
In the expenditures on conservation such
as a mineral or metallic mine, there is very
little that can be done beyond the encourage-
ment of not raising the level of taxation
above an amount that makes it unprofitable
to take from the ground the minerals which
are there. Now, we have to remember that,
on the other hand, it is an expendable
resource.
The Lands and Forests Department is one
which with fish and wildlife is a renewable
resource, and one in which we must spend
very vast sums of money in conservation,
fire protection, reforestation and all those
things.
As a matter of fact, it used to be, I very
well remember in other days in this House,
that The Department of Lands and Forests
returned a very large surplus to the province.
The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) has
remarked on that. I very well remember
when the total appropriation to The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests ran around about
$2 million or $2.5 million and their income
was very much more.
But today we are investing the money back,
from the increased returns we are getting
through The Department of Lands and For-
ests, into fire protection, conservation, refores-
tation, insect control and research, and all
of those things that go to make our forest
revenues and our forest industry a perpetual
industry. Now that is the objective of it.
It is very easy, of course, to get a distorted
view of mining revenues. For instance, in
that field we pay the municipal taxes of the
mines through the returns we get from the
MARCH 10, 1958
663
mining tax. Take, for instance, the city of
Sudbury. It used to receive nothing from
that source, and it now receives about $250,-
000 or $300,000, something of that sort. It
was also true of the mining municipalities.
This year, we are giving to the mining
municipalities some $3.5 million to take the
place of their municipal taxes.
Now, the hon. leader of the Opposition
can see the problems. If we were to make
the mines subject to municipal taxes, of
course we would immediately put, I sup-
pose, 80 per cent, of them out of business.
The purpose of this is that the good mines
are carrying the poor mines by the assistance
we are giving by way of municipal tax.
That, of course, does not show in the balance
sheet.
Then there is this, we have to take natural
resources all together, we have these other
expenditures such as access roads that the
hon. Minister mentioned, we have schools,
we have the servicing of the population of
those areas, and so on.
I think it is arguable, when we take all
of the mining and natural resources revenues
together, that we are really not in any surplus
position at all. We are, perhaps, in a deficit
position. Perhaps it is arguable that again
taxes should be raised to balance the picture.
On the other hand, I am mindful of the
criticisms of the hon. member for Waterloo
North (Mr. Wintermeyer) who made a very
eloquent speech on that subject a few days
ago, that our taxes are presently too heavy.
1 think that was his argument. I would not
go so far as to say they are too heavy, but
I think under present conditions they are
heavy enough.
Therefore, when we take the entire picture,
the population that has to be serviced, the
cost of education, access roads, roads, and
then all of the expenses which run with the
conservation of these resources, when we add
them all together, I do not think, Mr. Chair-
man, that we are getting enough money to
balance the books.
I think the hon. leader of the Opposition
will see that what we make in one area we
have to use in another to make up the dif-
ference.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there are two aspects of the intro-
ductory remarks of the hon. Minister that I
want to deal with. One has to do with
revenues, and I was proposing to leave that
until the budget debate, but now that it
has opened up, perhaps I would just like to
touch on it briefly.
The thing that puzzles me about the min-
ing revenues this year is this: last year our
revenues were approximately $8 million, and
the government increased the mining royal-
ties, and they estimated that the tax revenue
this year, or the revenue from the depart-
ment this year, would be something like $17.5
million. The budget comes down and we find
that it was not $17.5 million, it was $11.1
million.
Now, I presume the explanation of the
government is one that the hon. Minister
gave, that we have run into low-priced mar-
kets for copper and a few other of the
minerals.
This seems to add up, but it does not add
up when we look at it in another way, and
that is that the hon. Minister is priding him-
self, and the government is priding itself, on
the fact that this year, the total wealth pro-
duced in the mining industry has gone up
by a further $88 million to $739 million now.
In other words, from an increased wealth
produced from the mining industry, a wealth
almost $100 million more than it was a year
ago, instead of getting double the amount of
revenue that the government anticipated they
were going to get— in other words an increase
from $8 million to $17.5 million— we find we
are getting only $11.1 million.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this again raises the
question that the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion raised. I do not propose to go into the
full details of it now, because I think this
more appropriately should come under the
discussion of the budget and the revenues of
the province.
But certainly there should be some clari-
fication on this issue of whether or not we,
in the province of Ontario, are getting back
a fair net amount to the people who own
these natural resources.
I am talking about net amount, not a gross
amount, but a net amount as the rental for
the general needs and uses of the people of
the province.
I think the hon. Prime Minister is correct
when he draws, in reply to the hon. leader
of the Opposition, the distinction between
The Department of Mines and The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests. Obviously, in
The Department of Lands and Forests we
are going to plough back a great deal more
for conservation, reforestation, fire-fighting,
and many kinds of services not required in
the mining industry.
Now for the other aspect of it. Since this
has been raised, maybe this is the appro-
664
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
priate place to refer to it, because the hon.
Minister also drew attention to the fact that,
in an area like Elliot Lake, the industry has
invested $350 million.
This is a very encouraging kind of develop-
ment. I note for example, in the supplementary
estimates, the government is going to— and I
am just recalling the figure now from memory
—spend something like $1.5 million or $1.75
million to buy the debentures from the Elliot
Lake area. I would not object to this a bit
because we have a fantastic development
estimated at 30,000 people by the end of
this year. Certainly these people going out
into the bush are entitled to some of the
amenities of modern life, and we should
build this city up as quickly as possible.
But the thing that puzzles me, Mr. Chair-
man, is this: Why is it that an industry that
goes in presumably as a free enterprise indus-
try has to be helped along by governments
until it makes an absurdity of the proposition
of free enterprise?
When we were up at Elliot Lake, for
example, this past year on the trip with the
hon. members, I was very interested to learn
something which had not come to my atten-
tion up until then.
This is that, in the first 5 years that these
uranium mines are going to be in operation,
not only are they going to get the usual 3-
year exemption on corporation tax, but they
have a contract with the federal government
so that the total production of these mines, in
the first 5 years, is being bought by the federal
government on behalf of the Canadian people,
so to speak, and at a price.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should take a
look at this— at a price which is calculated so
as not only to give them a fair profit annually
on their production, but so that at the end of
5 years, Mr. Chairman, if you can credit this,
the total $350 million capitalization is going
to be written off.
This is a duplicate of the kind of thing
that happened with the Aluminum Company
of Canada during the war, where they came
to the people of Canada and said: "We cannot
invest these hundreds of millions of dollars
to expand a plant to meet the war needs. If
you want us to do this, there is only one
answer, you must give us an accelerated de-
preciation on our tax so that at the end of
3 years the whole plant will be written off."
And the people of Canada did that.
The company claimed that, if this was
not done, they were going to be left with a
white elephant at the end of the war.
Well, we know how much of a white
elephant they had at the end of the war.
They needed that productive capacity so much
that they used what had been given to them,
as a gift for a song, by the people of Canada,
and went out and built another big plant in
Kitimat.
And what is happening today is that the
people of Canada— and that includes the
people of Ontario doing it twice over because
as we know half of the revenues come from
the province of Ontario— the people of Canada
are underwriting the uranium companies of
Elliot Lake so that, at the end of 5 years,
their total capital investment will be paid off,
and they have another 45 years of the life of
this ore body. These were their own words
when we visited them.
Now, why in heaven's name, we should
have governments which are spokesmen on
behalf of the mining industry—
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
May I interrupt the hon. member for a
moment-
Mr. MacDonald: Does the hon. Attorney-
General have a question?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. member not
aware of the fact that the government of
Canada is simply acting as an intermediary,
that the contracts are for American interests
for the great bulk of the amount, and the
Canadian government is under no obligation
to pay for this except in that capacity? Surely
he knows that.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. Attorney-
General aware of the fact that there may be
a subsidy in this price, and if so, how much?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It is entirely met by
foreign interests, not by Canada-
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. Attorney-
General sure of that?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am absolutely certain.
Mr. MacDonald: Efforts are being tried at
the federal level to find out exactly the nature
of these contracts.
The fact of the matter is this— this is the
point and let us not get away from it—
that they have a contract so that, at the end
of 5 years, this great $350 million, the shirt
that they are risking off their back to get this
industry established, is going to be completely
wiped out.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Because the American
government chiefly was prepared to pay for
it in the interests of defence.
MARCH 10, 1958
665
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Attorney-Gen-
eral is getting a little excited. Just let me
give him another example.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member for
York South gives a lot of instances that do
not mean anything.
Mr. MacDonald: When I was up on the
tour in northern Ontario, with the hon. mem-
bers, I was very interested in the dinner
that was given to us in Geco by the presi-
dent of Geco mines. In the course of his
thanks to the government for this and for
that, and a few other demands that he made
of the government— it was a mixed bag of
tricks—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Was I there?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not think the hon.
Prime Minister was there. I think he had
flown off and was winging his way back
to Queen's Park.
But the president of Geco mines made this
very interesting comment. He said that when
they were trying to get established, the first
offer to them by The Hydro Electric Power
Commission of Ontario was for $3.5 million.
But he said, "We argued it, we got them
beaten down to $1 million, and it was not
a bad deal."
Now the thing that interests me, Mr.
Chairman, is this: I do not know on what
basis Hydro operates, but I would imagine
if Hydro sits down with a mining company
to provide them with the electric power that
they require to operate, it is not going into
a horse-trading deal. If it offers $3.5 mil-
lion as the cost of the Hydro power required
to get in there and operate the mine, $3.5
million, I think it was, again I am quoting
from memory but I think it was $3.5 mil-
lion-
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): That
is often very very faulty on the hon. mem-
ber's part.
Mr. MacDonald: The memory of the hon.
member for Renfrew South may be a little
faulty, too, so he had just better be quiet
for a little while this afternoon.
I was there and it stuck in my mind very
clearly what the final figure was. He said "we
got it for $1 million, and it was a pretty
good deal."
Now, the hon. member for Port Arthur
(Mr. Wardrope) used to have a predecessor
in this House who many times drew atten-
tion to the fact that, every time an industry
developed in northern Ontario, it was able
to get contracts with The Hydro Electric
Power Commission of Ontario at rates that
were far, far below what the people in the
local area had to pay, even when they bought
it from their local Hydro. So it strikes me
as rather strange that the president of a new
mining corporation could beat Hydro down
from $3.5 million to $1 million, because
I suspect what happens is that we, the people
of Ontario, through Hydro, subsidize that
extra $2.5 million.
This is the kind of thing that goes on,
in many different ways, to subsidize the
development of the mining industry.
Now let me come back to the main point
that I started with, that certainly we want
development in this province. But why,
after all these various forms of subsidies,
direct and indirect, that the mining indus-
tries get, should we have governments
come in and apologize for the fact that they
have taken $11 million out of an industry
producing a wealth of $739 million? This
wealth is produced out of our resources.
I would suggest that the question that the
hon. leader of the Opposition asked is a very
pertinent one. What in heaven's name is this
government's policy with regard to getting
adequate returns, from the natural resources
of this province, for the people on behalf of
whom it is operating this trusteeship, and if
this government has some clear answer to that,
perhaps we can discuss it when we get back
to the budget debate.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I have already given the
answer.
Mr. MacDonald: He may have already
given it, but it was no more satisfactory
than—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Is the hon. member in
favour of raising the taxes further? Is he?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, sir. And I will tell
the hon. Prime Minister when—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Even when the Opposition
has debated on that point?
Mr. MacDonald: May I say that the Lib-
erals are more Tory than the Tories on this
issue, so let the hon. Prime Minister please do
not try to play me off on that. I will give
reasons why I think we should raise it, when
we get to the budget debate.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Does the
hon. member understand how many mines
had to close last year? Would he tax them
more?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
666
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: He would love it.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I would love it. But
if hon. members keep interrupting me, let
them not blame me if I take a little longer
than necessary.
Mr. Chairman, the other point that I want
to discuss is this question of pipe lines. Now
that the fuel board has come under The
Department of Mines, I think this is the
appropriate place for it.
I want first to take a look at the national
pipe line end of it, and I do not apologize for
doing it in the provincial Legislature, particu-
larly the Ontario Legislature, for the simple
reason that we are directly involved in it,
through that northern Ontario link.
What I want to recall is this, that when
we discussed this whole question of a national
pipe line in the House, throughout the years
1955 and 1956, when this whole development
was taking place, the hon. Prime Minister
many times got up in the House and said
that his personal preference, his first prefer-
ence, would be for the development of this
great new national project in Canada as a
publicly owned operation— he nods his head in
confirming that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Is the hon. member talking
about the carrier line?
Mr. MacDonald: That is right, the carrier
line across the country.
This was his statement as first preference,
as far as the provincial hon. Prime Minister
was concerned.
Now the interesting thing was that, after
a lot of battling had taken place at the
federal end, over a period of a year or so,
the Tory party at Ottawa got to the same
spot. Let me recall just briefly that, on June
4, just before the conclusion of that rather
black debate— dark debate, stormy debate-
that took place in the Canadian House of
Commons—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Black Friday it was.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know whether
this was black Friday or not, it was June 4.
I have forgotten what day of the week that
happened to be.
The then leader of the Conservative party,
hon. George Drew, made this statement in
the House of Commons:
All right, if they are determined to
follow the course of going ahead with the
pipe line, with the Crown corporation, let
them go ahead with it and expand the
Crown corporation, and give that Crown
corporation the power to build the whole
line from the Alberta boundary right
through to the east.
These were fine, strong words, the hon.
Prime Minister agrees. Hon. Mr. Drew went
on:
Let them go ahead, let them introduce a
bill to expand the operation of the Crown
corporation and embrace the whole line.
They can get the pipe. They can proceed
with the construction. We can assure them
control of the pipe line for Canadians, and
we can assure them prices that are advan-
tageous to Canadians, instead of permitting
the big gas operators in the United States
to set prices that will be unduly favourable
to them.
This is the kind of thing, for example, we
are now finding out in west coast transmis-
sion, where the price to the American con-
sumer is 22 cents and the price to the con-
sumer in Canada, in Vancouver, is 32 cents.
Rather a remarkable proposition for the
handling of Canadian resources.
Hon. Mr. Drew continued:
In that way we will have Canadian gas
moving into Canada, we will be able then
to lead from strength, not from weakness.
If we want to get the best prices for
Canadian gas in the export market, the
surest way to get those prices is not to be
dependent upon permission to enter the
export market. The best way is for us to
have our own line, and having our own
line, make the best deal we can.
And let us be sure that we are not
simply being taken for a ride by the
Tennessee Gas Company and their sub-
sidaries in the United States.
Now, that was all very noble as a state-
ment of policy, a very creditable statement
of policy.
Two days later hon. Donald Fleming, the
present Minister of Finance, got up and put
it very simply. He said:
Well, sir, it now seems that we are nar-
rowed down to a choice between two
courses, the government's iniquitous pro-
posal to hand over, to the Trans-Canada
Pipe Line Limited, great sums of money to
help them out for a public construction of
the whole line-
So there we had a rather fortunate kind of
development — the provincial Conservative
MARCH 10, 1958
667
party saying they were in favour of public
ownership of the national carrier line, and
the Tories at Ottawa, after they had been
beaten by events, eventually reaching the
point where they too agreed.
Now since last June 10, the Tories have
been in power. Our hon. Prime Minister's
boys are in the saddle. He cannot fold his
hands as he did a couple of years ago.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Coldwell told us that.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, if he did, the hon.
Prime Minister has not caught on yet.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh yes, I caught on.
Mr. MacDonald: Two years ago, the hon.
Prime Minister's contention was that he did
not have control of the situation. "It is those
horrible Liberals at Ottawa who are respon-
sible for this situation, we just have to go
along with it," he said. All right, now the
Tory boys are in the saddle, and he is still in
the saddle here. What has he done about it?
What has this government done to establish
what it claimed was its first preference, its
first choice, with regard to the pipe line in
Canada?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that I think the government at Ottawa
is taking a very proper course. They have a
commission at present sitting in Canada in-
vestigating the whole problem, and the whole
matter is being given a thorough airing, and
the whole thing is coming out, and arising
out of that I have no doubt that good and
proper policies and methods will evolve.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Chairman, it is
all very well for the hon. Prime Minister to
get up, but many people in his own party,
privately as well as outside, have acknowl-
edged that this is one of the clearest ruses
that ever took place. This is just to get this
issue out of the political arena so that there
will be one less hot potato for "Honest John"
to have to deal with between now and
March 31.
The interesting thing about it is that the
commission has been put under the chair-
manship of a man who has stated publicly
his own views on public ownership, particu-
larly on foreign public ownership, of a public
utility, and has stated them so clearly that
the proposition that, out of this Royal com-
mission, the hon. Prime Minister should
believe there might come a recommendation
that is in line with his first preference, is
just a pipe dream.
It is a real pipe dream in the land of pipe
dreams all right. Mr. Coldwell, the CCF
national leader has raised—
What was the question? I am not going
to sit down, let him state his question. He
has no right to be up.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does not my hon. friend
think that Henry Borden, with all of his
background in Canada, is a great Canadian
who will do a good job for us? Now, does he
not think so?
Mr. MacDonald: Let me read one para-
graph. There is a lot here that I would like
to read because I think it is very edifying.
Here is an article in the Toronto Daily Star
by John Bird.
Mr. Kerr: Oh, the Star.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I noticed last night,
or at least on Saturday night, that the Star
is giving about equal coverage to the Con-
servatives and the Liberals in this election,
so perhaps the hon. member had better not
be so snide about the Star.
An hon. member: They read the hand-
writing on the wall, too.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I was just reading it
when the hon. member for York South started
to speak— today's edition.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Coldwell had, on
a number of occasions, in the House of Com-
mons, as well as outside it, raised the ques-
tion of the propriety of a Royal commission
being headed by a man who is president of
Brazilian Traction, a privately owned public
utility— not only privately owned, but foreign
owned— in terms of the country where it
is in operation. And many times, of course,
it has been suggested that he is being per-
sonal. Mr. Bird dealt with this, and I think
this one paragraph is rather interesting.
To represent these questionings as a
personal reflection upon Mr. Borden, or
to dismiss them as smears, is intellectually
naive and politically nonsensical. It would
be absurd that a Canadian verdict to nation-
alize Trans-Canada pipe lines might not
have repercussions upon the fortunes of
the Brazilian Traction back home in South
America. What a precedent that would be
for the Borden commission to set!
The proposition that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter is expecting Mr. Henry Borden, the
president of the privately owned foreign-dom-
inated public utility, to bring in a recommen-
668
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dation for public ownership— what he wants,
public ownership— of this foreign-dominated
national Canadian pipe line, of course, is just
playing along with "John" in postponing it
until the voting happens to be over.
The significant thing, Mr. Chairman, is
that on this issue we can get unanimity even
within such a variety of editorial views as
to be found in the afternoon papers, the
Toronto Daily Star and the Toronto Telegram.
Both of them are saying editorially what is
obviously plain commonsense: "Let us na-
tionalize this, and let us not be delaying the
thing, because it is a politically embarrass-
ing thing at election time."
What this government at Ottawa is doing
is, obviously, exactly what the Liberals did.
They are going along with the big boys who
are in the saddle. They are giving them a
year to entrench themselves. This govern-
ment, while professing to be in favour of
public ownership, is doing no prodding at
all, because they are going along with them
too. The Tories made political capital while
in opposition, but it was a pretty mean-
ingless kind of capital, we now discover.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We have not been in
opposition for a long time.
Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about Tories
in the general sense.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to
the provincial aspect of the pipe lines because
this is right in our own jurisdiction, coming
right under the fuel board.
First, in northern Ontario. Let me recall
that, when the distribution lines in northern
Ontario were about to be organized, there
was quite a battle in northern Ontario with
regard to the franchises. In fact, the North-
ern Ontario Natural Gas Company ended up,
after this battle was over, in getting the
franchises from Kenora all around the loop
to Barrie, with the exception of that area
between Dryden, the Lakehead, Nipigon and
Geraldton.
These franchises were won by the Twin
City Gas Company. They were won, Mr.
Chairman, because the Twin City Gas Com-
pany offered to these areas not only a more
favourable contract, in the views of the local
municipal councils, but they also offered to
them the assurance that this was going to be
an independent company— that the control of
this company was going to rest with north-
western Ontario, that the stock was going to
be made available in sufficient quantities in
northwestern Ontario so that they could count
on this as being their public utility.
Well, what happened? After Twin City
Gas got the franchises for the areas running
from Dryden, through the Lakehead on to
Geraldton, then of course, behind the scenes,
the financial boys got into operation, and it
was not very long before we discovered that
Twin City had lost its independence, and had
become a subsidiary of Northern Ontario
Natural Gas.
Now, Mr. Chairman, when that happened
I want to suggest to this government— as it
was suggested at the time, when it produced
a political storm around the Lakehead— that
this was a violation of the spirit, if not of
the letter, of the understanding under which
these franchises were given to Twin City
Gas Company. It was clearly understood that
Twin City would be an independent company.
After they had violated the spirit of that
understanding, I think that those franchises
should have been reviewed.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to the hon.
member that the proposal was made to the
Lakehead cities and the other municipalities
that, if they were dissatisfied with that ar-
rangement, then the whole matter would be
reheard.
Now what happened, as I understand it,
was that the Lakehead cities made some ar-
rangement, which was satisfatcory to them,
with the Twin City Gas Company, and they
were satisfied and never made any application.
Now, that proposal was made to them.
I would say to my hon. friend that the pro-
posal still stands.
If any municipality feels that it is not
receiving justice, or that the arrangement is
not being lived up to, then the matter will be
reheard by the fuel board if they make
application. But I say that not one municipal-
ity has made a request for such a thing.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, this is all very fine,
but I want to get to another point which, per-
haps, explains why there was not the degree
of opposition which might have been ex-
pected. This is the interesting point. I know,
having spoken to mayor Badanai of Fort Wil-
liam personally, as well as having read some of
his radio broadcast speeches, that he was
not satisfied. Mayor Badanai led the battle
in this, and if the hon. Prime Minister suggests
that he is happy with the present situation,
he just does not know the facts.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am not saying that he
is happy.
Mr. MacDonald: He certainly is not happy
with the present situation. In fact, he has
stated publicly, and has stated to me pri-
MARCH 10, 1958
669
vately, that if he had known this was the
kind of thing that was going to happen, they
would have gone for a municipally owned
system from the very outset— which raises
another significant aspect of this question.
When this whole issue came before the
House two years ago, hon. Dana Porter, who
was the Minister responsible for it, said that
there would be no objection to municipally
owned systems. Yet, for some strange reason,
not one new municipally owned system has
emerged. And it has not because, behind the
scenes, all manner of pressure was put on to
dissuade municipalities from going in for a
municipally owned system. They wanted to
hand it over to private operators.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: By whom?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, for example, there
were quite a number of people who suggested
privately, so mayor Badanai told me privately
—and has also said it in public— that when the
question was raised as to whether or not they
could get a municipally owned system, they
were told that the fuel board did not look
upon it with favour. They thought that,
financially, it was not a very safe kind of
deal and so on. But the reason why I want
to get back to the point that the hon. Prime
Minister raised—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to say to my hon.
friend that I do not want him to be under
any misunderstanding. If any municipality
wants to have a public utilities distribution,
I can assure him that we will give them any
assistance that we can, that is within the
limits of what we can do.
I may say to my hon. friend that I believe
that the public utilities systems, which existed
in Kingston, Kitchener and Peterborough, I
think are still in existence, are they not? I
believe that the public utilities systems which
were in existence in Ottawa, Brockville, and
Guelph, have been purchased by private con-
cerns. Now, that is entirely their business
but I would hope that, if the city of Kitchener
wants to continue, we will give them every
assistance and advice that we can.
I would say to my hon. friend that it is a
difficult business to get into, I can assure him,
but that if we can assist them, we will do it.
Mr. MacDonald: I want to address myself
now to this question of why there was not as
much opposition in this area to the proposi-
tion of Twin City Gas Company, after having
gotten the franchises, being taken over by the
company from whom they got them in com-
petition, because here is the crux of the whole
issue.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: The hon. member-
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, can I
continue? The hon. Minister will have a
chance later on, if he wants to dispute what
I have said or to comment on it, but just let
me make my case.
Before Northern Ontario Natural Gas put
its shares on the market in northern Ontario
last June, the Financial Post reported that,
some 4 or 5 months before, there had been
one of these lovely, under-the-table, private
distribution of stocks. Some 730,000 shares
at $0.46— an average of $0.46— were made
available, so that overnight, with the current
market quotation of $25, the recipients of
these 730,000 shares made a cool $16 million.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this makes the
profiteering that went on on the Trans-
Canada Pipe Line look like chicken feed.
In fact, just to show how scandalous this
proposition is— maybe not legally, because as
the hon. Minister said, this may be all within
the framework of the law— but on any moral
basis, the thing that makes it so utterly scan-
dalous is that the total capital investments,
in the distribution system of northern Ontario,
is $14.5 million, plus another $7 million for
the laterals into Timmins and the laterals
over to Sudbury.
Here we have a little group of people
behind the scenes, to whom stock was dis-
tributed, which at the time that they got it
could make $16 million in profits— more than
the total capital that was going into the line.
Now if what went on with Trans-Canada,
at the federal end, was a shocking thing that
shook this nation last June 10, and con-
tributed to the defeat of the Liberals, I sug-
gest, Mr. Chairman, that this is doubly shock-
ing, and it comes wholly within the provin-
cial jurisdiction. Because this is the hon.
Prime Minister's responsibility, coming under
the Ontario fuel board— strictly provincial
jurisdiction. This is a distribution system
with which Ottawa has nothing to do at all.
Now, the question I would like to ask is
this. Who got this stock? I know of one or
two municipal officials along the line that
Northern Ontario Natural Gas wanted to buy
out from Twin City, who were offered the
stock and did not take it. They regretted it
afterwards, I can assure hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that, if he wants to know who got the
stock, let him read page 23 of the prospectus,
which gives it in detail. I would say to him
that this disclosure was made because the
laws of this province demanded it. Now I
point that out to him.
670
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Does it list all those people
who got the stock? Every individual?
Hon. Mr. Frost: It is right there. That is
every individual who got the stock.
Mr. MacDonald: I doubt it. Every indivi-
dual who got the stock is listed there?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member can
doubt it if he wants to. Absolutely.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now, just
a minute. Is every individual who got some
of the 730,000 shares at fire sale prices listed
in that prospectus?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, and I say that some
of the fire sale prices were lower than the
hon. member has mentioned. According to
this disclosure, some of them were $0.08 a
share.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree with the hon.
Prime Minister. In fact, I will just cite a
couple of instances that I wanted to draw to
the hon. Prime Minister's attention. One of
them is the instance of R. K. Farris, who hap-
pens to be head of Northern Ontario Natural
Gas. The newspapers came out indicating
that R. K. Farris got his stock for $0.08. As
Mr. Coldwell pointed out in his speech the
other night, he made just 350,000 per cent,
profit on his investment.
I was very intrigued as to how a man got
stock at four-fifths of a cent, and I checked
with some of our own security commissions
people here, and I found out how it operated.
Here is another very interesting variation
on the theme of these men who risked their
shirts for these great developments.
Mr. R. K. Farris was one on the original
group of promoters in this company. His
original investment in this company was 75
shares at $4, so his total contribution to this
company was $300 in cash.
As the company expanded, he was handed
stock on a platter, and his 75 shares grew
to 37,500 shares, on the original $300 that he
kicked in. That was the shirt off his back. At
$25, it eventually ended up that he cleared
nearly a cool $1 million, for which he had
paid for each of these shares, approximately
four-fifths of a cent. This is the kind of thing
that has been going on in this province, under
this province's jurisdiction.
If it was shocking when I listened to it
during last year's campaign, and I recall all
that the Tories said about the Liberals on
this buccaneer's job and everything else before
last June 10, then here is another example of
buccaneers.
And what is this government doing about
it? Nothing at all.
Now, I want to bring this a little bit closer
to home, Mr. Chairman. All across this prov-
ince last summer, questions were being raised,
and it is an open secret around Queen's Park,
and northern Ontario, that one of the hon.
Ministers in this cabinet was involved in the
pipe line profiteering. In fact, so much so,
that eventually the hon. Prime Minister had
a show down with him and he was dis-
missed.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I did no such thing.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
did no such thing?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, sir.
Mr. MacDonald: Can he tell us, then, why
he was dismissed?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let the hon. member go
ahead, and I will tell him.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, well now, here is
once when I would be glad to give the hon.
Prime Minister the floor. Actually, the fact
of the matter is that the former Minister of
Mines in this province (Mr. Kelly) was
involved in this pipe line profiteering, just
like R. K. Farris and everybody else. It is
all very fine for the hon. Prime Minister
merely to dismiss the man. The fact of the
matter is that, in so doing, he has not
cleaned up the mess, he has just tried to
cover it up.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. member
for York South making that statement as an
hon. member? Or is he suggesting it?
Mr. MacDonald: I am just stating that it is
currently said all across this province that
the former Minister of Mines was in-
volved in this pipe line profiteering. What
I challenge this government to do is to
establish a Royal commission to look into
the full details of all the pipe line profiteer-
ing that has gone on at the provincial level
—apart, presumably from what the Borden
commission is going to look into at the
federal level. In this way, we will find out
just exactly who got these shares, and to
what extent any hon. member of the govern-
ment, or anybody close to the government,
happened to be involved in it too.
This is a very subtle kind of legal cor-
ruption of public life.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman,
that one of the things that happened, in
this distribution of stock, was that Northern
MARCH 10, 1958
671
Ontario Natural Gas, which wanted to buy
out Twin City Gas Company, went around
to people in these communities where Twin
City had been given the franchise, and this
stock was distributed in sufficient, appro-
priate places so that the opposition disap-
peared.
The hon. Prime Minister today rises, for
example, and says that there has been no
demand to review the whole situation. No,
there has not been a demand, because those
who might have been making the demand
are in on the bonanza. I think it is about
time that this province knew exactly who
is in on the bonanza.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. member in-
cluding mayor Badanai in that statement?
Mr. MacDonald: No, I am not including
mayor Badanai at all, because—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, he had better
enlarge on that statement. The hon. member
has put himself now in the position where,
if he is prepared to make direct charges, he
should make them. Otherwise he should stop
this innunendo.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Attorney-
General can always rise and start waving his
glasses. But the fact of the matter is, that
everybody is aware of the fact of the profit-
eering. The fact of the matter is, and let the
hon. Prime Minister rise and deny it, that the
issue with which he and his former Minister
of Mines separated, was this kind of an issue.
I suggest to him that this is not private in-
formation. This should be public information
and let this government, instead of weaseling
and twisting in its seats there, establish a
Royal commission to let the people know the
facts.
When I remember all that the Tories said
about the Liberals last June 10— "these buc-
caneers, these people who were in cahoots
with the buccaneers," all the rest of it— tough
words that came from Rt. hon. John Diefen-
baker and hon. Mr. Fleming— I say let this
government just clean up its own House here,
as they were demanding of the Liberals.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Again I say to the hon.
member, on his responsibility as an hon.
member of this House, before he can make
that sort of talk, and from anything but
innuendo, he has a duty to perform to this
House and to the public. He should make
direct charges. Now, is he prepared to make
them?
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. Attorney-
General rise and wave his finger all he wants.
What I am challenging him to do is to estab-
lish a Royal commission of independent
members of the judiciary, who are supplied
with counsel, who will dig out the facts as
is now being done on the West Coast Trans-
mission Company, and to do precisely that
thing for the financing of the pipe lines in
northern Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. member
prepared to make a charge as a basis for
such a request? Specific charges?
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. Attorney-
General never mind the specific charge. Let
him just go ahead and do it, and let him
not start that weaseling to get out of what
is clearly a very embarrassing situation.
The Chairman: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I know this is em-
barrassing.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member has
made what in essence is a very serious state-
ment. Now I say it is up to him, as an
hon. member of this House, to make a direct
charge if he wants any such action as he
has asked for.
Mr. MacDonald: I have asked the hon.
Prime Minister to give full details as to why
he and his former Minister of Mines separ-
ated, and perhaps when he does that we will
be a little bit closer to it.
Now, I just want to turn briefly to the
southern part of the province and the fuel
board, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to raise this matter only be-
cause, in raising it, I say this in subdued
tones this afternoon out of respect for the
hon. member for Lambton East (Mr. Janes)
who is not with us, but at least he, a week
or so ago, became the conscience of the Tory
party.
I sometimes wondered whether there was
anybody who was ever going to be the con-
science of the Tory party.
One of the shocking things about the
whole pipe line deal at Ottawa was that
there was not a single Liberal, much as his
conscience twinged, who had the intestinal
fortitude to get up and break with his party
on the whole shocking proposition. We have
seen, in the last 10 years, 3 Ministers of
the Crown in Great Britain who disagreed
with their government, and they resigned
their position, but not a single one was will-
ing to do it in the pipe line deal at Ottawa.
But finally the hon. member for Lambton
East became the conscience of the Tory
672
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
party with regard to what is going on with
the pipe line and the relationships of the fuel
board in southern Ontario.
He reports, for example, that some people
claim that the fuel board is just a tool of
Union Gas. He said he does not believe this.
But let me assure the hon. Prime Minister
that there are an awful lot of people who
will have to have more evidence before they
are persuaded that this is not the case
because, what this fuel board in its decisions
has become is an instrument fulfilling this
government's policy. This government's policy
is to keep public enterprise out of the pic-
ture, and therefore to destroy the possibility
of power at cost.
While they pay lip service to the great
publicly owned Hydro system providing
power at cost, they refuse to build an equally
efficient kind of system to provide this new
source of power at cost.
The hon. Minister, for example, in his
introduction made some comments with
regards to the 7 per cent, level beyond which,
as the rule of thumb dictates, the price of
this gas must be reduced by the utility.
Two years ago, in 1956, we passed amend-
ments in this House which gave the fuel
board more accountants, which gave them
more staff, to get in and look at the books
of various companies. What has been done
in the interval?
There are many people, for example, who
have been saying for two or three years that
Union Gas must be far beyond the 7 per cent,
level. In fact, a year or so ago— and my figures
now are a year out of date— they paid $1.5
million income tax, and they put another $1
million away in reserve. Now, how this can
be done while keeping within the 7 per cent,
level on capital, I do not know.
What we have to do is to have some
implementation, or some fulfilment, of this
7 per cent, regulation by the fuel board, so
that this great natural resource of storage
areas in the Lambton fields, where gas can
be brought down and can be stored in the
off-peak period of the year, can contribute
toward the great saving to the people of
southern Ontario by this sort of fire sale
prices during the summer months and off-
peak periods. How that can be done effi-
ciently and effectively, without a publicly
owned fully integrated system such as we
have in Hydro with the grid system, I do
not know.
But if this government must do it some
other way, at least it is the obligation of the
government, through its instrument the fuel
board, to make certain that these 60 billion
feet of storage areas in Lambton are going
to be used to the full, and that the 25 cents
or so saving per thousand is then going to be
distributed to the people throughout southern
Ontario so gas will be available at something
approaching cost.
In other words, in the southern part of the
province, this whole question of the fuel
board and the role that it is playing is a
subject of investigation for* different reasons,
just the same as it was in northern Ontario,
and exactly why the fuel board has not
implemented some of these regulations. I
hope the hon. Minister will comment on this
later in the discussion of his estimates.
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity ) : Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber goes on and on until really, we almost
lose track of what he is talking about.
The hon. member for Lambton East did
speak relative to this question, but mostly his
argument was that these farmers were having
some difficulty in settling with Union Gas in
the lines.
May I say just in about two seconds
that in Lambton West, where much of this
storage area is, they are entirely happy with
the services that have been rendered by the
Ontario fuel board. As a matter of fact, I
have a letter on my desk at this moment to
support that, by one of the very important
people down in that section, who has a
storage area, and it is a matter that is being
ironed out to the satisfaction of my con-
stituents in Lambton West.
The whole story that the hon. member for
Lambton East had to say the other day was
simply in regard to the matter of obtaining
rights for the pipe line, and may I say that,
following certain further considerations when
arbitrators came in there and dealt with the
farmer and the Union Gas, those things were
all cleaned up, everybody was happy. It was
simply a matter of raising something that had
happened before, and speaking on behalf of
his constituents. But Lambton West is happy.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, just let me make
this brief comment— I agree that what the
hon. member for Lambton East was referring
to was primarily this question of the pipe line
going through farms and the problem of
expropriation there. The shabby relationship
between Union Gas and the producers of gas
out in the hon. Minister's area is still a
problem that has to be looked after.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: It was raised by one
man down there, and the hon. member for
York South knows who is raising it. All the
MARCH 10, 1958
673
hon. member is doing is washing out old
linen, and he is arguing and bringing this up
again just so as to get the fire all fanned up.
It has all been dealt with and our people are
happy, and if the hon. member for York
South would just keep away from it, we will
keep Lambton county in good order. We do
not need him.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I may say that I fully
intended this afternoon to deal with the
Northern Ontario Gas Company Limited and
certain of the matters that the hon. member
has mentioned today. May I say to the hon.
member that he is a master of insinuation
and innuendo, which is always based on this
"somebody said so-and-so" and "everyone
knows" and "they said this" and "they said
that" and so on.
Now I would just like to give the hon.
member this, and may I say I have not come
here unprepared. I come here to say that
this government does not deal in bribes and
things of that sort. I can assure the hon.
member that that is not the way this gov-
ernment does business, and it is not the
way I do business, I want him to under-
stand that.
First of all, this matter of the Northern
Ontario Pipe Lines is divided into two parts,
it is divided into the problem of the investor
and secondly, into the problem of the con-
sumer. Now they are dealt with in two dis-
tinctly different ways, and by two distinctly
different boards, one of which is the Ontario
fuel board and the other is the Ontario
securities commission.
Last summer, there was a considerable
amount of publicity given to the Northern
Ontario Gas Company Limited and certain
shares, promotional shares, that this company
had divided among certain of its directors
and personnel.
I am not saying that I agree or disagree
with what was done, as a matter of fact
I can say that it was an American type of
promotion, but here are the facts.
Basically, from a policy standpoint, may
I say to the hon. member— and this has been
discussed in this House times without num-
ber—that the policy is one of full disclosure
as far as the investor is concerned.
Now I went through all this matter years
ago before I became the Prime Minister of
this province, in the days when Mr. Black-
well was the hon. Attorney-General's pre-
decessor. It was decided that the govern-
ment of Ontario should not set itself up
as the arbitrator or the body that would
make a decision as to what promotional
shares should be and who should get them,
but the arbitrator of that should be the in-
vestor himself, and that it was our duty
to see that the fullest disclosure was made,
and on the strength of full disclosure then
the investor could make his own choice as
to whether or not he would invest in certain
securities. Now, that is the basis.
Mr. MacDonald: How could the investor
stop—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, just a moment, let
the hon. member wait a moment until I
come to this.
The policy of the securities exchange com-
mission in the United States, which is prob-
ably the strictest securities commission in
the world, although we think our own is
pretty strict here, in matters of this sort is
identical with our own, a matter of full
disclosure.
Now what happened with the northern
Ontario pipe line was this, their issues were
underwritten by, I think, some 14 different
underwriting houses in Canada, and I think
12 in the United States, in Washington and
in New York. The securities exchange com-
mission accepted the same prospectus that
we accepted here, which gave full disclosure.
Now, may I say to the hon. member that
this business of 46 cents a share— as a matter
of fact it works out in some cases, I see
right in this prospectus, to 8 cents a share-
is disclosed on page 23 and 24 of that state-
ment, published last May or June, I am not
sure of the date.
The fullest disclosure is made as to who
got the stock and the prices that were paid
for the stock. Every bit of it is in there.
I could read it all, but I will not bother
reading to this House the names of the
persons who got the stock, what they paid
for it, the amount that was involved, the
splits in the stock and everything else.
The disclosure that was made was not
ferreted out of some dark corner by the hon.
member for York South or some of his friends,
this is a disclosure which was insisted upon
by our own securities commission, and was
published for the people of this province
before anybody subscribed one single dollar
to Northern Ontario Gas Company Limited.
I want to make that plain to the hon. mem-
ber for York South. This was before it was
ever qualified in this province. It had been
qualified by the securities exchange commis-
sion of the United States before it was ever
qualified here.
674
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, any prospective investor could
receive this prospectus, printed in May or
June of last year; it was public property,
and that is where this information came
from, from a publication that was under-
lined and was insisted upon not only in this
case but by every other promotional case by
the government of Ontario and by the
statutes of this province. That is the policy
that has been followed for years.
On the strength of this, may I say that
these shares were placed upon the market,
and every investor who purchased these
shares had the opportunity of seeing that
these promotional shares were given, and if
they did not want to buy, they did not need
to buy.
At the present time, I understand that
marketwise these shares are being sold for
approximately the amount that the investor
paid for them, in other words the appraisal
of John Public and the investor of the value
of these shares is just about what they paid
for them.
There was full disclosure given and the
investing public were in no way fooled.
The representations and the information
given them was factually correct in every
detail.
Mr. MacDonald: May I see that prospec-
tus?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, wait just a minute.
I will just explain this to him. If he will
listen, perhaps he will learn something. Now
the second thing is this.
Mr. MacDonald: Could I have a look at
this prospectus?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh yes, I will be glad to
show it to the hon. member. In fact, I will
get him a copy. There is a copy right there.
If he will return that to me, I may want to
use it in a moment. There is the statement,
let the hon. member read it off himself.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a copy.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, all right then, the
hon. member should have read it. If he had
read it, he would have learned something.
The very information that he was giving out
was given out at the insistence of our own
commission here. There is nothing new about
that.
Now again, it is not my business to pass
upon whether that was proper or improper,
but that was something for the investor him-
self to judge before he put his money out.
Now, the second point I should like to
mention is this, from the standpoint of the
consumer.
Now, I would say to the hon. member for
York South that some of his party members,
some of them are very high up in his party,
are running around saying that these shares
—if he wants to call them promotional shares
or watered down shares or whatever he
wants to call them, it is all right with me—
are going to raise the price of gas to the
consumer.
I may say to the hon. member for York
South that such is not the case, and that
has been made perfectly plain, that has
been made abundantly plain by the actions
and the policies of the Ontario fuel board
which says this, that the rate shall be fixed
on the amount of the investment in plant and
equipment and other things, and expressly
excludes not only shares and promotional
shares, but dividends and costs of money
and everything else insofar as these com-
panies are concerned.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this government has
set out by its legislation protection for the
man who buys gas. This government has
first of all set out to protect the investor
by giving the investor the opportunity to
judge for himself what he should do. Sec-
ondly, it has set out to protect the consumer
against all possible stock manipulations, by
basing the rates upon the amount of invest-
ment in plant and equipment and other things
that have to do with the distribution of gas.
My hon. friend might ask the question,
what is that rate?
Well, I would say this, that on the invest-
ment in physical plant and equipment, 7 per
cent, is allowed. Now, as a matter of fact,
there was an argument that the 7 per cent,
was much too little, and perhaps it was,
under higher priced money, but my informa-
tion from the fuel board is this, that the
7 per cent, rate, with a falling rate of interest
and easier money, is probably satisfactory.
It should be the business of the fuel board
to adjust that rate to a rate which is fair,
having regard to the amount of investment
in plant and equipment. Every consumer is
amply protected.
Now, sir, I will refer to the other matters
that my hon. friend has raised.
First of all, may I say that the matter of
the distribution of natural gas in this prov-
ince was something which I myself take full
responsibility for. As a matter of fact I felt,
away back in 1951 and 1952, that natural
gas and the distribution of natural gas in
this province was one of the great big musts
MARCH 10, 1958
675
of our country, and was one of the great
opportunities that we have. Today, may I
point out that $1,000 million is being in-
vested here in southern Ontario and northern
Ontario, giving employment in the matter of
the distribution of this new source of fuel
and energy.
Now, I go back to this. I should particularly
refer to myself and then to my former col-
league, hon. Mr. Porter, and I do so with his
consent.
The matter of negotiations concerning the
bringing of natural gas to Ontario and its
distribution was completely in the charge of
hon. Mr. Porter and myself. In 1953, I had
hon. Mr. Porter and Mr. Crozier, the fuel con-
troller, at my insistence, visit western Canada
in order to investigate the possibility of
bringing natural gas here to Ontario.
On December 3, 1953, on hon. Mr. Porter's
return, he was placed in charge of all negotia-
tions concerning natural gas, and also, the
administration of natural and manufactured
gas presently in Ontario.
At the following session, in 1954, hon. Mr.
Porter introduced the present legislation, The
Ontario Fuel Board Act, to create the On-
tario fuel board, and this board was estab-
lished pursuant to such legislation on May
12, I think it was, 1954.
The day following, the administration of
matters relating to oil and gas was officially
placed with The Department of the Attorney-
General, of which hon. Mr. Porter was the
Minister.
Now the purpose of that was this. This
matter was still in its promotional stages,
and it seemed better to have it in the De-
partment of the hon. Attorney-General, at
that time, and hon. Mr. Porter was the
Minister. There the administration lay until
August 17, 1955, when hon. Mr. Porter
became the Provincial Treasurer. At that
time, the administration of the Act was
transferred to The Provincial Treasurer's De-
partment.
During all of this time, from 1953 to the
present time, neither hon. Mr. Porter nor
myself, directly or indirectly, either by our-
selves or by our relatives or friends or by
any agency, sold a single share or a dol-
lar's worth of security in Trans-Canada Pipe
Lines Limited, Consumers Gas Company of
Toronto, the Union Gas Company of Can-
ada Limited, Lakeland Natural Gas Com-
pany Limited, Northern Ontario Gas Company
Limited, the Twin City Gas Company
Limited, or any other corporation or company
having to do with the sale or the distribution
of natural gas in the province of Ontario.
I want to make that perfectly plain.
Neither one of us had stock of any kind
in any company having to do with the sale
or distribution of gas, natural or otherwise,
here in Ontario.
Now, sir, I want to come to this. I could
tell all about the story of the Trans-Canada
Pipe Lines, at least as it was related to me,
and my preference for a private company
to do that work, of my acceptance of very
many conditions that were involved in that
thing, including not only the federal gov-
ernment, but other governments in Canada,
that were concerned in that proposition.
I would say that my own preference was,
of course, for a publicly built line, but I
point out to my hon. friends in this House
that I recommended, to this House, the
acceptance of the arrangement and the offer
that was made, and it came to a vote in
this House, I think in January or February
of 1956, and my hon. friend, the member
for York South, got up in his seat and voted
in favour of the legislation. So I guess that
my position was not so bad if I could con-
vince him.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, will the
hon. Prime Minister just be fair, and recall
also that he indicated that if the company
was not in the position to proceed with the
pipe line as of May 31 of that year, he would
back out of it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I said that if the company
was able to go ahead-
Mr. MacDonald: He said he would back
out of it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I did not say that at all.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, he did.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I did not put it in that
way at all. My hon. friend is the greatest
man, to split hairs and trim, I ever ran
across in my life. My hon. friend can split
hairs and he can skate along a line, and he
can trim, particularly when the honour of
other people are concerned, he can always
do that without involving himself too deeply.
Now that is a built-in facility that he has.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this.
More specifically may I say that, on Febru-
ary 12, 1957, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Lim-
ited placed, for sale, debentures to the value of
$75 million in Canada and the United States,
and also a great number of shares.
Previous to these issues and the sale of
the same, I particularly asked that no hon.
member of the government should purchase
676
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or hold, directly or indirectly, any of the
shares or any of the units of this issue, and I
was assured that my request was followed
completely and that no shares or no securi-
ties of this company were held by any hon.
member of the government at any time. I
want my hon. friend to mark that one down.
Now, I want to say this. Natural gas from
the Canadian west, by way of Trans-Canada
Pipe Lines Limited, has not even yet reached
Ontario to any extent. I think it has reached
the Lakehead by now. But long before the
lines were even commenced in Ontario, I
asked my hon. colleagues not to invest in
any company or companies which might be
distributing natural gas in Ontario. This in-
cludes Consumers Gas Company of Toronto,
which is one of the oldest common stock
investments in Ontario, going back practic-
ally 100 years.
I may say this, everybody knows that, in
the investment field, Consumers Gas Company
is an old, established concern. May I say to
my friends, I asked my colleagues not to
invest in Consumers Gas Company, or Union
Gas Company of Canada, which is likewise an
old investment company, Lakeland Natural
Gas Limited, which has only issued its shares
to the public, I think sometime during last
summer, but at that time Lakeland was
mooted because it was going around attempt-
ing to get franchises from various places,
and has obtained them, particularly in eastern
Ontario.
At that time Lakeland Gas had done no
public financing. I also mentioned the North-
ern Ontario Gas Company Limited and the
Twin City Gas Company Limited which
likewise had at that time done no public
financing. This request was made in the
beginning of last year, at which time I
requested all of my hon. colleagues to divest
themselves of any investment that they
might have in any share or security in
Consumers Gas, Union Gas, or any other
company of a like nature, and I am assured,
sir, that such is the case.
Now, I would say to my hon. friend con-
cerning his reference, he does not mention
specifically Mr. Kelly, but that is who he
refers to. I would say this, concerning Mr.
Kelly.
Mr. Kelly's resignation, and his discussions
with me, had nothing whatever to do with
the Northern Ontario Gas Company nor any
other gas company. It had to do with the
fact that he wanted to engage in other types
of business which were not consistent with
his being a member of this government. His
retirement from this government is a matter
of record. He wished to retire to contest
a convention in which he wanted to support
the Diefenbaker government at Ottawa. There
was no mention between Mr. Kelly and my-
self of anything of the nature which the hon.
member has mentioned.
Now I would say this, that my views
were well known on it, and if Mr. Kelly
was either unwilling or unable to comply
with my request, not only my request but
my positive direction, then of course, he did
the right thing to resign.
On the other hand, I have no information
of any such thing from Mr. Kelly, and I
would say that any information I have in
relation to this government or to my hon.
colleagues is absolutely to the contrary, and
I am satisfied that my hon. colleagues have
carried out the directions that I have made.
I had determined this long before the pipe
line business became a real issue here in
Ontario, I determined that if gas was going
to come into Ontario, that this government
was going to be in a position to look after
the interests of men, big and little, in this
province, and do it without fear or favour.
I can assure the hon. member that this is
our position right now, and that is where
the matter rests.
When the matter came up at the Lakehead
in connection with the disagreement in regard
to the Twin City Gas Company, I had occa-
sion to look into that matter and I found
that, I think it was the council of the city
of Fort William, it may also have been the
council of the city of Port Arthur, had made
certain representations to the commission
that stock was to be sold and made available
to the people of that area.
As a matter of fact, a paragraph to that
effect was inserted in the board's order at
the instance of the councils at the Lakehead.
As a result of that, I discussed the matter
at the time with my then colleague hon. Mr.
Porter, and also with the chairman of the
board. The chairman of the board notified
—I have the release here which I will not
bother reading— every municipality, I under-
stand, pointing out the board's position.
I might simply paraphrase it and say this,
that it outlined the responsibilities of the
board, the powers that it has that were re-
ferred to by the hon. Minister, the matter of
the determination of rates and how they were
fixed, and how they were based upon physical
investment and not upon stock values, and
it referred to the application that was made
MARCH 10, 1958
677
at Fort William and the evidence was there
adduced, and in its concluding paragraph
it said this:
If, under all circumstances the city of
Fort William or any other municipality
requests a review of an order of the board,
the board has full power to re-hear and
to alter or rescind any order that has been
made.
These powers of the board are contained
in section 17 of The Fuel Board Act as
amended. The section reads as follows:
The board may, at any time and from
time to time, re-hear or review any appli-
cation before deciding, and it may order,
rescind, change, alter or vary any order
made by it under this Act or under any
other Act or made under The Fuel Supply
Act, The Natural Gas Conservation Act, or
The Well Drillers Act.
The board is ready to consider any applica-
tion for a re-hearing that may be forthcoming.
Now the hon. member infers this— I do not
know how many municipalities are concerned
in this, but I suppose that there must be very
many— that none of these municipalities
stretching from Kenora on the Manitoba
boundary down to the town of Orillia asked
for a re-hearing, because the municipal offi-
cials had been bribed and had received
considerations, and that is what he said.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say anything
like that at all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member for York South-
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now. I
rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, no, just wait a minute.
Mr. MacDonald: I rise on a question of
privilege, Mr. Chairman. I was referring
specifically to the area under Twin City Gas
between Dryden and Geraldton. To confuse
it from Kenora to Orillia is a deliberate con-
fusion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right, then. I will take
his own words then, from Dryden through
to Nipigon, there the officials were bribed,
there the officials up there did not make any
application for a re-hearing of this matter be-
cause they received something under the
table.
Let him go and tell his candidate up in
Port Arthur that that is what he said about
her worship mayor Wish art and some of
the officials up there, the officials in that
community, and mayor Badanai and the rest
of them.
I would say to the hon. member for York
South that, if he wants to make a charge
like that against municipal officials, let him
come here and name the time and place. I
would say it is an unseemly thing to do, a
cowardly thing in fact to do, to say to
these municipal officials that the reason that
they did not accept this proposal that was
made to them— and I would say it still stands
—is the fact that they are corrupt and that
they do not fulfil their duty.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
is twisting my words now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I may say to the hon.
member that I have not heard of one single
official who is in that category, nor have I
heard of any suspicion in connection with
anything of that sort.
I will ask the hon. Minister here, who
happened to be the chairman of the northern
Ontario natural gas committee, as mayor of
the great city of Timmins. I will ask him to
tell this House how many offers he got for
stock and money under the table to get a
franchise for the Northern Ontario Gas Lines
Limited.
Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for me
to go beyond this very row here to get all
of the information that reasonable hon. mem-
bers of this House would want in connection
with the conduct, not only of hon. members
of this government and of this House, but
municipal officials as well.
Mr. MacDonald: I shall be very brief, Mr.
Chairman, but I just want to draw this to the
attention of the hon. Prime Minister in light
of his production of these documents.
The Financial Post of May 25 made this
comment, page 4:
The balance sheet of Northern Ontario
Natural Gas, as of February 28, showed
730,878 non-par value shares issued of an
authorized 2 million for a cash consideration
of $333,000-
and so on. This statement here goes back as
far as 1953, and instead of revealing who has
the shares, obviously confuses it. At the
bottom it states, for example, that as of the
time that this stock was put on the market,
Mr. Farris had been sold 37,500 shares pur-
chased at an average price of 8 cents of which
he now owns 17,500. Where are the other
20,000? Mr. Clark's 56,049 shares purchased
at a price of 12 cents, of which he now
678
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
owns only 30,000. Where is the other 26,000?
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple
proposition—
Hon. Mr. Frost: There is no mystery about
that.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Prime Minister
thinks this answers the issue, let him produce
the list of those who held the stock prior to
the time of it being placed on the public
market.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to the hon.
member that this stock was traded on the
unlisted market to the knowledge of every-
body long, long before the public issue was
made. Of course, I assume Mr. Farris and
those associated with him sold some of
their shares.
Mr. MacDonald: They certainly have made
their millions.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That may be, but it was all
disclosed.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the hon. Prime
Minister give the public the information as
to who had the shares at that time, instead
of saying "it is in this book"? It is not.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, we
started this lengthy discussion a while ago,
and it rambled on to a number of interesting
subjects. First, because the matter of my
name and my association with the natural
gas committee of northern Ontario was men-
tioned, I should perhaps say a word.
First, I would like to say that I was never
offered any stock by anybody on the table,
under the table, across the board, or over the
board. I have no stock in any natural gas
distribution company, producing company or
any such organizations. My interest in the
formation of the northern Ontario natural
gas committee was firstly because, in those
days, I was the mayor of Timmins, and we
were interested in having natural gas avail-
able to the section of northern Ontario where
I resided.
And along with the support of many other
municipal mayors and reeves and members
of city councils, and town and township
councils, chambers of commerce and organ-
izations like that, we formed this organization
and made certain representations to the
federal government and the board of trans-
port commissioners, and in due time the
route of the trans-Canada pipe line was
changed from that which had first been
chosen, to follow the route along which it is
being constructed now, and that is along
highway No. 11.
I want to assure the hon. members of the
House that, in taking over the administration
of the fuel board, I want to be sure each and
every one is giving it very, very close atten-
tion. I have, in the last several weeks, been
spending a great portion of my time in not
only studying the Acts under which this
board operates, but also its activities in the
past, the problems which exist, and methods
of solving those problems.
And I think, as I mentioned in my address
this afternoon that, when I bring forth to
the House the legislation which I have in
mind, and upon which we are presently
working, I think that we will have a proposal
there which will be satisfactory to the people
who are involved in these various negotia-
tions, whether they be distributors of gas,
owners of easement rights, owners of storage
areas and so on and so forth.
Insofar as the municipalities are concerned,
because of the fact that I was so closely
associated with the municipalities in north-
eastern Ontario, and many in the north-
western part of the province, in this gas
committee work, I feel that, knowing the
municipal people, they will come to this
department with problems respecting the dis-
tribution of natural gas. I would welcome
them.
So far, I have had no word from any of
them. I have also visited in the northwestern
part of the province and the Lakehead. I
visited the mayors of those municipalities
there on several occasions, and I did not
hear, though I was not at that moment the
Minister in charge of this board, but I did
not hear any complaints with the manner in
which their problem of the franchise agree-
ments with whatever particular companies
there are, was dealt with.
I did not hear of any problems still exist-
ing, and I was there as late as 5 or 6 weeks
ago.
Now if those municipalities— and I would
like to make this a public statement— have
any problems, I can assure them that the
Ontario fuel board is prepared on proper
application to deal with the matters that they
have.
In connection with municipally owned sys-
tems, I might say that this was a matter that
we studied to some considerable extent. As
municipal people, we were aware of the
many responsibilities that our people had
to shoulder respecting their areas, providing
schools, providing pavements, water and
sewer services, public buildings, other public
services and so on, and we came to the
conclusion— and this was the conclusion of
MARCH 10, 1958
679
the great majority of the people in our or-
ganization—that for the beginning, certainly
until natural gas was widely distributed
throughout a municipality, that a municipality
should not use its municipal credit to provide
a public utility which would be of service
only to certain persons amongst the tax-
payers.
It differs from Hydro power, for instance,
it differs from a water supply, and all of
these other municipal services that are avail-
able to everyone and everyone does use.
But, just because natural gas is going to be
distributed in a municipality, it does not mean
that everyone in the municipality is going
to use it. Obviously, it will not be available
to all persons in a municipality because of
certain geographical or other reasons.
And so that was our thinking at that
time, that it would not be fair and proper
for the credit of a municipal corporation to
be used to provide some service that was not
of general benefit to all of the ratepayers,
and so that is why I think, basically, no
municipalities in that area have gone in for
operating a municipally owned system.
So I want to assure the hon. members of
the House that many of them have studied
it very, very closely. I think, Mr. Chairman,
that this is all I have to say at this time.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): I have
listened with a great deal of amazement to
the remarks of the hon. member for York
South, and my information of our muni-
cipality in Port Arthur is this, that they did
look into the problem of getting into the
gas business, and found that the cost was so
tremendously high of piping our city and our
neighbouring municipalities, that it was
beyond their power.
If they borrowed tremendous sums of
money for that, it would certainly be detri-
mental to them in borrowing for much more
necessary improvements for the people.
Now, what they did have in mind was
this, getting a company as far as possible
owned by Canadians, having some local
directors on the board, having the first offer
of shares offered, for a period of two weeks,
to local citizens to purchase, and also getting
the lowest possible price on gas for the Lake-
head city.
Now I think that all these things were
done, and some 400,000 shares of Twin City
were bought by our local citizens, and are
being held by them, and they are very happy
about it.
Now, to date, to show the success of our
company, the Abitibi Power and Paper Com-
pany have signed a contract for gas, the
Canada Malting Company built the tremen-
dous addition to their plant, due to their
being able to get gas. The Great Lakes Paper
Company are now negotiating for gas.
Dryden Paper Company are taking gas, and
it has been a great incentive to the building
up of our district and to the attracting of
new industry, which is now asking when gas
will be available.
Gas is now available in the city of Port
Arthur, the company is working, they have
their sales offices open in both cities, and are
in the process of building a new head office
building in Fort William.
Now, of course, there was controversy, as
there always is over these things, much of it,
but now the people are happy with it, and
I would like to say to the hon. member for
York South, that they will continue to be
happy as long as he stays out of our area,
and quits fanning these flames of dissension.
They are happy with their gas company and,
as I said last year, Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for York South deals continually in
chicanery and circumlocutions, and I repeat
it again this year.
I certainly do not want my area brought
into a derogatory category when he is talk-
ing in the manner in which he was this after-
noon. We look after our own affairs up
there, and we will be happy and prosperous
and we will grow, if the hon. member for
York South will just keep out of our affairs.
Votes 1,101 and 1,102 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I am anxi-
ous that we should adjourn, on account of the
press dinner tonight.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do now rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report that it has come to a certain
resolution and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In moving the adjournment
of the House, may I say that tomorrow we
will proceed with the balance of the estimates
of The Department of Mines.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.50 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 29
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Beuate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, March 11, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev* A. W, Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 11, 1958
Sixth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Maloney 683
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 684
University of Toronto Act, 1947, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 684
Veterinarians Act, bill intituled, Mr. Goodfellow, first reading 684
Charitable Institutions Act, 1956, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 685
Services of homemakers and nurses, bill to provide for, Mr. Cecile, first reading 685
Public Commercial Vehicles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 685
Public Vehicles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 685
Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, first reading 685
Control of air pollution, bill to provide for, Mr. Phillips, first reading 685
Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 686
Estimates, Department of Mines, continued, Mr. Spooner 687
Estimates, Department of Public Welfare, Mr. Cecile 704
Recess, 6 o'clock 712
683
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 11, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney,
from the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's sixth report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 37, An Act respecting the town
of Almonte.
Your committee also begs to report the
following bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. 3, An Act respecting St. Peter's
Church, Brockville.
Bill No. 25, An Act respecting St. Michael's
College.
Bill No. 30, An Act to incorporate the
society of professional directors of municipal
recreation of Ontario.
Bill No. 41, An Act respecting the city
of Hamilton.
Your committee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties in the actual cost of
printing be remitted on Bill No. 3, An Act
respecting St. Peter's Church, Brockville;
Bill No. 25, An Act respecting St. Michael's
College; Bill No. 12, An Act respecting the
Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie; Bill No. 16,
An Act respecting Waterloo College associ-
ate faculties; and on Bill No. 1, An Act
respecting Windsor Jewish communal pro-
jects.
Your committee would recommend that
rule No. 63 of the legislative assembly be
suspended to extend the time for receiving
reports from the committee on private bills,
to Tuesday, March 18, 1958.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister) moves
that, commencing on Thursday next, March
13:
This House will meet each day of the
week from Monday to Thursday inclusive,
at 2.00 of the clock in the afternoon, and
on each Friday at 10.30 of the clock in the
forenoon for the balance of the present
session. On each Friday, the House will
adjourn for the luncheon interval at 12.45 of
the clock. We will resume at 2.00 of the
clock and adjourn at 4.00 of the clock in
the afternoon, and that rule No. 2 of the
assembly be suspended so far as it might
apply to this motion.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Speaker, this is an obvious attempt
on the part of the government to speed this
session up. It may be that they intend to
speed it up unnecessarily. It would be difficult
to understand why there is so much haste
desired on the part of the administration,
unless they want to get through in ample
time so that the shock troops can be available
for the final onslaught, as they see it, before
March 31. But what is my hon. friend's
conception of the deadline so far as the con-
clusion of the session is concerned?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
leader of the Opposition rather disconcerts
me when he talks of the shock troops and
the final assault. I suppose that he is regard-
ing the battle on March 31 as the troops, in
this House, meeting the final charge of
Napoleon's old guard at Waterloo or some-
thing of that sort.
But may I say to my hon. friend that
what we are doing now is really no different
than in other years. We have been in ses-
sion now, I think, about 5 weeks, and usually
at this time of year, when the committee
work begins to come to an end, we have
meetings at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. That
is not new.
Now, I would say that there is an innova-
tion in the Friday morning matter, but it is
not a very great innovation for this reason,
that we are providing that the House will
terminate at 4 o'clock. Now we did, in
other years, sit through to 5 and sometimes
5.30, and we are changing that, so there
is not really any difference at all.
I would say to my hon. friend that, as
regards the end of the session, I have been
684
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
enjoying myself so much that I did not
want it to end, and I never thought of such
a thing. We will have to wait and see how
the work progresses.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
want to add my word of protest to that of
the hon. leader of the Opposition regarding
what is happening in this House.
I Hon. Mr. Frost: He did not protest. You
are the one who protested.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, there was a protest
that the hon. Prime Minister did not miss,
despite the fact that he buried it behind
that smile.
I would like to remind the hon. Prime
Minister, Mr. Speaker, that on the second
day of this session, I asked him a question
as to whether there was any possibility-
granted the preoccupation with the election
on March 31— that there might be an adjourn-
ment, and whether we could conclude the
business in an orderly fashion instead of a
rushed fashion.
I do not happen to have the hon. Prime
Minister's exact words before me at the mo-
ment, but his reply was to the effect that we
had our business to do here, we would go
ahead in the normal fashion to do this busi-
ness, we would have nothing to do with
the election.
Now, this House began 4 or 5 days later
this year than it did last year, and we are
now at least a week or 10 days in advance
of starting morning sessions over what it
was a year ago. We have two or three esti-
mates being thrown at us in a single day.
A year or two ago, the hon. Prime Minis-
ter used as an argument, when the remunera-
tion of hon. members of this House was
increased and I supported him on it, that
we should move, he felt, towards the prop-
osition of having fall and spring sessions,
so the business of this province would not
be rushed through in this fashion.
Instead of doing that, he is doing the very
opposite. He is rushing it still more. The prop-
osition that a province like Ontario, with a
budget of $600 million more than the federal
budget back in the 1930's, should be rushing
its business through in something like 6 or 7
weeks, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is not doing
the business of this province in an adequate
fashion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will say that there is no
indication of a rush. I think that the person
who is getting into a rush is the hon. mem-
ber for York South.
As a matter of fact, we have not been rush-
ing the sessions, I think that we have only
had one night session this year and he says
the business of this House is being rushed.
We have not met at 2 o'clock on any of the
ordinary afternoons of the House until this
Thursday, and still he says the House is being
rushed.
Now, I would say to the hon. member that
he had better sit down and look things over.
We are not rushing things at all. We are
going ahead in the ordinary course.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the fol-
lowing:
Second annual report of the Ontario water
resources commission for the year ended
December 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO ACT,
1947
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled "An Act to amend The Univer-
sity of Toronto Act, 1947."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to increase the membership of the
board of governors of the University of
Toronto from 24 to 32, in order to provide
for the expansion of the university, and for
representation outside of that which is now
being given.
THE VETERINARIANS ACT, 1958
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves first reading
of bill intituled, "The Veterinarians Act,
1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Act that I have
just introduced is a general revision of the
existing Act which has not been revised since
1931. The change of conditions and the
growth of the profession make it desirable to
bring the Act up to date and more into line
with the Acts governing other professions.
I might say that in this Act there are
ample exemptions to protect farmers from
doing certain things with their own livestock
and poultry; at the same time there is pro-
vision for the veterinarians under this Act to
discipline their own profession, and this Act
of course will be referred to the agricultural
committee in due course.
MARCH 11, 1958
685
THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS ACT,
1956
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Chari-
table Institutions Act, 1956."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the present time
a provincial subsidy based on operating costs
is paid in respect of all types of charitable
institutions. This bill continues the same
subsidies for all charitable institutions except
for those specified as homes for the aged, and
provides a new basis for a subsidy for homes
for the aged.
SERVICES OF HOMEMAKERS AND
NURSES
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to provide for the services
of homemakers and nurses."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed
to provide services in homes in cases where
hospital and other institutional care might
otherwise be required.
companies. Also, it provides that the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
can prescribe the conditions required on a
bill of lading.
THE PUBLIC VEHICLES ACT
Hon. Mr. Allan moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Vehicles Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has the
same definition, as far as Minister and de-
partment are concerned, and the same section
referring to public vehicles as was mentioned
in The Public Commercial Vehicles Act
amendments.
THE ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT
BOARD ACT, 1955
Hon. Mr. Allan moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Ontario
Highway Transport Board Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is comple-
mentary to the other two bills.
THE PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
ACT
Hon. J. N. Allan moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Commercial Vehicles Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Act contains 5
small amendments. One is to define the Minis-
ter and department, changing it to the Minis-
ter of Transport rather than Highways.
Others are to define public commercial
vehicle; to set out clearly the definition of
an urban zone as it applies to two adjoining
urban municipalities.
Then there is an amendment to make clear
that a person who advertises to arrange trans-
portation of goods must be licenced to per-
form such transportation. That means that a
hauler with an "H' licence should not adver-
tise to haul class "A" goods.
Also a new section provides that the
Minister may require a corporation to pres-
ent any transfer of shares to the board for
approval, and provides that any substantial
transfer of shares may be deemed a transfer
of all operating licences. This is to enable
the board to inquire as to who owns certain
CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
Hon. M. Phillips moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to provide for the control
of air pollution."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want
to congratulate the select committee on air
pollution under the chairmanship of the hon.
member for High Park (Mr. Cowling). This
committee made a complete investigation and,
during the 1957 session of the Legislature,
brought in an outstanding report. In the
main, we followed the recommendations
given in that report.
However, we were unable to accept one
recommendation. That was the setting up of
a commission which, in our opinion, would
have delayed the establishment of an efficient
air pollution programme for Ontario.
We decided that, if we really wanted to
get down to business, then our policy should
be to set up a special branch for this purpose
under the division of industrial hygiene, the
director of which is Dr. J. G. Cunningham.
We were very fortunate in obtaining the
services of Dr. C. M. Jeffcott, who is one
686
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the few men having the necessary scien-
tific qualifications as well as the experience
necessary to fill a post of this kind. He
has already obtained the services of 5 well
qualified men: 1 chemist, 1 engineer, 1
physicist and 2 laboratory technicians.
Our experience so far would indicate that
our greatest problem will be presented by
air contamination from industry, because
each type of industry is an entity unto itself.
The other type of air pollution is caused by
combustion, or really I should say incom-
plete combustion, which probably causes 70
per cent, of all air pollution.
In exploring the situation in Pittsburgh,
we have found that they had dealt only with
the problem of combustion, now they are
doing a lot of work on industrial air pollu-
tion and have solved certain of the prob-
lems, but not too many.
Now, may I say that I have had Dr.
Jeffcott place, in my office, for two weeks,
one of our meters which measures the amount
of pollution in the air. I would like to ask
any hon. member of the House to come over
to my office and we will explain it to him.
If I am not there, I will see that someone
else is available who can do it.
Now, the main features of the bill are as
follows :
1. To provide for the control of air con-
taminants of all kinds;
2. to authorize the Minister of Health and
universities to carry on research in air pollu-
tion problems;
3. to authorize the Minister of Health to
assist municipalities in the development of
air pollution control programmes and in the
preparation of air pollution control by-laws;
4. to empower municipalities to pass and
enforce adequate air pollution control by-
laws;
5. to empower any number of contiguous
municipalities to provide for a staff on a
share-cost basis to administer and enforce
their respective air pollution by-laws;
6. to give the Minister of Health powers
similar to those given to municipalities in
order that he may control, by means of
regulations, air pollution in territory without
municipal organization.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): I would
like to thank the hon. Minister for his refer-
ence to the select committee on air pollution
and smoke control, and at the same time I
would like to congratulate him for his fast
action on this matter. It is less than a year
since we submitted our final report to the
House, and now we have an Act which I
think is a far-reaching one, and will go a
long way toward providing the citizens of
Ontario with clean air.
It is the only Act of its kind in any of
the 10 provinces in Canada. We are taking
the lead in this important programme of air
pollution control, and I would just like to
say again how much we appreciate the fast
action by the hon. Minister of Health and
the staff he has organized to carry out this
far-reaching programme.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
about the board of supervisors which the
municipalities would provide on a share-cost
basis, I wonder if the hon. Minister would
elaborate on that a little? What does he
intend to do about the share-cost basis?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I intend
to give a fuller explanation of this bill on
second reading before it goes to the health
committee.
THE DAMAGE BY FUMES ARBITRATION
ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Damage
by Fumes Arbitration Act."
Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains
two features. First, the scope of the Act is
broadened to include companies engaged in
the manufacture of sulphur or sulphuric acid
for commercial purposes, and second, the
maximum sum that may be collected annually
from the companies concerned to pay for the
expense of administering the Act is increased
from $20,000 to $30,000.
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, may I say I have had
several calls in connection with the new
licence plates for automobiles. I think the
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Allan) has
certainly set a precedent here, by stating
a deadline which is Wednesday, March 12,
and staying with it.
But at the same time, there may be some
extenuating circumstances this year that we
have not had in other years. To name one,
of course, it is the necessity of either proving
financial responsibility before getting the
licence plates or paying the $5 additional
fee into the unsatisfied judgment fund.
There are many, many people, I know,
in Toronto today who do not have their new
MARCH 11, 1958
687
licences, and I suppose it is just human
nature to put these things off until the last
moment.
I was just wondering if the hon. Minister
of Transport is going to give any considera-
tion to the possibility of an extension at this
time?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, I may say that it is recognized
that there are line-ups at the licence-issuing
offices today, and we regret that such is the
case. This matter of waiting until the last
few days before obtaining licences, each
year, appears to be a problem that we have
not made very much progress with.
After a great deal of discussion this year,
it was decided that we would announce the
final date at the beginning of the issuing
period, which we did, and which is almost
the identical date of the final date last year.
It is strange how people forget.
Any complaints that I have received sug-
gested that we extended the date last year
to March 31, which is not correct. It was
March 15, and it has never been extended
to March 31.
It seemed, after a great deal of considera-
tion by the officials of The Department of
Transport, that just as Christmas comes on
December 25 each year, and because Christ-
mas shopping is not necessarily completed
before that date, it is recognized as a date,
and the people plan their shopping to suit
that date.
Now, we feel that much greater progress
will be made if a definite date is set in
the beginning, and that we hold to that date.
It is recognized that this year there will be
more difficulties than would ordinarily occur,
because of the great number of people who
expected that the date would be extended.
I can hardly think that the insurance
matter has been of any great import, for the
reason that last night, when the doors were
closed in the east block, everyone who was
in the building at 5 o'clock had their licences
by 5.30. Now, there was quite a long line,
and if that number could be served in that
period of time, it would indicate that there
was not a great deal of holdup in that con-
nection.
We have given definite assurance from the
beginning that March 12 would be the final
date. With the establishment of a new
Department of Transport, we would like to
establish the reputation of keeping our word,
and I may say that it is not our intention to
extend the date further.
During the period of issuing, we have
spent a considerable amount of money in
advertising to state that this would be the
final date, in newspapers, on the radio, on
television. In addition to that, there has been
the opportunity for anyone, who wished, to
mail in his application, and we have, each
day, completed the sending out of the licence
plates for every application that was received
on that day, and it is expected that we will
continue to do that.
So, although there may be some grief this
year, we feel confident that finally this will
improve the matter of issuing licences and the
great pile-up that comes each year in the
last two days of the issuing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in looking
into that matter, may I point out to the
House that last year the final date was March
15, this year it is March 12. The calendar
dates of the days of the week made the
difference. I say that in past years we
extended the time, and this was subject
always to criticism here and elsewhere as to
why this was done. The deadline was really
January 31, then that would be extended by
one or two extensions to March 15.
Now this year, on January 1, the hon.
Minister announced that it would be March
12, and that there would be no extension.
Now there is the situation. I point out that
there apparently could be a pile-up on March
12. Now I point out to you, Mr. Speaker,
that what we did in other years, perhaps, was
not so bad as some people — some com-
mentators and some radio people— said it
was. As a matter of fact, it was a practical
way of warning people of the date by which
they had to buy their licence plates.
Now we have followed the advice of very
many people, we have set the date and I do
not think the date can be changed.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the Speaker do
now leave the chair, and that the House
resolve itself into the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
(Continued)
On vote 1,102:
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Chairman,
before we carry on that vote 1,102, I would
like to make some remarks under 1,101 in
the general main office expenditures of the
department, under which we usually discuss
688
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
some of the things that have to do with the
functions of The Department of Mines.
Yesterday, the discussion on these estimates
rather got off the track, when certain other
matters were brought up which had to do
with pipe line construction across the north-
ern part of the province.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to make this observation as a result of some
telephone conversations I had this morning.
Yesterday, the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) made some suggestions
that there were municipal officials between
the town of Dryden and, I believe, Geraldton,
whom he suspected— or had information to
lead him to suspect— of having accepted some
sort of emolument to effect franchises with
gas line companies.
Now Dryden happens to be—
Hon. Mr. Frost: "Bribe" was the word.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not use that term.
That is the hon. Prime Minister's term.
Mr. Wren: Well, the bribes were inferred,
and I want to say this, that the town of
Dryden is in my constituency and the mayor
of Dryden is a person who has been well
and intimately known to me for the past 20
or 25 years. Those on the council of the
town of Dryden, and on all the utilities
boards and all the utilities committees and
the Hydro commission, are men who are, in
the majority, I would think at the present
time, union men employed by the Dryden
Paper Company and other industries in and
about the town.
I have never known these men to be of
anything but the highest reputation, and I
want to say that the people of the town of
Dryden, and the residents of the constituency
of Kenora generally, are disgusted that this
kind of insinuation was made about the
character of these people.
I would say to the hon. member for York
South that, if he has any information of any
official in the provincial constituency of
Kenora who accepted any bribes or sugges-
tions of bribes, or purchased any stocks at
what might be called cut-rate prices, or
made any overnight profits, I would chal-
lenge him now to name those people. I would
think it would be the fair and the proper
thing to do.
Now, I want to say something else in this
connection. I am sorry my hon. friends from
Port Arthur (Mr. Wardrope) and Fort Wil-
liam (Mr. Mapledoram) are not in their
seats. I was one of the prime movers, as the
hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Dunbar) will
remember, in the organization of the North-
western Ontario Municipal Association. I was
one of those who did most of the organizing,
and was secretary-treasurer of that organiza-
tion for quite a number of years.
Within the entire framework of that organ-
ization, including the cities of Port Arthur
and Fort William, and right up and down
the northwestern section of the country— and
I spent some 15 years in municipal affairs in
that part of the country— I have never known
of any municipal official, elected or appointed,
who had anything to do with a situation of
this kind. I think that the hon. member for
York South, in his official capacity as leader
of the CCF party, might be chastized by the
president of the CCF organization in the
Kenora riding, as making "character assassina-
tions," to use the words of the president of
the CCF organization in that riding.
Mr. MacDonald: With regard to the hon.
member and his conscience-
Mr. Wren: Well, I do not know. Anything
that I have said, I will establish, and I would
challenge the hon. member right now to
show if he is a man of any courage and any
veracity. I will stake my seat if he will stake
his.
If he can produce the name of any muni-
cipal official in my constituency who took any
bribes or took offers of any bribes, to make
any deals with a gas company, I will put my
seat right on the line right now. Will he put
his?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister led off on the proposition of
bribes. I never once used the word "bribe".
This is his interpretation. I said that there
was a private distribution of stock by
Northern Ontario Natural Gas throughout
that area and I asked the hon. Prime Minis-
ter to investigate and reveal to whom this
stock went.
Now, if the hon. member wants to twist
that into bribes, let him just go ahead, but
let him not accuse other people of innuen-
does and misrepresentations when indulging
in this kind of thing.
And why is this hon. member up on his
feet when just about two weeks ago he
made some charge about Tories supporting
a CCF candidate in 1951? What he is now
referring to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that
that candidate has died and his closest
worker has died. Both men were known
very well, Ralph James of Kenora and A. R.
Askell who, for something like 40 years,
was reeve of a municipality, the name of
MARCH 11, 1958
689
which I have forgotten for the moment. And
those two men's reputations will stand un-
challenged by any kind of slur such as the
hon. member for Kenora made in this House,
and the challenge has been put up to him
in his own riding.
An hon. member: He is just throwing dirt
around, that is all.
Mr. Wren: Mr. Chairman, I do not have
to have the hon. Prime Minister of the prov-
ince support my statements here today or
support the statements I made the other day
in this House about the subject being dis-
cussed now. I distinctly heard the hon. mem-
ber for York South say yesterday that shares
were passed over or under the table, or in
some fashion, into the hands of municipal
officials of my constituency to grant conces-
sions to these gas companies— does he say
that is right?
Mr. MacDonald: I said there was a private
distribution of stock prior to the public sale.
Mr. Wren: Well now, who is it?
Mr. MacDonald: That is what I want this
government to reveal.
An hon. member: Why does not the hon.
member for York South reveal it?
Mr. Wren: Well, it is obvious, Mr. Chair-
man, and I want to say this regarding the
inference which was just raised now about
another matter I mentioned a couple of weeks
ago. I am willing to produce any of the
evidence the hon. member wants, to sub-
stantiate what I said.
Mr. MacDonald: I challenge him, go ahead
and produce it.
Mr. Wren: Well, will the hon. member do
the same thing as I did?
Mr. MacDonald: Never mind.
Mr. Wren: Will the hon. member resign
his seat if I can produce it?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Mr. Wren: I would be glad to get rid of
the hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member will
get rid of himself if he keeps this up.
Mr. Wren: Well, I am not too concerned
about that.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to carry on,
now, in the absence of any explanation of
these remarks which were made about people
in my constituency, with some remarks about
The Department of Mines in general.
I do want to compliment the new hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Spooner) in the
address he made to the House yesterday, and
I feel that it was rather unfortunate that, in
his first address to the House, the publicity
which might usually have been attendant
upon his remarks, in the rather interesting
presentation he made, was buried in the
exchange which took place in this assembly
yesterday.
He has come to preside over a department
which is genuinely interested, I think, in the
development of the north country, and along
that line I want to direct some remarks to
both the hon. Minister and to the hon. men
responsible for the government of this prov-
ince, having to do with the natural resources
industries. Mining, of course, is one of those
industries.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the provinces
in this country, particularly since they control
a great deal of the corporation tax structure,
should be dedicated to the principle of job
creation, and I feel that a study of job crea-
tion in this province should be made, start-
ing particularly with the natural resources
industries.
Now in saying that, I repeat today what
I said last year, but I want to enlarge a little
more on what I did say last year about the
corporation taxes on the natural resources
industries being too high.
I repeat that statement. I voted against
the corporation tax increases last year and,
if they were proposed this year, I would
similarly vote against them. I do not agree
with the hon. member for York South and
his party policy that corporation taxes in
regard to these industries should be further
increased. It would plainly and simply put
thousands more men and women out of work.
I think the step forward is going to have
to be taken at one time or another in all
industry but beginning with the natural re-
sources industries, there should be a reduc-
tion in their corporation tax structure.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the royal
road to socialism is built on the stones of
high corporation taxation. The socialist seeks
to tax beyond the point of no return, and
thus lay the foundation for the unemployment
and the despair which will elect him to
office. Then the status quo is removed and
everything is fine for socialists. From that
plateau we develop the dictatorships. Call
it communism, fascism or what have you,
690
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
particularly in European countries, they had
their springboards in socialism.
Now I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in the
natural resources industries the corporations
tax is not only too high, it is discriminatory
and in some sense double taxation. This busi-
ness of levying high taxes and then return-
ing it to municipalities and other areas in
the natural resources field is to my mind a
rather silly effort, for much of it is lost— with
the exception of the political effect in the col-
lection—in the transfer and the re-transfer of
these funds.
Better still, I think, we should begin with
the natural resources industries in particular,
and industry in general, and reduce corpora-
tion taxes at the rate of perhaps 2 per cent.
to 3 per cent, a year, from its present levels
of 52 per cent, down to perhaps 40 per cent.,
provided the difference in this taxation is used
in capital expansion.
I believe this, that low tax rates which are
productive will fill the Treasury coffers to a
greater extent than they are filled today, if
it is worked out over a period of 5 or 6
years.
I suggest to this House, Mr. Chairman,
that there in that avenue lie the jobs, the
security, and the freedom necessary to this
province and to this nation.
That one step, if it were announced today
—and when I say today I mean within a
reasonable period of time, as I realize these
things cannot be done overnight— would
reopen many of the closed mines, would
stimulate development programmes, the back-
wash of which would flow from the doorstep
of industry into the homes of those needing
employment today.
Further it would not only work itself back
to the mines and the forests, but right into
the basic industries of the province.
I was interested, after I compiled these
notes, in reading some remarks contained in
an editorial in U.S. News and World Reports
which I feel is a rather authoritative and
worthy news reporting agency in the United
States.
In their issue dated March 14, they had
this to say, which I thought rather interest-
ing, and I quote:
The worst mistake we can make in our
tax system is in the field of corporate rates.
Here we expect the enterpriser, who takes
the risk of everyday business, to be en-
thusiastic about his position as a minority
partner.
There isn't much incentive felt in being
a 48 per cent, partner when the govern-
ment takes the major share, 52 per cent.,
of all the net income. Apart from the
psychological discouragements of such a
disproportionate partnership between the
government and business men, this system
fails to build the necessary surpluses for
modernization and expansion of plants.
And that points out in a few words, better
than I could, just what I was setting out to
say in my remarks about the estimates of
this department.
I have thought for a long while, I believe
ever since I came into this Legislature, about
the need for developmental investment in
the north country, and I think the reduction
of the corporations tax should be extended
to all industry in this province. But I feel
the ideal place to try to test the soundness
of a theory of this kind is in our mines and
in our forests.
I am convinced, as I said before, that if
we can lower tax rates and establish tax
rates which are productive, we will secure
returns far more than our wildest dreams
at the present time. I am not suggesting for
a moment that the reduction in taxation,
through the application of this principle, be
given over to people or to individuals. I
am suggesting here that reduction in cor-
poration taxes, industry in general and natu-
ral resources in particular, should be restricted
to the proposition that any reduction in taxa-
tion is applied to capital expansion, plant
improvement and so on.
I would commend to the new hon. Minister
of Mines, in his deliberations over the next
year or two, that he take the suggestion
under advisement, and consider the effect
which a proposition of this kind would have
on the mining industry in general.
I will pass it along later to the hon. Minis-
ter of Lands and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram)
and to the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Frost), to see if we can find some other
means to maintain ourselves at full or near
normal employment, without having to resort
to occasional splurges of public works and
monies, if with a proper corporate tax struc-
ture, we could develop our basic industries
and with it industry in general across the
province.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, before
approving this particular vote, I would like
to assure the hon. member for Kenora that
his remarks this afternoon will be studied.
I am sure he realizes, as I do, that this is
a very involved matter, but nevertheless I
can assure him I will give it consideration.
MARCH 11, 1958
691
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in the House
one of the hon. members asked for the reason
why the mining tax was estimated to have
increased by only $1.65 million while the
value of mineral production was estimated to
have increased by $100 million, and tax
rates have increased on profits of over $1
million by 3 per cent.
The department has received no tax re-
turns as yet, and as a result no actual figures
are available as to mining costs, develop-
ment expenses, and so on. Our estimates of
taxes are based on figures of expected profit,
provided by the companies last fall, and
some revised figures provided in January.
It is, however, quite possible for the mineral
production to increase while at the same
time taxes might not increase and might
even decrease.
One of the reasons for this is that a great
number of companies which paid taxes in
1957 will pay less tax in 1958 because of
the higher cost of operation and the carry-
ing out of a more extensive development
programme to find ore for the future. Ex-
ploration and development costs are allowed
in full as an expense in the year they are
incurred.
Of the preliminary estimate for the in-
crease in production, almost $70 million of
that is in the uranium fields, the uranium
mines, and so uranium will account for the
great bulk of the increase which I mentioned
in my speech on the estimates yesterday.
It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that the
first year of operation of all the uranium
mines has proved much more costly than had
at first been anticipated. For instance, Con-
solidated Dennison Mine, in the Elliot Lake
area, started production with the No. 1 shaft,
although it was intended to be only a de-
velopment shaft. However, it was necessary
to use this shaft until the main or No. 2
shaft was completed, and connected with the
No. 1 shaft some 2,800 feet distant.
Ore from the No. 1 shaft is required to
be trucked more than half a mile, and this
will continue until sufficient development
has been completed in No. 2 shaft area to
warrant using the shaft for production.
Handling ore in this manner has proven to
be most costly.
I am using that one mine as an instance
of how these things happen. It is difficult
also to estimate closely all mining costs prior
to production, and this has been the case in
many new mines in Ontario. I am sure
the hon. members will realize this fact.
In addition to all the development work
occurring in a year, permitted as an expense
under The Mining Tax Act, the development
work necessary to connect No. 1 and No. 2
shafts represented a very huge investment.
Capital costs in all cases exceeded the
original estimates, and as a result the allow-
ances for depreciation and processing will
be much greater. All of these factors tend to
reduce the taxable profit of these mines even
though more uranium was produced than in
1956.
Now, the increase in the tax rates affected
only 7 companies which operated prior to
1957, two of these are golds, two nickel and
copper, two iron and one salt. The golds will
show an increase in tax, as will the two
nickels and the salt, but the irons, due to a
sharp cutback in the demand for iron ore,
will show decreases amounting to about
$400,000.
Of the 6 uranium mines which came into
production in 1957 or late 1956, only one is
affected by the increase in tax rates, and two
others will pay taxes totalling $45,000. Three
others will not be taxable for reasons stated
before.
Hon. members will therefore see that,
although the mineral production was up
mostly due to the uranium mines, the difficul-
ties of the first years of production of these
mines have been so costly that they have
offset the normally expected return to the
government in profit tax.
I thought the hon. members of this House
would like to have that information, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate what the hon. Minister has said. This
throws some light on this question of why
the revenues dropped, but is this the full
explanation as to why an expected revenue
of $17.5 million has come out only at the
estimated level now of $11.1 million? Last
year the revenue was $8 million, and the
department expected to more than double it;
yet instead of $17.5 million, it is only $11.1
million. This is such a serious drop that I
have difficulty in figuring how even the
reasons that the hon. Minister has given can
account for it all.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry to say that I cannot at this time give
a more complete explanation than I have. I
had no knowledge of how the estimates were
arrived at last year. I think that the depart-
ment was just a little over-optimistic in their
692
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
computation of their estimates. I hope that
we will have better estimating this year.
Vote 1,102 agreed to.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): On
votes 1,102 and 1,103, I would like to ask
the hon. Minister if he would investigate the
possibility of his department having his min-
ing records issue claim tags to prospectors
before they leave for the back country to
stake claims. As the practice is today, pros-
pectors stake claims, then return to the
recorder's office, register their claims, obtain
the tags and return again to the bush and
tag their claim. If this other system can be
adopted, it would save considerable travel-
ling and expenses, and I hope the hon. Minis-
ter will give it every investigation.
Also, at this time, I would like to con-
gratulate him and his department for their
assistance at all times in all phases of the
mining industry.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the hon. member for Temiskaming,
I would say that this matter that he has sug-
gested, along with a number of other matters
concerning prospecting generally, are pres-
ently being investigated. I had hope that I
might be able to make some statement to the
House in connection with that particular
point, because this is a matter which has been
discussed by prospectors' organizations at
various times.
There are some problems. The whole situa-
tion is not quite as the prospectors at times
would lead one to believe, although they are
not trying to mislead us; I do not mean to
say that. But there are questions and answers
on both sides of that proposition.
However, I promise that the matter will
be given very close attention in the hope
that we can do something to help to relieve
that situation, because it can be rather costly
for a prospector who has to go a considerable
distance into the bush to stake his claims,
then come back and record, and get his tags
and so on and so forth.
Votes 1,102 to 1,104, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 1,105:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : I would like to hear from the hon.
Minister as to whether the International
Nickel Company is making headway in con-
trolling the output of these damaging fumes.
As I understand it they could, if they spent
enough money, really control the output. Are
they making progress toward the eventual
elimination of the fume damage?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I might say to the
hon. leader of the Opposition that I have
visited Sudbury on several occasions since
last summer, and I have always heard of
sulphur fumes damage in that area because
I come from around there.
I would say that the International Nickel
Company is continually adding to its equip-
ment for the recovery of sulphur fumes, or
of sulphur from the fumes, and I think that
is borne out by the fact that the claims are
being reduced in number and severity. I
would say that there is a real and an honest
effort being made to control that situation.
We have introduced in the House a bill
to provide an amendment to The Sulphur
Fumes Arbitration Act, and the additional
money in the bill will be used for the pur-
pose of establishing more testing equipment,
not necessarily in the Sudbury area, but in
other areas in the province.
Mr. Oliver: Could the hon. Minister tell
me the dollar value of the claims paid this
last year?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I am sorry that I can-
not give that information now, but I could
get it a little later if the hon. leader of the
Opposition would like to have it.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): I can re-
member, when the air pollution committee
visited Sudbury two years ago, a brief was
presented by the International Nickel Com-
pany at that time. They stated the reason
for not installing air filtration equipment
was that they could not find a ready market
for the sulphur.
Now, frankly, I believe that was a very
poor argument. A wealthy company like
International Nickel could afford to spend
a great deal of money, but with the uranium
mines taking up a greater amount of sulphur
today I wondered if we could hold out any
prospect of some alleviation in that respect
in the future.
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr.
Chairman, may I say to the hon. members
that the-
Hon. Mr. Spooner: There is at the present
time considerable sulphur being used in the
new plant at Cutler, which is producing
sulphuric acid for the uranium mines. As
I understand it, this market in the uranium
mines was sort of let out for tender, and
International Nickel and Noranda apparently
both bid on it, and Noranda's tender was
accepted.
MARCH 11, 1958
693
Now, I do not know how much sulphur
could be obtained from the International
Nickel plant and what use could be made
of it. That is economically a not too de-
pendable type of business apparently.
Actually, the plant at Cutler has dealt
with the idea of producing sulphur from a
sintering process for iron ore, but at the
present time they are importing raw sulphur
or brimstone, and can do that more econo-
mically than manufacturing it there through
the sintering process.
Vote 1,105 agreed to.
On vote 1,106:
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): I was
going to ask the hon. Minister if he could
explain this. I believe yesterday, when he
was in his explanation of the department,
he went into 1,107, I am sorry 1,106—
Mr. Morningstar: May I complete what I
started to say on vote 1,105, I would just like
to say at this time that people in the Port
Colborne area and Welland county are very
grateful to the hon. Minister of Mines for
having air pollution equipment installed in
that area, to measure the impurities in the
air. As we know, the farmers' crops have
been damaged there for some years, and
they were very unhappy about the situation.
We do hope to have that clarified now, and
are very pleased indeed.
Vote 1,106 agreed to.
On vote 1,107:
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, in connec-
tion with this vote I think its the proper
place for me to say something about the
outburst of the hon. member for York South
yesterday. I hope that he has taken time
to read the news items in the Toronto
Telegram and the Toronto Daily Star. Now,
I say to him that the implications of what
he said are in the headlines of the Star. I do
not always agree with the Star headlines,
sometimes I do not agree with other news-
paper headlines.
But certainly this little headline here, CCF
Charges Kelly Got Gas Line Stopped,
City Officials Bribed, was just identically
what I thought the hon. member meant, and
what he did mean, too. I am giving the
exact headline in that paper.
Now I would say to my hon. friend that,
in this stage, I hope that he will read the
news items in the paper.
Yesterday, he could have asked me about
Mr. Kelly's resignation. It would have been
proper enough for him to ask me why Mr.
Kelly resigned, and I certainly would have
attempted to give a decent answer. He could
have asked me as to my knowledge of whether
or not Mr. Kelly had any stock in any pipe
line companies. As a matter of fact, he could
have asked me whether the cabinet or any
of the hon. members of the government, were
implicated in this.
But the hon. member for York South did
not choose to do that. Instead, he chose to
use words like this: "The hon. Prime Minis-
ter thought, or the hon. Prime Minister cer-
tainly got rid of Kelly, demanded his resigna-
tion because he was implicated in stock
deals," inferring that any stock deals that
Mr. Kelly had were corrupt. He imputed
dishonesty on the part of municipal govern-
ment, running from Dryden to Nipigon. He
did that deliberately, and I would say this to
him, that he used expressions like this yester-
day. He referred to the fact that there was
dishonesty on the part of these municipal
officials. Yes he did, he certainly did. He
intended to do that. He said-
Mr. MacDonald: That is the interpretation
the hon. Prime Minister put on it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Just exactly what is in the
newspaper.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not. That is his
interpretation.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He did.
Mr. MacDonald: I will say my piece— let
the hon. Prime Minister go ahead.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He did not ask if they
were guilty, he did not ask that the matter
be reopened before the fuel board. He said
it was a fact that they had stock passed
around, that is what he said. If that is
not corruption, then I do not know what cor-
ruption is.
Now I would say to my hon. friend that
he used expressions like this, "getting closer
home"— he will remember his use of it. It
was directed at this government, implying
that Mr. Kelly had done certain things, and
imputing that the government and its con-
nections were implicated in deals in connec-
tion with stocks that came from the Treasury
at some 8 cents a share and were sold for
fabulous amounts.
Now I want to say to my hon. friend this
—this is about the third outburst of this sort
that we have had from him. We had one
dandy last year in connection with the town-
ship of Scarborough and I tell him that he
will never get very far in this House, or never
694
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
get very far in public life, until he learns to
act like a gentleman.
Now that is it. Until he learns that men
and women in public life are not dishonest,
and are not subject to bribery and corrup-
tion and that sort of thing, and gets away
from making lurid imputations about other
people, he will not get very far. I do not
think perhaps that he will go very far with
some of the policies he advocated anyway.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to say
this, he could have asked me about Mr.
Kelly's resignation. I want to say that at no
time was the matter of any holdings of stock,
blind stock, in the Northern Ontario Pipe
Lines mentioned at all with Mr. Kelly. As
a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, I had
no knowledge whatever of Mr. Kelly having
any stock in that concern, and I see in today's
paper that Mr. Kelly states that he did not
have.
Now, I had never heard of Mr. Kelly,
from himself or from anybody connected with
him, having any stock, and I had every
reason to believe that he did not, for the
reason that my hon. colleagues all know this,
that I had asked him to have nothing to do
with pipe line stocks as I mentioned yester-
day.
Now the fact is this, I looked up Mr.
Kelly's resignation and I have his actual
resignation here at the present time.
First of all, everybody knows that the man
has an interest in federal politics, he did take
a very considerable part in the convention of
December 1957, at the time of the nomination
of the present Rt. hon. Prime Minister of
Canada. As a matter of fact, Mr. Kelly men-
tioned the possibility of his retirement here
on a number of occasions, not in the House,
but to me and to his friends, on the grounds
that he found it difficult to carry on his
private business, and that in any event he
perhaps had ideas politically in a different
line.
Now, I notice that accounts in both the Star
and the Telegram today bear out exactly
what I say. I have forgotten the names of
the concerns which Mr. Kelly is associated
with. However, he had said that he was
president of Seaway Iron Ores Limited, the
presidency of which would be entirely in-
consistent with his being Minister of Mines
of this province; he has an interest in the
Kindery Pipes Limited, a development com-
pany, and is also a shareholder in the Tribune
Publishing Company and Dennis Ryan and
Company Limited— a hotel company— and is
general manager of the Kelmack Oil Limited,
a company which owns considerable interest
in the province of Alberta, in oil and gas.
Now, I would say to my hon. friend that
Mr. Kelly's resignation was given to me on
July 8. His resignation occasioned no sur-
prise whatever, because Mr. Kelly had
indicated previously the fact that he had
contemplated retirement. I have the original
letter here:
July 8, 1957
The Hon. L. M. Frost, Q.C.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Over the past months, because of my business and
its demands, I have been giving consideration to
resigning my post as Minister of Mines and member
of the executive council. It has been increasingly
difficult to attend to the work involved in my Minis-
terial duties and at the same time give attention to
my business interests.
I have come to the conclusion that I cannot do
justice to both, and therefore I regretfully tender my
resignation as Minister of Mines and member of the
executive council.
I thank you and all of your colleagues for the many
courtesies shown to me during my term of office.
Yours truly,
(signed) P. T. Kelly
Now, that is Mr. Kelly's resignation. It is
exactly as I understood the matter in my
discussion with him.
I would say that, concerning Mr. Kelly's
resignation from the House, I knew of Mr.
Kelly's interest in federal politics. Mr. Kelly
did not consult me about his resignation from
the House, as a matter of fact he gave his
resignation as Minister because of his
interests in the nomination in the riding in
which he lives. Now that is the situation,
and I would say to my hon. friend that I
would have been very glad to have given all
of these things to him yesterday if he had
asked the question, and I would point out
that it is not necessary to impute dishonesty
and corruption, on not only hon. members
and former hon. members of the government,
but in wide areas of the province of Ontario,
and the municipal government concerned
with those areas.
I point out to my hon. friend that he
could get such information by asking for
it, therefore he should not impute the things
he did here yesterday afternoon.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister has roamed quite far afield,
and I just want to do a little roaming with
him for one brief second.
He refers to what he chooses to describe
as an outburst of mine last year with regard
MARCH 11, 1958
695
to the Scarborough bill and the payment of
certain oversized water mains.
I refer to it only for this reason, that unless
something has happened in very recent days,
the significant thing about it is that, after this
Legislature went through all that battle, and
gave the council permission to pay bills that
have been outstanding since 1952, for their
own good reasons they have decided not to
pay them.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well that is just exactly
the power we gave them.
Mr. MacDonald: If that is the case, why
this legislative power should be used to give
any municipality the right to do something
when they do not really want to do it, is
a very interesting point, but I do not want
to pursue that further.
I want to deal with two points that the
hon. Prime Minister raised. The hon. Prime
Minister may twist all he wants, and as far
as I am concerned he can accuse other people
of misrepresentation, and his words will go
floating off on the breeze as long as he rises
and does the kind of thing he has done since
yesterday.
I explained very carefully that there had
been a battle between Northern Ontario
Natural Gas and Twin City Gas with regard
to these franchises, and that in this certain
group of municipalities, between Dryden and
Geraldton, they had given the franchises to
Twin City Gas because they believed that it
was a better contract. They believed that it
was an independent company, this was the
essence of the understanding.
Yet, within a period of a few months, by
a deal, which was behind the scenes, North-
ern Ontario Natural Gas was able to get half
of the stock of Twin City Gas and reduce it
to a subsidiary so that the spirit of that under-
standing, if not the letter of it, was violated.
I suggested that there was some associa-
tion, and some connection, in the fact that,
while all this was going on, the private dis-
tribution of stock at fire sale prices by
Northern Ontario Natural Gas had taken
place throughout that community, which
brings me to the second point I want—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, what did the hon.
member mean by that?
Mr. MacDonald: Just what I said, the
words mean just what they say.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does he mean that the
municipal officials were dishonest because
they got—
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say the muni-
cipal officials. I said that there was so great
an opposition to the franchise being given to
Northern Ontario Natural Gas that they
refused to give it to them, and they gave it
to another company. The same purpose was
achieved by this distribution of stock
throughout this area so that opposition to
Northern Ontario Natural Gas disappeared.
Now what I want to get to—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I must say to my hon.
friend that I have had a good deal of deal-
ings with this, and I know of no municipal
official who got any of that—
Mr. MacDonald: He said that before.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, I would like to hear
some of—
Mr. MacDonald: When the hon. Prime
Minister rose in the House yesterday and
presumably demolished my case by saying
"you want to know the names, they are all in
the prospectus," the hon. Prime Minister
either had not read the prospectus—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I have read it entirely.
Mr. MacDonald: —or else he was trying to
mislead me and the House, because I have
taken the trouble to read this prospectus on
page 23 rather carefully, and I want to draw
this to the attention of the House. I am
quoting from page 23 of the prospectus.
There are two paragraphs in this relevant
section described as "Organization in Finan-
cial History"—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Paragraph 2 is the one
to which you refer?
Mr. MacDonald: There are two para-
graphs, now—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Eight cents a share.
Mr. MacDonald: —now in the first para-
graph, it outlines the distribution of stock at
various stages— for example, in May of 1954,
some 500 shares went to the directors. In
October of 1955, another 560 shares went to
the directors.
Then, making it almost impossible to figure
out how many shares actually went out, we
will run into paragraphs, or sentences, such
as this:
From time to time thereafter, additional
common shares were sold for cash, includ-
ing shares sold to the shareholders of the
company pursuant to a subscription offer
696
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
expiring December 7, 1955, to purchase
at $2.50 per share one additional share,
for each 10 shares held.
The next line, one additional share for each
15 shares held — well it is impossible to
figure out how many shares were out at that
stage, so one just has to bow out and put a
question mark there. Then in March of 1956—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Where does that justify
the hon. member stating that people were
bribed—
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. Prime Min-
ister just wait a minute now.
In March of 1956, it tells how 1,500 shares
were given to J. W. Tomlinson, a vice-
president of the company; in May of 1956,
another 500 shares to someone else; in Sep-
tember of 1956, 14,000 shares to Leman Bros.
In September of 1956, another 1,599 shares.
Then it ends up with another of these de-
lightfully vague statements which I defy
anyone to read any exact meaning into, and
be certain that he has the meaning that was
intended. It says this:
The foregoing number of common shares
are stated without adjustment to give effect
to the subdivisions of the company's com-
mon shares effected at the rate of 100 for 1
on November 15, 1955, and the rate of 50
to 1 on July 6, 1956.
We do not know how many shares were
out at that time, so we do not know what
the 100 to 1 means or the 50 to 1 means. This
the hon. Prime Minister says is the kind of
protection the investor is given by the regu-
lations that we enforce through our securities
commission.
Now, what I draw to the attention of hon.
members is that, insofar as they are definite
figures, those figures throughout that period
of 2 or 3 years add up to 18,759 shares. As
for the number of split shares and so on, the
hon. members' guess would be as good as
mine. Then they go into paragraph 2— and
this, Mr. Chairman, is the most interesting
of all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is the paragraph that
I was referring to, now read it.
Mr. MacDonald: In paragraph 2 it refers
to shares that were given to various so-called
promoters. Mr. Farris got 37,500 shares at
$0.08, four-fifths of a cent-
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let the hon. member read
the whole paragraph, let us hear—
Mr. MacDonald: Last June, at the time
that it went on the market, he had sold, of
this 37,000 shares, approximately 20,000, so
that he had 17,000 left. Now, Mr. Chairman,
the interesting thing is this, that before these
shares were on the market and the unlisted
price was approximately $25— it had fluctuated
from $22 to $23, up to $27 or $28, or even
higher, averaging roughly $25 — Mr. Farris
had been able to sell 20,000 shares at $25,
so that he made a cool half -million dollars.
Hon. A. K. Roberts ( Attorney-General ) :
My hon. friend surely cannot make such
assumptions as that. He could also make the
same assumption that he sold them for $1.
He sold them at some time between the time
he got them and the time that prospectus was
filed. Now, I certainly hold no brief for Mr.
Farris, but I do want to say that I think that
the hon. member must be reasonably careful
in analyzing a statement of that sort, so that
he does not give any more misinformation
about it.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I can just see Mr.
Farris going and selling them for $1 when
they were worth $25 on the unlisted market.
That is a likely kind of thing.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, he has made the
suggestion a few minutes ago that a lot of
stock went out under the table at what he
called fire sale prices. That must have been
the kind of stock that went out. If he is
telling the people, let him tell about that. It
must have been that sort of stock that was
going out cheaply, otherwise it could not go
out at fire sale prices.
Mr. MacDonald: Will the hon. Attorney-
General please sit down. Oh no, it was not.
I am coming to that in a minute.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think he had better
get his facts or—
Mr. MacDonald: The next man who got
a sizable block of stock is C. Spencer Clarke,
the executive vice-president, 56,049 shares.
At the time of the public sale on the market
he had 30,000 left, so that he had sold
26,000 shares at the market value of $25,
which is $625,000.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Again the hon. member
is making a completely erroneous deduction.
Mr. MacDonald: That is the hon. Attorney-
General's interpretation. Let me make my
interpretation.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member has
no right to tell this House that they went
MARCH 11, 1958
697
out at $25 a share, any more than he has
a right to say that they went out at $1 a
share, for goodness sake let him read at least
comprehensively.
Mr. MacDonald: I can read, and I know
that if stock is selling at $25 men are not
likely to sell it at $1. May I continue?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would point out to my
hon. friend that nobody or anybody would
know this. On stock prices, for instance, on
the unlisted market at $25 a share, nobody
could sell very many of them at that price
without depressing the market.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I will say just one thing, because
I think it is important that we get at least
a reasonable appreciation. He is reading a
prospectus that reveals that, prior to the
filing of that prospectus, certain transactions
took place whereby the original people dis-
posed of some of their holdings. There is
nothing to tell when they disposed of them,
and there is no reason perhaps why there
should be anything in the prospectus. But
let the hon. member remember this, he is
talking about quoted prices that arose after
the prospectus was issued, and after the sale
to the public was made.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I am not.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Of course he is.
Mr. MacDonald: I am talking of the $25
market price while it was unlisted. It was
currently and widely known throughout the
month of May, and this did not go on the
public market until the first week of June.
In fact, I tried for weeks to get copies
of this prospectus, and it was not available
until a day or so before the stock was put
on the market at the end of the first week
in June, of last year.
Now, I want to come to two other people,
Mr. Chairman, because this is interesting.
The directors of the company are listed
on the previous page, I will not read them,
but among the directors of the company
I cannot find anybody by the name of
Newell or anybody by the name of McLean.
Yet their names appear in the stock distri-
bution. There is no initial given. They are
merely so-called promoters. Yet the interest-
ing thing, Mr. Chairman, is that this Mr.
Newell got 32,000 shares. By the time the
stock went on the public market he had
only 5,000 left. He had disposed of the
others, and if he disposed of them at the
current market price, there was another man
who made $625,000 of tax free capital gain.
Now that was good enough for Mr. Newell,
but let me ask the question, who is Mr.
McLean?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: He has made another
statement, he has no right to say it is a
tax free capital gain. There is just as much
chance that it is income and chargeable as
income, and I hope it will be.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that right? Well, this
is something we have heard a lot of talking
about— the proposition that capital gains are
tax free.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would say that the
kind of transactions that the hon. member
is talking about here might very well be
income taxable, and if they are, of course,
it is a very different story from a tax free
capital gain.
Mr. MacDonald: The next gentleman I
want to draw attention to is this Mr. McLean.
Now who is Mr. McLean? There is no
initial. I have looked through all the rest
of the prospectus, though I admit, not with a
fine tooth comb. Maybe in some back page
his name is mentioned somewhere. The only
place I can see his name mentioned is among
those deemed to be the promoters.
The interesting thing is that the rest of
them got, say, 30,000 shares, or 40,000 shares,
but one Mr. McLean got 105,750 shares at
$.05. When this went on the market, he
still held 60,000, so that he had sold 45,000.
At the market price, if he sold them at that
market price, he made a cool $1,125 million.
Now Mr. Chairman, I ask again, who is
Mr. McLean?
An hon. member: He is the son of Mrs.
McLean.
Mr. MacDonald: Then finally, too, to end
this special list, we have the Charter Oil
Company Limited— which got 83,000 shares
at $.39 and happens to be a company that
Mr. Farris is president and director of—
all beautifully tied in.
Now, if we add up all these shares, in the
second paragraph, it comes to 315,000. If
we add up the original group of shares, it is
18,000 so that the total is something less than
350,000 shares, and yet the Financial Post
reported the week before these went on the
market, in its issue of May 25:
Balance sheets of Northern Ontario
Natural Gas at February 28, shows 730,000
[not 350,000] non par value shares of an
authorized 2 million for cash consideration
of $333,420 or an average of $.46 a share
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—about one-fiftieth of the current market
value.
Now here is my question, and I put it to
the government yesterday, and I retiterate
the challenge: Where are the other 350,000
shares that are not listed in this prospectus?
We add up the figures and it comes to
350,000, yet the Financial Post says some
730,000 were distributed. That is one thing
I would like to know. Where did those go,
and who got them?
Furthermore, when the government gets
around, instead of trying to hide this under
the table, and looks into it as Rt. hon Mr.
Diefenbaker is doing with the Borden com-
mission investigation into the West Coast
Transmission at the present time, when they
look into it, perhaps they will explain to the
province of Ontario who this gentleman Mr.
McLean is, who was fortunate to get 105,000
shares.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member can
easily find out all about Mr. McLean. I
would say to him that the duty of the
securities commission here is to give the
fullest of information to the people. Now I
think-
Mr. MacDonald: Well if the hon. Prime
Minister can figure out what that company
did with its shares, he is a better man than
I am.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The 75 shares that are
mentioned in paragraph 1, if he reads the
prospectus, were split in the amount that the
Financial Post mentioned there. I think it is
correct, but it is all there.
Now I would say that the duty of the
securities commission here, and the securities
exchange commission in Washington, is to
give to the investors the fullest information
so that they will know the shares issued. Now
paragraph 2 is the most relevant paragraph
and I will read it.
Messrs. Farris and Clarke, the president
and executive vice president respectively,
of this company, were instrumental in
founding and organizing the company, and
have been active in its affairs since its
organization. There wer« no promoters
of the company except insofar as Messrs.
Farris, Clarke, Newell and McLean and
Charter Oil Company Limited, referred to
above, may be deemed to be promoters
within the terms as used in The United
States Securities Act of 1933, and the rules
and regulations of the securities and ex-
change commission thereunder.
Now these were the facts, given as I say
both by the securities exchange commission
and by our own securities commission. The
number of common shares purchased from
the company, and the average price, thereof,
giving effect to the above mentioned sub-
divisions of common shares, and the number
of common shares presently held by them,
is as follows:
Mr. Farris— 37,500 shares, purchased at an
average price of $.08 per share and he now
owns 17,500 shares.
Mr. Clarke— 56,049 shares purchased at
an average price of $.12 per share and he
now owns 30,000 shares.
Mr. Newell— 32,084 shares purchased at
an average price of $.31 per share and he
now owns 5,000 shares.
Mr. McLean— 105,750 shares, purchased at
an average price of $.05 per share, and he
now owns 60,213 shares.
Charter Oil Company Limited - 83,989
shares purchased at an average price of $.39
per share, all of which it now owns.
Now I would say this, that the prospectus
states that Northern Ontario Natural Gas
Company Limited has filed, with the securi-
ties exchange commission, Washington, D.C.,
a registration statement herein, together with
all amendments called the registration state-
ment under The United States Securities Act
of 1933 as amended, relating to the securi-
ties hereby offered.
Now I would point out that that was filed
in Washington. I would say probably the
strictest securities exchange in the world
and our own securities commission here were
available to every investor who purchased
stock in that company, every one of them.
It was a public record and was made public
before the issuance of any shares.
Now, I would say to my hon. friend that
he may think that the amounts of these
shares issued to these people were excessive.
May I point out to him that the investors
had the right to decline to purchase the
shares, and to assess the amounts of these
shares as being excessive, but I point out
to my hon. friend that it is highly improper to
say that, because there were certain indi-
viduals termed as promoters of this company
within the meaning of The United States
Securities Act and any other Acts, that that
meant that there was bribery and corruption
indulged in by those people. That is what
he said and that is what he meant.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not. Look, Mr.
Chairman, why the hon. Prime Minister wants
MARCH 11, 1958
699
to get up and persist in twisting this, I do
not know. If this phrase in brackets— in
parentheses— half way through the middle
paragraph, saying, "Giving effect to the
above mentioned subdivision of common
shares", if that means that the figures given
in the second paragraph include the sub-
division of common shares listed in para-
graph one, then it simply means that the
total number of shares given out was, as I
added up, 315,000, and if there are 315,000
given out, that means that there are more
than 400,000 shares that are not accounted
for. I am asking this government to let the
people of the province of Ontario know who
got these shares.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: They are right there.
Mr. MacDonald: They are not there.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: All the hon. member
has to do is make a proper interpretation
and reading of this document. If he will
turn to page 33, he will see that the very
figure that he is talking about, 730,378
shares, is right in the prospectus. He him-
self, a few moments ago, referred to the
purchase by some company, I have just
forgotten the name of it now, but one
of the American companies, of some 14,000.
That is part of it, and if he goes through
it, as I have done, through this prospectus,
he will see that all the 730,000 shares, in
the original issue, are accounted for there.
Now what was done with part of them
afterwards in the ordinary trading was, as
the hon. member said, anybody's guess, be-
cause these shares were transferred from time
to time, and one could not expect any pros-
pectus to show all the transfers of shares
from the beginning. But as far as the 730,-
000 shares are concerned, which were the
number issued when this prospectus was filed,
they are all set out in there, and the dollars
received for them are all set out.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to argue with the hon. Attorney-
General any longer, but if he takes what is
on page 23, I defy him to be able to add
that up to 730,000 shares. It is somewhat less
than half of the amount. There has been
enough talk about this. Moreover, the people
who did the talking before last June 10
were in the Tory party of this country.
Yes, sir, the Conservative party went
around shouting from the roof tops about
the buccaneers and who was making the
money on this. Now because they have
become the government at Ottawa, they want
to soft pedal the whole proposition.
What I am saying is simply this, that
what the Borden commission is doing with
regard to West Coast Transmission Company
and some of the financial deals involved in
Trans-Canada, let this government do with
the distribution lines in the province of
Ontario. If they have nothing to cover up,
let them not cover it.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Will my friend just give
me a moment, because I think we have surely
had enough of this in the House without
any basis of anything but rumours to go on.
Now, under this prospectus, and it can easily
be seen by any hon. member of the House
who wants to take the time to read it, the
total number of shares that were issued, after
allowing for the splits and allowing for the
very cheap original stock and for those splits
(none of which, as far as I am concerned
personally, I in any way approve of in my
remarks in this House here) but I am say-
ing that we can see them all there. They are
clearly on the record and they have been
passed by the securities exchange commis-
sion, which requires the most complete type
of disclosure before they pass on it.
With that in mind, we come back to what
started this discussion a few minutes ago, and
that is a statement taken out of its context,
or rather not taken out of its context, but
based on no substantiation on the part of my
hon. friend from York South, a statement in
which he claimed that he has the evidence
that there were under the table transactions,
and that some of this stock went into the
hands of other individuals at fire sale prices.
Now, for goodness sake, let him stand up
and name the individuals who got the stock,
and give us some sort of a basis for what
he is asking for, because without such a
basis, what he is asking for now is nothing
but a witch hunt.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that right! Is that what
the Borden commission is engaged in— a
witch hunt! The Borden commission is doing
precisely what I have asked this government
to do, and it was set up by the Tory govern-
ment at Ottawa.
Now, if the government has nothing to
hide, let them not hide it. It is as simple as
that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that that is the type of insinuation
that my friend says: "If you have nothing to
hide, why hide it?" In other words: "You
people sitting over there, you are a bunch
of crooks and you are corrupt and your hands
are dripping with corruption."
700
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say anything of
the kind.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now that is what he
means.
Mr. MacDonald: Did Rt. hon. John
Diefenbaker say to the people who were in
West Coast Transmission Company: "You
are corrupt and your hands are dripping,"
when he set up that commission? Is that
what he said?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Then what does the hon.
member mean when he says: "If you have
nothing to hide, why hide it?" Why does he
say that?
Mr. MacDonald: I will say to the hon.
Prime Minister that, despite what the hon.
Attorney-General has just indicated, he can-
not account for the 730,000 shares in that
listing. He cannot.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I can show without any
trouble, and will give it to the House with—
Mr. MacDonald: He did not, and there is
something like 400,000 shares that are not
accounted for, and if this government wants
to, it can do just what their fellow Tories in
Ottawa are doing, set up a commission to
investigate where the shares went— who got
them. That is all I am asking them to do.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Let the hon. member go out
of the House and make that charge.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If the hon. member will
investigate the prospectus further — for in-
stance, here is Mr. Farris, who has according
to this statement-
Mr. MacDonald: And who is Mr. McLean,
who got the 105,000 shares?
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right then, let us take
Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean has 105,750
shares, and he now owns 60,213 shares, how
in the world could the hon. member ever—
Mr. MacDonald: Who is Mr. McLean?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I have no idea who he is.
Mr. MacDonald: Can the hon. Prime Min-
ister get the information?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would think one could
get all the information about all these people.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. member for York South a question? I
would like to phrase the question this way.
Is he prepared to repeat outside the House
about Mr. Kelly what he said inside the
House yesterday? That is what I want to
know.
An hon. member: Did he read the speech?
Mr. MacDonald: This is the kind of state-
ment that the hon. Minister said last year.
The interesting thing is this, that yesterday
the hon. Prime Minister got up and said there
is nothing illegal in this business, buying of
stock—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Let the hon. mem-
ber answer the question, please.
Mr. MacDonald: At no time did I say
that this is illegal, the issue here is a moral
issue.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member is
evading the question.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I am not going to go
out and—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I asked a question;
will the hon. member answer it?
Mr. MacDonald: Of course not. Of course
not.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I have just
lost a retaining fee, because I was talking to
Mr. Kelly 10 minutes ago.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, before we
pass this vote, which is the vote for the
Ontario fuel board, I want to say a number
of things because after listening to able coun-
sel on both sides, a layman's point of view
is perhaps not only appreciated, but might
be refreshing.
Now this whole turmoil was started yes-
terday by a speech from the hon. member
for York South, in which he unquestionably
insinuated— he did not charge, I do not know
how close one could say he came to charg-
ing—but he did not, he insinuated that cer-
tain conditions existed and asked the gov-
ernment if they existed.
What I want to say to the House is this,
that I would not have brought this matter
up on the floor of the Legislature in the
manner in which it brought up by the hon.
member for York South. I, of course, had
the opportunity to do so, I decided not to,
because I did not have what I consider to
be proof enough to substantiate what I
would say on that occasion.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, it seems to
me that, irrespective of what ethics I might
have employed, the matter now is up for
MARCH 11, 1958
701
discussion. It has been argued quite exten-
sively both by the hon. member for York
South and by the hon. Prime Minister.
I want to say without hesitation that I
believe if I were Mr. Kelly— let me put it
this way— if I were Mr. Kelly I would want
to have an impartial and a judicial examina-
tion into this whole matter. I would want
to make it known if my hands were clean,
that they were indeed clean. I would not
want to live longer under the cloud that
exists, and I would go to any lengths to
make it known, to all and sundry, that the
insinuations or the charges or whatever they
were, that were made by the hon. member
for York South, were not soundly based, and
that I was in no way connected with the
shares of these two particular companies.
Now, when the hon. member for York
South yesterday proposed a judicial inquiry
I was immediately reminded of the fact that
many months ago I proposed the same thing.
On July 10, I issued a statement to the
press, a statement which came at a time
when the twin cities at the head of the
lakes were experiencing, shall we say, some
difficulties in their negotiations with these
two particular companies.
At a time when the revelations were in
the public mind in respect to the issuing
of these shares at very nominal prices, I
was reminded that the Ontario fuel board has
control over these two companies and all
other companies that are in existence, or
that might come into existence, insofar as
the distribution of gas was concerned.
I had heard, quite frankly, as all could
hear, the rumours in respect to Mr. Kelly,
and the suggestions that he had made a lot
of money by the route that he was able to
obtain quite large blocks of shares in these
two companies at a fantastically low price.
So, on July 10, having all these things in
mind, I did ask the Ontario government to
set up a judicial inquiry into all these
aspects of the situation, in order that the
public id might become settled, and in
order that the reputation of men in high
office might be cleared.
Now the government, as it has a habit
of doing, did not accept my recommendation
and my suggestion at that time. I just want
to say this and be completely frank in this,
now that this whole matter is before the
House:
Mr. Kelly resigned, I think the hon. Prime
Minister said that his letter of resignation
was dated July 10. Now, I am not arguing
at the moment as to why Mr. Kelly has
resigned, but what I am saying to the House
in all frankness is that it is a rather unusual
reason for a cabinet Minister to give, upon
his resignation, that he intends at some far
distant date to engage himself in federal
politics.
In July there was no intimation as to
when a general election would be held, no
one could tell at that distance whether it
be one or two or three years, and yet the
hon. Prime Minister suggested to the House,
and Mr. Kelly intimates in his letter, that one
of the reasons for his resignation was the
decision on his part to assume the role of
political life in the federal arena.
Now that may or may not be the reason,
but in the public mind again there is the
suggestion that that may well have been a
very odd reason for a Minister of the Crown
to give when one was aware of the circum-
stances.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is not the reason that
Mr. Kelly gave in his resignation which I
read to the House.
Mr. MacDonald: That is what the hon.
Prime Minister said yesterday.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I did not say anything
of the sort. I say this, that he resigned from
the House at the end of January to contest
the convention in one of the ridings, but he
did not consult me about that. As a matter of
fact, I knew of course for a year and more
that he had an interest in federal politics,
but that was not what he discussed with me.
As a matter of fact, his resignation was pre-
dicated entirely on his business interests and
the fact that he could not act as Minister of
Mines.
Mr. Oliver: I would think, Mr. Chairman,
that the view was certainly widely held that
the reason Mr. Kelly was resigning was
because he wanted to engage in federal
politics.
Now, I want to go this one step further,
Mr. Chairman, just so the whole matter may
be thrown into the arena of discussion, and
that has to do with Mr. Kelly's statement in
the paper today.
Now Mr. Kelly quite frankly says that he
does not now hold, nor has he held, shares
in these two particular companies. Well that,
of course, I would take Mr. Kelly's word for,
but Mr. Kelly is a director of a number of
companies outlined in this article in the
paper, and he could, if he so desired, have
shares in the name of some member of his
family. We do not know, but he could have
702
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shares surely in the name of these companies
that I mentioned.
I am saying to the hon. Prime Minister
that, having gone this far in this whole mat-
ter, it seems to me that the only way to clear
the air and to present to the public the full
explanation of what went on, is to set up a
judicial inquiry and to go into all aspects of
this situation, so that the truth might be
bared and the people generally would know
what has gone on, and what is presently
going on in relation to these matters.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, of course, I would
say to the hon. leader of the Opposition that
my position, and the position of the govern-
ment in this matter, was stated very clearly
by me yesterday. I can assure the hon.
leader of the Opposition that there are no
shares of any of these companies, nor have
there been any shares of these companies,
held by the hon. members of the cabinet.
Now, Mr. Kelly's holding of shares never
came into the matter of his resignation, and
I see in the Telegram today that Mr. Kelly
is quoted as saying, "I have no shares in
either Twin City Gas Company or Northern
Ontario Gas, and I never have had."
I would say to the hon. leader of the
Opposition that I have been very meticulous
about these matters myself. I can assure him
of that. I can assure him that I have made
it a policy and a practice of having no shares
personally, and of asking my hon. colleagues
to have no shares in any company with which
the government does business or with which
the government has any transactions which
may act favourably on the stock of any con-
cern. That is well known by my hon. col-
leagues. I have stated it on many occasions,
and I would say that I know exactly where
I am going in this business, and I know what
I am dealing with, and I know that is the
case.
I am glad to be able to state that, and I
would say that with the Trans-Canada Pipe
Line stock, when the issue was announced I
think in November of 1956—1 think it was
placed on the market in 1957, the early part
of 1957—1 not only asked each one of the
hon. cabinet members not to purchase any
of the shares of that stock, but I furthermore
had a canvass made of every hon. member
of the cabinet.
Therefore I assure the hon. members that
I know what I am talking about. I know
that no shares were held, and I would say
that we have been very meticulous in our
dealings in that regard. In the meantime, the
Borden commission has come along with very
wide powers in relation to this matter, and
furthermore I have done this: this was done
about the same time the hon. leader of the
Opposition last summer made mention about
a Royal commission which I very well
remember.
At that time, Mr. Crozier made his state-
ment of which I have a copy here, which was
mailed to every one of the municipalities
having any franchise rights or franchises in-
volving any of these companies, telling them
that they could have a re-hearing, that the
whole matter would be aired publicly, and
I have from that date to this never had one
single, solitary application or suggestion of
an application.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask a question?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: A moment ago, the hon.
Prime Minister made the comment the Borden
commission is now in this field and that it has
very wide powers. Do I conclude, from that,
that the powers of the Borden commission
are wide enough to investigate the deals of
the distribution systems in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The Borden commission
went into the shares, I notice, of Trans-
Canada Pipe Lines and also the shares of
some of the other pipe lines. The Borden
commission has entire power with any of
these concerns.
Mr. MacDonald: They were all inter-
provincial lines. My question is—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: I am certain that, as
it now stands, the Borden commission cannot
investigate distribution systems within the
province of Ontario. Is the hon. Prime Min-
ister willing to give the Borden commission
permission to do that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say I have never
placed anything in the way of the Borden
commission. I would say that concerning any
information that they could get, I would be
very glad to give it to them.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
is evading my question. My question is this:
This is a federal commission, investigating
inter-provincial lines. If the hon. Prime Min-
ister is not willing to set up a judicial inquiry
to investigate distribution systems in Ontario,
will he, by whatever procedure is required,
give the Borden commission the right to look
into the financial deals of Northern Ontario
Natural Gas?
MARCH 11, 1958
703
Hon. Mr. Frost: If the hon. member is
asking if I would create the Borden com-
mission as another Royal commission to
investigate these pipe line companies, my
answer is completely in the negative, no.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought it would be.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member if he asked me this, as to whether
I contemplate, or the government contem-
plates, setting up a Royal commission in con-
nection with pipe line companies here in
Ontario, I would say again the answer is in
the negative. I would say that if the hon.
member will show that there is this type of
corruption and this bribery— if he does that,
then we will have a look at it.
Mr. MacDonald: The onus is on the hon.
Prime Minister.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman I would like
the hon. Minister to explain the procedure
on vote 1,107. As I understood it yesterday,
when a company comes in to supply an
area with gas they have a hearing, and then
a rate is set. Now I would like to know
what procedure is needed in case the citizens
at some time or other feel that they want to
investigate the increases or the price of gas.
What recourse do they have?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, I think
I could read, for the benefit of the hon.
member, section 17 of The Fuel Board Act
which I read yesterday which says, in part:
The board may, at any time and from
time to time, re-hear or review any applica-
tions before deciding it, and may by order
rescind, change, alter or vary any order
made by it under this Act or any other
Act.
So it would be in the powers of the muni-
cipal authority to make application to the
board to have the case heard.
Mr. Worton: May I ask the hon. Minister
if it is a fact that if the citizens of the city
approach the council regarding the rates,
the council can take action, or take it up
with the fuel board, and then they will
have a hearing to discuss the rates? Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Well, I would say that
unless there is a contract in effect between
a distributor and the municipal corporation
that has been provided for according to the
law, a board hearing and so on, we could
not very well reopen the contract a month
after it was entered into. But if, for some
particular reason, the public or the residents
of the community wish to have this matter
gone into, they should deal with it through
their municipal corporation, and then it
would be up to the municipal council to
adjudicate upon the request, and to see where
they should go from there.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I know that this is not
entirely relevant to his question. But I point
out this to him, for the purposes of making
this plain, that the rates fixed by the board
have no relation whatever to stock issues.
Let him understand that it is based entirely
upon the physical and other investment rela-
tions to the distribution of gas, but not to
the matter of any stock issues at all.
Mr. Worton: I might say to the hon. Prime
Minister that I am not interested in the stock
end of it, I just want to know, if the people
of this area feel that perhaps their gas rates
are getting beyond reason, what recourse
they can take in order to have another hear-
ing to perhaps reset the rates? I think the
hon. Minister has explained this by saying
that, by going to the local council, this can
be done.
Vote 1,107 agreed to.
On vote 1,108:
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Might I
just ask a question? I would like to thank the
hon. Minister of Mines for two things in our
area, first as to geological surveys that are
made each year, and the other one as to the
prospectors' classes that have been carried
on in our area.
These geological surveys are the forerun-
ner of a great deal of prospecting and stak-
ing, and have been responsible for many of
the outstanding discoveries in that area, as
for instance Geco and Willroy, and I hope
that he has plenty of money in his estimates
this year to continue that very worthwhile
project.
The other thing I would like to ask, on this
capital payment item, Mr. Chairman, is this:
I notice that there is $1 million in there
for mining and access roads. Am I correct
in assuming that the contribution from the
federal government now, which naturally was
put in there by the present Conservative gov-
ernment and never has been given in the
history of this country before, is shown
in this $1 million? Or is there a further
contribution from The Department of Lands
and Forests for that very great need in the
704
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
north — the mining and access roads pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Well, Mr. Chairman,
we have $1 million in the past year for
mining and access roads, and if we can pick
up $1 million from some other authority, why
we will be very glad to do our best to spend
$2 million, but we have our own money there.
Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. Minister mean
that he is not sure he is going to get money
from the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Not so far as these
estimates are concerned.
Vote 1,108 agreed to.
Mr. R. Whicher ( Bruce ) : There is a gen-
eral question that I would like to ask, and I
think maybe the hon. Prime Minister could
answer it better than the hon. Minister of
Mines.. For the fiscal year 1957-1958, there
was an adjustment in The Mining Tax Act
under the federal-provincial tax agreement
last year. Now my question is this, how
much revenue will that adjustment produce?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I must admit I am not
familiar with the adjustment, I do not know
that any adjustment was there in The Mining
Tax Act.
Mr. Whicher: There was no adjustment?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, not that I know of,
unless it was a minor one.
Mr. Whicher: It may be that I am mis-
taken, and that it was the logging tax. There
was some adjustment in the provincial tax
agreement, logging.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Chairman, I welcome this oppor-
tunity of presenting the estimates of The
Department of Public Welfare for the year
1958-1959. Hon. members will know that
funds are required to meet the welfare needs
of Ontario citizens who lack the privilege of
providing for their own requirements.
I have served as Minister of this very fine
department for a comparatively short period
of time; and in reviewing the past few
years, I have been quite impressed with the
amount of legislation which has been
approved, and has served to expand our serv-
ices. This year, we are embarking on addi-
tional programmes and a further broadening
of services.
Our estimates call for an expenditure in
excess of $1 million a week, or a total of
$54.17 million, with the province contribut-
ing $42,828 million of this amount.
Two years ago, when I presented my first
estimates for The Department of Public
Welfare, the gross amount expended was
$34.3 million, of which the province con-
tributed $27 million.
Hon. members will readily see that there
will be a substantial increase for this coming
year— almost $20 million in the gross amount
and $16 million in the amount from pro-
vincial taxing sources, both representing an
increase of 58 per cent, over the expenditures
for the fiscal year 1955-1956.
The trend throughout the years has been
for the province to relieve both the muni-
cipalities and private agencies in serving the
welfare needs of the population as a whole.
In the year ending March 31, 1957, I note
from our records that approximately $37.5
million was expended to meet the costs of
the services of old age assistance, blind,
disabled and mothers' allowances, direct
relief, medical services for our recipients,
homes for the aged, child welfare and day
nurseries. This total expenditure is equal to a
cost of $7.15, for the year, for each resident
in Ontario.
The notable feature, however, lies in the
fact that, of this sum expended, the provin-
cial government contributed 62.3 per cent.,
the federal government 28.4 per cent., and
the municipalities, collectively, 9.3 per cent.
These figures reveal the continuing process
relieving municipalities of expenditures
related to the care of needy persons.
I should say that I am not aware of any
province, or state in the country to the south
of us, which has as good a record in relieving
municipalities of the burden of welfare costs.
We have been making a determined effort
to keep pace with the cost of living. As a
result, during the year, the standards of
assistance have been increased under each of
our welfare programmes. Hon. members will
know that the monthly amount of $55 is
being granted to the aged, disabled and the
blind. Both mothers' allowances and direct
relief cases are being granted increased aid
on the basis of need, and in keeping with
a budgetary method of extending assistance.
Supplementary assistance is also available
to persons qualifying under the federal-
provincial programmes up to an additional
maximum of $20 monthly, with the costs
being shared 80 per cent, by the senior govern-
ments and 20 per cent, by the municipalities.
MARCH 11, 1958
705
Substantial additional funds, of course, are
going forward to the municipalities to pro-
vide for child welfare and homes for the
aged commitments. The homes for the aged
operated by the municipalities will, this year,
obtain additional financial advances through
this government, which, I am sure, will be
found to be most acceptable. Municipalities
today would seem to be sharing in expendi-
tures for needy welfare cases within their
borders on a proper ratio, balanced to give
responsibility in the administration of their
local affairs.
We have in recent years been giving
greater attention to the extraordinary needs
of many elderly persons. This is an area
which deserves every consideration and serv-
ice. We are all decidedly interested in the
well-being of our older citizens, and earnestly
hope that their remaining years will be spent
in comfortable and healthful living. We all
know that medical services are required to
a greater extent by older persons than by
any other age group in the population. It is
also known that there is a great unfilled need
for research which could lead to improved
health and vitality for all persons in their
later years.
In particular, I am anxious that concen-
trated efforts be made for those persons who
reside in our homes for the aged, and for
whom we have a large measure of responsi-
bility. I am therefore appointing an advisory
committee to carry out geriatric studies. This
committee will serve under the chairmanship
of Dr. W. W. Priddle, who is acting as con-
sultant in geriatrics to my department. The
purpose of the studies will be:
1. To assure a high standard of medical
care for geriatric patients with special refer-
ence to residents of homes for the aged.
2. To study methods of prevention of
deterioration and improve physical, mental
and emotional fitness of older people.
3. To study cause, prevention and treat-
ment of diseases associated with aging.
A committee of 5 will serve with Dr.
Priddle. They are: Dr. John T. Phair, Dr.
Robert C. Laird, Dr. Arthur Purdy, Dr. C. M.
Spooner, Mr. Carl Cannon.
We have obtained the full co-operation of
Metropolitan Toronto in establishing a centre
for this project at Lambert Lodge. A full-
time medical doctor has been appointed, and
his services will be related to continuing
studies in the integration of medical services
and the variety of treatment which should be
available to persons being maintained in
homes for the aged.
One of the primary purposes in appointing
these outstanding medical men is to give
emphasis to the development of a specialized
programme of medical treatment. There is
much to be accomplished in a positive way,
and I believe the results will prove to be of
great value.
I would like at this time to acknowledge
the action of the government of Canada in
reducing the required period of residence in
Canada for old age assistance and old age
security cases to 10 years rather than the
previous required period of 20 years. I also
proposed a year ago that the allowable in-
come for our welfare recipients should be
much higher than the restricted amounts of
$720 for a single person and $1,200 yearly
for couples. These have now been increased
and the grant of $55 monthly, which is 37.5
per cent, higher than a year ago, is a more
realistic allowance. We endorse the steps
taken to improve the lot of our older citizens.
The recognition of the government of
Canada in sharing the cost of aid to all per-
sons requiring unemployment assistance was
a forward step, and more closely acknowl-
edges their responsibility in this national
problem. To have agreed to the original
federal government proposal— that of main-
taining a floor of .45 per cent, of the popula-
tion before the government of Canada would
share in the costs— simply placed too great a
financial onus on the municipalities.
Personally, I would have preferred to have
seen the federal government administer assist-
ance to employable persons entirely from
their own resources, and within their admin-
istrative set-up in the federal employment
offices. The scheme now in effect has, how-
ever, much advantage over the proposal
originally brought forward in previous federal
legislation.
The distinction between employable and
unemployable persons has been removed for
the purposes of granting unemployment
assistance. The great bulwark for combating
unemployment is, of course, vested in un-
employment insurance. The Unemployment
Insurance Act has served well in making
funds available to those who are temporarily
without employment. The provisions this
year which extended the period during which
supplementary benefits are paid have been
particularly helpful.
I was pleased to have seen a recent report
of Canada's hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Starr) in which he stated that the upward
trend in unemployment would now seem to
be halted. I would speak with conviction
706
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
when I say to this House that there is far
too much to be yet accomplished, in produc-
tivity and the development of our natural
and human resources, to consider the present
lapse in employment to be other than a
temporary one. We have, after all, enjoyed
the highest period of production and em-
ployment in the history of this province and
of Canada as a whole.
There can be no question that we are
assured of a future in which we shall see our
productivity and full employment outstrip all
previous records of achievement.
I should like to take this opportunity to
announce that the province will participate
with municipalities in sharing the costs of
providing for the maintenance of persons
requiring care in nursing homes. This will
be conditional upon the licencing of such
homes by the municipality, and assistance
will be made available on behalf of those
persons who are unable to meet the costs of
the services provided. We anticipate com-
mencing to share in such costs, from April 1,
up to a maximum of $100 per person, on the
basis of an 80 per cent, provincial, and a 20
per cent, municipal share.
I should emphasize that this is an entirely
new field of endeavour for the province.
While almost all nursing homes are operated
commercially, they fill a great need in giving
services to many needy persons who cannot
be cared for in their own homes, or in hos-
pitals or other institutions. I am sure that
the municipalities throughout the province
will welcome being relieved of the greater
financial share of this previously total muni-
cipal responsibility.
Each year, many great accomplishments,
on the part of private organizations, come to
light. Among other notable developments,
the Society for Crippled Children is moving
ahead with the construction of a new centre
which will give great impetus and strength
to the total programme of medical treatment,
education and rehabilitation for children who
are crippled through diseases or injuries.
Much careful planning and expert attention
has been focused on the development of this
new centre. I anticipate that the Society
for Crippled Children will, in due course,
have an overall programme for these children
which will be second to none on this con-
tinent.
This organization obtains much strength
and leadership from an enthusiastic and dedi-
cated group of private citizens. The society
has a most effective administration and, of
course, sparking the whole operation is that
redoubtable Mr. Conn Smythe. I would
again state my admiration for this man and
his achievements. There is a continuing need
for such specialized groups in the private
welfare field; and it is invariably true that
where the -greatest measure of success has
been obtained in such efforts, we will find
a man of the calibre of Conn Smythe to
spearhead the activities of the organization.
Many other private organizations are show-
ing signs of renewed activity. During the
past year, for example, we have seen the
opening of the Earlscourt children's home
in Toronto. I would give much credit to
the board of this home in making available
one of the most modern homes for children,
both in facilities and in construction. The
Salvation Army has just opened a fine new
home for elderly persons in Toronto. The
several houses of providence in Ontario are
in the active stages of planning further new
homes for persons requiring this type of
maintenance and care.
Hon. members will know that we have not
been lax in stimulating these efforts. The
funds we make available under The Charit-
able Institutions Act serve to underwrite the
construction and continuing operation of these
excellent centres and homes.
As we sit daily in this House, we can
observe a group of men who have extra-
ordinary responsibilities in their own right.
I refer, of course, to the gentlemen of the
press. Some of these men inform the public
about the activities of the government on a
permanent basis. Others are with us during
the session.
We have among this group many eminent
journalists. The Toronto Telegram's Allan
Kent, for example, made newspaper history
when, from Vienna, he reported on the
shocking upheaval in Hungary. His ac-
counts of this event contributed in no small
way to the development of understanding
of the tragic problems faced by those who
had reacted so violently against tyranny and
oppression, and of their desires for the free
life which Canada and other countries in
the west could offer.
In Roy Greenaway, the Toronto Daily Star
has one of the best known newspaper men
who have served in this gallery. Aside from
his prominence as a Queen's Park reporter,
Mr. Greenaway is a talented artist. His
painting exhibits are a yearly event to which
many people look forward. We welcome
to this House each year representatives of
3 of Ontario's newspapers serving major cities
in Ontario. I am sure every hon. member is
MARCH 11, 1958
707
pleased to see the highly experienced Jack
Pethick of the London Free Press return to
cover events for his paper. Bob Hanley of
Hamilton's fine Spectator ably represents his
paper's interest in the public business of the
province. This year, Ted Douglas, of the
Windsor Daily Star, is presenting many fine
reports on the activities of this House.
The Thomson chain of daily papers is an
important news outlet, and Don O'Hearn
not only makes available to each of these
papers a daily feature, but reports the par-
ticular happenings of the day.
I appreciate very much the most adequate
treatment of the news by the Toronto Globe
and Mail's Grey Hamilton, and Ralph Hyman;
the Toronto Telegram's William Bragg; and
our session reporter from the Toronto Daily
Star, Tom Eberle.
It is true, however, that some of the rep-
resentatives of the Toronto daily papers must
move in and out of the gallery frequently,
depending upon the whims of their respective
city editors. The Canadian Press is well
represented this year by Peter Supnowich,
as is the British United Press by Harry
Martin.
I am pleased indeed, to welcome a mem-
ber of the French press, he Droit of Ottawa.
Mr. Roland Desmarais is serving his paper
well, in translating the business of the Legis-
lature to its readers. Le Droit, as a matter
of fact, accepted my invitation to send a
reporter to this House.
I must pay particular tribute to the Globe
and Mail's William Kinmond, for the out-
standing reporting job he carried out last
year on his visit to Red China. In this
assignment, Mr. Kinmond's daily items re-
ceived the widespread attention of the major
newspapers, both in Canada and in the United
States. His book No Dogs in China was the
culmination of this assignment.
I would just add this in giving well-
deserved recognition to the press— a quota-
tion from Thomas Carlyle, who said:
There were three estates in Parliament;
but in the reporters' gallery yonder, there
sat a fourth estate, more important far
than they all.
There is a matter of major importance
which I intend to continue to press for recog-
nition by the federal government. That is,
the matter of recognizing the medical services
made available in Ontario for recipients under
the various welfare programmes. I should
say that we are making substantial contribu-
tions, entirely from provincial taxing sources,
so that medical services by the physicians
of their choice may be provided in the homes
of recipients or at the offices of their doctors.
I can find no good reason why the govern-
ment of Canada should not share in the costs
of these services in the same manner as they
share the costs of the allowances granted
by way of old age assistance, disabled and
blind persons' allowances.
I say this in spite of the constant refer-
ence on the part of federal officials to the
provisions of The British North America Act.
These medical services are being provided
monthly to approximately 85,000 recipients
of old age security which, of course, is an
entirely federal programme. Altogether 182,-
000 persons are eligible for medical services
monthly. These services are important, or
possibly in some cases, more important than
the grant itself.
While on this subject, I should like to
express my appreciation of the whole-hearted
efforts of the medical profession in Ontario,
in giving every attention and service to the
persons qualifying for this type of aid.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that we
have introduced a number of Acts during
this sitting of the House. I believe they
will all be helpful in treating the needs of
the persons served by our department. I
am looking forward, in particular, to what
can be accomplished through The Home-
makers and Nurses Services Act for those
who require and can benefit from such
services. I believe this Act will prove to be
another milestone in the welfare field.
I might also note that several specialized
studies are being continued within the de-
partment to lessen and streamline many of
our administrative processes. Constant study
is also being directed to the allowances being
granted, and to the budgetary procedures
which support our cases. It is likely, in the
future, that many of the items of assistance
can be consolidated to a degree with recog-
nition being given to the variety of needs
in each particular case.
The main function of The Department of
Public Welfare, as I see it, is one of service.
We strive to give every benefit of doubt to
the cases which come to our attention and
which can be treated under one or the
other of our programmes. We welcome in-
dividual inquiries on behalf of such cases
from all hon. members of this House where-
ever it is felt we can be helpful.
Perfection is an almost unattainable goal,
and we are as subject to human error as in
any active organization or administration.
708
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There can be no question, however, that all
our efforts are directed towards giving fair
treatment and every attention to the cases
which come before us and need our services.
We are ever anxious to lend every support to
the problems presented, so that the persons
who depend upon us may enjoy as great
a measure of happiness and comfort as
possible.
On vote 1,701:
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): On this vote,
the grant to the Victorian Order of Nurses
last year was $80,000, and I was wondering
if the organization itself might be more active
under the new hospital plan coming in on
January 1. I was wondering if the hon. Minis-
ter had given any consideration to that, but
the organization itself, of course, the nurses
will be much more active next year, I think.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Chairman, all I might
say about this is that the Victorian Order of
Nurses were in to ask for an increase in grant,
but as we advised them we were intro-
ducing the homemaker service, which is
completely within their purview of work, so
they were satisfied to go along and see how
this homemaker service would be working
out before making any other appeal.
Mr. Thomas: Would the hon. Minister care
to elaborate on the homemakers service, or
will he give it to the House at some future
time?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
have introduced the bill today and I intend
to make a further statement in the second
reading.
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): May I ask the hon.
Minister if this would involve a larger sum
to them? Would it entail a greater sum of
money? It has been $80,000 the last 3 years,
I believe. Their services have certainly been
large. They made 238,000 visits in 1956, and
only 20 per cent, of these were paid in full,
and 107,746 were free.
Now, I feel that they are really doing a
real service to the communities by all these
free visits which they have made throughout
the last 3 years, and it certainly does not
look like too much when each visit costs only
$2.48. It is certainly very, very nominal, and
I think we should go along with them in their
requests, if possible. I do not see how they
could operate in any cheaper fashion if they
can make visits for $2.48.
It is certainly a worthwhile effort, and
anything we can do, I know, they will really
appreciate.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I might say, Mr. Chair-
man, in answer to the hon. member that we
have discussed this with the president and
the other executives of the Victorian Order
of Nurses. Regarding these homemaker
services, they can be employed and paid
fully for the services up to possibly $8 a
day, so that they will be paid for all serv-
ices they will be asked to do by the muni-
cipalities or those engaged in this, by the
counties, whatever body will be interested
in this work. So they will be fully paid for
all calls, instead of just getting paid for some
calls.
As the hon. member noticed, only 20 per
cent, of them were paid, and some were paid
partly, and others not paid at all. But under
this homemaker service any call that they
make will be fully paid for, and I think that
is where they will be able to do a job and
extend their work.
They are satisfied to try out this Act for
one year and see how it works out, but we
are satisfied at the present moment that it
will provide for much more funds, and would
be much better, than just a grant to be given
out of any kind of an amount, because there
would be a steady income coming in for the
work they would do.
Mr. Innes: Will they still receive, or have
to go to the public, for a contribution as they
have in the past? Will they still have to make
drives for contributions from individuals?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Oh yes, Mr. Chairman,
because I honestly believe that, regardless of
what the state might do, we as individuals
and the public as individuals have a respon-
sibility, and surely we do not want to take
that away completely.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Based on what the hon. Minister
has said, in respect to the Royal Vic-
torian Order of Nurses and the part that he
anticipates they will play in the new plan,
may I ask if it is the intention of the com-
mission, or the government, or the depart-
ment, to utilize the Victorian Order of Nurses
as the main agency in the new plan? Or
what part does the hon. Minister have in
mind that they should play?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, the hon. leader of
the Opposition will note that there is a pre-
liminary explanation to the bill, and I see
that the municipalities will be paying their
share. We will be paying whatever percent-
age we decide upon, in the regulation or
otherwise, of whatever amount the munici-
palities will spend for these home services.
MARCH 11, 1956
709
Our assumption is that the Victorian Order
of Nurses, who have been doing that through
the years, would be the logical people they
would employ to do that kind of work wher-
ever they are situated.
Then we have the Order of the Sisters of
St. Elizabeth here in Toronto. Some other
cities might have some other Orders, but if
there are not those Orders, well individuals
then could be used. Actually, there will not
really be a commission, we are making a
giant or a part-payment to the municipalities
for whatever services are rendered. We will
be reimbursing, in other words, the munici-
pality on a percentage basis for what will be
spent for these homemaker services. The
municipalities will be the ones we are dealing
with, because we feel that that level is the
proper level to deal with it. They would
know who needs those services better than
we do.
Hon. members will also note, if they will
read the bill after it is printed, that it will
also provide for nursing services in the sense
of a nurse or in the sense of a housekeeper,
or in the sense of a baby-sitter if you wish,
anything like that, so there will be no com-
mission to deal with it, it will be dealt with
by the municipality.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): May I ask
the hon. Minister a question? There will be
a direct relief at the present time under this
new Act for the municipality. So, it is pos-
sible that a municipality might set up its own
department through The Department of
Health, or through the department of health
in a municipality, and have its own house-
keepers or baby-sitters rather than the Vic-
torian Order of Nurses. It is not confined
strictly to the Victorian Order of Nurses in
other words? The municipalities will get
direct relief, is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: It does not apply to any
particular society at all, it might apply to
individuals who are willing to do that job.
Mr. Oliver: In other words, the Victorian
Order of Nurses are not to be designated.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Oh no, I am not desig-
nating anyone. It might be any corps at all;
any group at all, or anybody— if my hon.
friend is thinking of the hospitalization
plan or something like that, it is nothing like
that at all. It is just designed to help defray
these costs, and as hon. members know, a lot
of these people, instead of going to a hospital
for instance, could be taken care of at home,
or if the wife is in the hospital, the husband
will not have to stay home and take care of
the children, he can continue at his work. A
municipality might even employ my friend's
wife to do that work, and she would be paid
according to the schedule as set up.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): This
is clarifying, but I just want to make doubly
certain that I have it straight.
Is the hon. Minister in effect saying that in
the expansion of the homemaker service, the
details of which we will want to go into later,
he is not including the Victorian Order of
Nurses as one of the agencies? They continue
on with their normal work?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: That is correct.
Mr. MacDonald: The homemaker service
is a new development expanding the nuclei
of that service as it now exists in some
communities?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The hon. member is
completely right, completely right.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, now that
I am on my feet, I want to ask the hon.
Minister a question with regard to an item
which normally is included in this estimate
as 1,701, and that is the memorial wreaths
of some $6,000. Unless I have missed it, it
is not there now, is it? Has it been switched
to another department?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: It has been turned over
to my good friend, the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary (Mr. Dunbar) who will be dealing with
that. It was felt that might be a better place
for it instead of being in The Department
of Public Welfare. So the hon. member will
find that in the estimates of the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have no
comment one way or the other, but I want
to come back to something which was re-
garded with some delicacy a year or so ago
when it was raised in this House, and that is
what appears to be— if my discussions with
other hon. members of the Opposition are
correct— that the choice or the designation of
these wreaths is still made through defeated
Conservative candidates instead of the elected
representatives— if they happen to be hon.
Opposition members. Now is it not possible
to get rid of this petty kind of patronage?
Mr. Child: There are not many defeated
ones around.
Mr. MacDonald: Does the hon. Minister
prefer that I wait until we get to the depart-
ment of the hon. Provincial Secretary, and
we will deal with it when we get there then?
710
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I do not mind telling the
hon. member this, that as far as I am person-
ally concerned, I have never had any requests
from anybody, either from the group led by
the hon. leader of the Opposition or from any
other group in that particular sense. And
I have directed the information naturally
most of the time to the legionnaires, as a
matter of fact, I make it a point— I always
did it in my own riding— that the president
of the legion of that locality should be the
man to be contacted and dealt with.
Naturally, I am not too familiar with the
doings of my hon. friends in the other camps
of politics, so I take it they get information
from those who trust me better-
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it is easy, because
the hon. Minister is on the right side of the
House.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I would expect the hon.
member to do the same thing, and if I was
over there I would have no kick.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the point
is simply this, it is not a case of direction.
The hon. Minister has never received a
request from us because the procedure, for
which we had documentary evidence a year
or so ago, is that a letter came out from the
department of the hon. Minister to the legion
branches in the various areas, indicating that
on such and such a day a wreath will be
presented on behalf of the government by
the local hon. member. It always happened
to be an hon. Conservative member. It never
happened to be an hon. Opposition member.
It seems to me—
Hon. Mr. Frost: What does the hon. mem-
ber want? Does he want it to be said that
any hon. member of the House is excluded,
or what? As a matter of fact, to the best of
my knowledge, I have never laid a wreath on
any cenotaph, I have always given it to the
reeve or the mayor, and what in the world
is wrong with that?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
is getting awfully touchy. Once again he is
indulging in this deliberate confusion of the
issue.
The point is that if one happens to be on
the government side of the House, one's good
offices are used for the political kudos that
can be had through presenting a wreath on
behalf of the government. If one happens to
be on the Opposition side of the House, that
opportunity does not come.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr.
Gordon) is not here now, but he cited a
year or so ago the case of wreaths coming
out to the defeated Conservative candidate
in his area— and the defeated Tory candidate
called up, "What will I do with it?"
Quite frankly, the hon. member told him
to do what he pleased with it, that this is the
way the government apparently operates. Now
I know this has happened in one or two
other instances.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Will the hon. Minister, or
whoever runs it, for goodness sake see that
every one of the hon. Opposition members
gets a wreath to deposit somewhere in Ontario
next year? I would be delighted.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to-
Mr. MacDonald: The boiling point is pretty
low today.
Mr. Thomas: —say I had a very interesting
but amusing experience some two or three
years ago. I did not have the pleasure or
the privilege of presenting the wreath as the
sitting hon. member, but the hon. member
of the federal house had that privilege, he
was a Conservative. I wonder how the hon.
Prime Minister feels about that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, he had just been
made hon. Minister of Labour, and that is
a pretty good thing for him to do.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder how my presenting all
these wreaths would work in my area? We
have about 11 wreaths presented the same
day, and if I was going to present them all I
probably would have to cover about 1,500
miles in one day and lay 11 wreaths.
Now, let me tell the hon. member this,
and let him not be so smeary. The hon. mem-
ber is a veteran the same as I am. Regarding
all these wreaths, the secretary of the legion
in every place in my area is asked by letter
where he wants the wreath sent to. I am
not asked. And I lay the wreath in Port
Arthur at the request of the president of the
legion of the city of Port Arthur. Now, if
the hon. member for York South can find
any politics in that, I wish he would tell me.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
Port Arthur got up and explained that he
had been requested by the department to
submit these.
Vote 1,701 agreed to.
On vote 1,702:
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): I would
like at this time to say to the hon. Minister
MARCH 11, 1958
711
and the Deputy Minister that they and their
staffs are to be complimented on the very
efficient, complete and humane service they
give to each and every case that comes
before them in every manner.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister if he would make
some remarks about item No. 8, staff train-
ing, because I believe two or three years ago
there was a very small amount in this item,
and I would like to know what they are
doing about it now to increase that amount.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: All I can say is that
this pays for trainees' allowances, payments
of lecturers, and for expenses in connection
with instruction courses.
Now, we have done pretty well in this
matter, and we are going to continue to do
it if it is necessary to spend more some time
in the future. But we feel this is sufficient
for this year.
As the hon. member knows, last year we
created 17 districts in the province of Ontario,
and we had to have men or women who
could handle that job properly, and this was
where our training came in quite extensively.
Now that we are settled on this course, we
have this just for the general upkeep for
anybody who comes along and can do the
work for us.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, forgetting
about the wreaths that are sent to the Cana-
dian legions, what is the $4,000 grant for?
There is a $4,000 grant to the Canadian
Legion, Ontario provincial command.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, that is just for
the general services of the entire legion, for
all the services they have generally; it is
just a grant.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the convenience of staff training, and the
greater the hon. Minister's responsibilities are,
the more need there is of it.
But the interesting thing is that, according
to the public accounts in 1955-1956, we
spent only $480, and in 1956-1957 we spent
$100. Now what the department can do
with respect to staff training with $100, I
do not know. Now it is raised up to $49,000.
Does that indicate that the hon. Minister is
really going to train staff now, and that he
has not been paying them before, or what
is the picture?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: As the hon. leader of
the Opposition can appreciate, with all the
surplus services coming in, we need more
than ever men and women who have a
specialized mind in this particular thing. I
might say that we have not— that is, not so
far— completed our courses we are carrying
on from year to year. In the last two or
three years, to have these people specialized
in doing the kind of work they have to do,
we have given lectures and I can assure hon.
members that this was what the money was
used for. I would invite my hon. friend, who
is familiar with that kind of work, to attend
these courses. I myself found out many things
that I did not know anything about, and it
is really worthwhile to listen to the lecturers.
We have on our staff some lecturers who
have taken special courses through the
University of Toronto to enable them to do
that very thing— teach the people what is to
be done, not only in the fact of knowing
how to look for a mortgage some place, or to
look for some assets that might be hidden,
but I mean that in the field of public rela-
tions. Dealing with people is very important,
and this course is given to enable these
people to specialize.
I do not know if my friend means to say
that I have too much money to take care of
that course, or that I am not using it for pur-
poses of training these people, but I can
assure him that I am, and that I am far from
being finished yet.
Mr. Oliver: What I had in mind was this
amazing figure of $100 from 1956-1957. I
know that staff training has been going on
for years.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The matter is that we
have changed our programme quite a bit,
since we have created the 17 districts. Before
that, this was all done here. It was processed
here by the group of people we had here.
Now this responsibility has been changed
and the decision rests with the 17 top execu-
tives we have in these 17 districts.
Mr. Oliver: The help that they have needs
so much more training than what they have
over here. I do not want to labour this point,
but the hon. Minister knows quite well— and
it certainly was in vogue when I was Minis-
ter of that department— that we brought in
these women to train them as mother's allow-
ance inspectors, and it was quite a good
training. Although I do not doubt for a
moment that the hon. Minister has proceeded
along the line of improving that training and
extending it, may I ask how in the world he
arrived at a figure of $100 for 1956-1957? It
is impossible for one to believe that his staff
training would only cost $100.
712
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: I hate to interrupt the
discussion on this estimate to say what I had
mentioned, I think, yesterday that we pro-
pose to go ahead with The Department of
Reform Institutions estimate tomorrow, and
that I would announce the programme for
Thursday later.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, with the per-
mission of the House, to change that, and
have the estimates for The Department of
Education tomorrow, and The Department
Of Reform Institutions on Thursday.
As a matter of fact, we dealt, with part of
the education estimates the day that the
budget was brought down, and subse-
quently the hon. members have had the
opportunity of going over the school grant
matters in committee.
Now, I would prefer to alter that for this
reason, that tomorrow night we are going
to have a night session. I would like to com-
plete the estimates of The Department of
Education, and I do not want to skimp as
regards time. We are having a night session,
and I think the hon. members might want to
spend more time on The Department of
Education. We are not having a night ses-
sion on Thursday night, and the estimates
for The Department of Reform Institutions
could come up at 2 o'clock on Thursday
afternoon. That would permit, I think, the
Throne debate on both days, tomorrow and
the next. I think it would work out better.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, as the hon.
Prime Minister well knows, it may be that
he understands this new system of grants
that is to be introduced, if he does he is
about the only one, I would think. Now to
thrust that deparment on us tomorrow, after
having said we were going to have another
department estimates considered, does not
allow the proper time for the examination it
deserves.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to my hon. friend
that I would be very glad to have, regard-
less of the estimates that are being passed
here on The Department of Education, to
have the matter of the education regulations
and grants system further considered by the
committee on education. I agree with my
hon. friend that it is complicated and difficult,
I can assure my hon. friend of that, but I
think there will be more opportunity for the
hon. members, who are interested in the grant
system on the basis upon which it is con-
structed to discuss it in the standing com-
mittee of the House, where we can have
Dr. Jackson and the others, who are experts
in that, explain the various matters related
to it.
So I would say to my hon. friend that, in
connection with the grants, I would be very
glad indeed to have that matter considered
further in the standing committee, despite
the estimates. I think that that would be
the best method of handling it.
If we take that item out, as a matter of
fact, then there can be a discussion of other
matters which are very important in The
Department of Education, such as the matter
of teacher training and all of those issues in
addition to the grant matter.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Prime Minister is
getting the cart before the horse. He is
going to consider, he suggests, this grants
system in the standing committee of the
House after we pass the estimates. Well,
that is a most unusual thing. It would be
far better to have the discussion in committee,
prior to discussing of the estimates.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to my hon. friend
that I have no objection to discussing it here
tomorrow, but the amount of the grants of
—what is it?— $133 million, is a lot of money.
The amount of the estimates is one thing, the
details as to how that is worked out with the
various municipalities and the various school
boards of Ontario is another matter.
We have no objection at all to having a
full discussion tomorrow in connection with
the grant matter here in the House, and then
the matter can be further discussed in the
committee on education. I think more infor-
mation will be given to the hon. members
by means of a question and answer session
with the experts who have worked this thing
out over 15 years, than by means of any dis-
cussion here in the House. I am quite satis-
fied with that.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Going back to this mat-
ter of $100, it was just for sundry matters,
it was not for the general course of training
which at that time was absorbed instead of
being put to a vote as it is being here today.
Because it was absorbed by the different
branches, it was not marked as such. We
have marked this now as staff training, be-
cause since last year, we have been making
it a more intensive course than formerly.
This item of $100 at that time did not mean
any special thing, except for emergency or
sundry training.
Vote 1,702 agreed to.
It being 6.00 of the clock, the House took
recess.
No, 30
ONTARIO
Hegfelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, March 11, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 11, 1958
Estimates, Department of Public Welfare, continued, Mr. Cecile 715
Estimates, Department of Public Works, Mr. Nickle 721
Ontario-St. Lawrence Development Commission Act, 1955, bill to amend,
Mr. Nickle, second reading 734;
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading 735
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading 735
Game and Fisheries Act, bill to amend, Mr. Mapledoram, second reading 735
Mining Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 735
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 735
Milk Industry Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, second reading 735
Farm Products Marketing Act, bill to amend, Mr. Goodfellow, second reading 735
Storage of farm produce in grain elevators, bill to regulate,
Mr. Goodfellow, second reading '. 735
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 735
Department of Municipal Affairs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading ... 735
City of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 735;
Canadian National Exhibition Association, bill respecting, Mr. A. G. Frost,
second reading 735:
Chartered Institute of Secretaries- of Joint Stock Companies and Other, Public Bodies
in Ontario, bill to incorporate, Mr. Robarts, second reading 736
Corporation of the synod of Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian Church in
Canada, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, second reading 736
Township of Sunnidale, bill respecting, Mr. G. G. Johnston, second reading 736
City of Ottawa,, bill respecting, Mr. Morrow, second reading 736
City of Niagara Falls, bill" respecting, Mr. Jolley, second reading 736
City of Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, Mr. Lyons, second reading 736
United Community Fund of Greater Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling,
second reading 736
Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 736
Blind Persons' Allowances Act, 1951, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 736
Old Age Assistance Act, 1951, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 736
Mothers' and Dependent Children's Allowances Act, 1957, bill to amend,
Mr. Cecile, second reading 736
Indian Welfare Services Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 736
Public Utilities Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 736,
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 736
Local Improvement Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 736
Public Parks Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 737
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 737
City of Chatham, bill respecting, third reading 737
Village of Port Perry, bill respecting, third reading 737
Village of West Lome, bill respecting, third reading 737
Waterloo College associate faculties, bill respecting, third reading 737
Queen's University at Kingston, bill respecting, third reading 737
Board of education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, third reading 737
Town of Fort Frances, bill respecting, third reading 737
City of Fort William, bill respecting, third reading 737
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, third reading 737
Cancer Act, 1957, bill to amend, third reading 737
Cemeteries Act, bill to amend, third reading .,.. 737
Tourist Establishments Act, bill to amend, third; reading 737
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953, bill to amend, third reading 737
Statute Lajbour Act, bill to amend, third reading 737
Highway Improvement Act, 1957, bill to amend, third reading 737
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 737
715
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WELFARE
( Continued )
Vote 1,703 agreed to.
On vote 1,704:
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there are two brief remarks that I
would like to make. This may well be the
appropriate estimate to express my apprecia-
tion again this year to the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile), and particularly
to the Deputy Minister (Mr. Band) for his
assistance in connection with welfare and
related cases throughout the year.
I find, in my capacity as a leader of a party,
in addition to being a member for a particular
constituency, that I get conceivably more than
the normal share of cases in which I am asked
to help. It is relatively easy because I just
pass it on to the Deputy Minister and the job
is done. In fact, in doing something for one
of my own constituents, it is so exceptional
that we usually have to laugh about it.
But I do want to express once again, with-
out going into any great length, my appre-
ciation for the unfailing courtesy and co-
operation in doing as much as the regulations
and the law will permit. Sometimes we have
differences on that score, but I think that is
neither his fault nor mine. We sometimes have
to persuade the government to change the
regulations.
Now the other point that I want to raise
here, Mr. Chairman— and I do not know if the
department has given this matter any thought
and, if so, whether they can give the House
the benefit of their thinking, but it seems to
me that each fall when we go through yet
another Community Chest drive, the great
majority of people once again wonder whether
there is not too large a proportion of the
financial responsibility being left on private
agencies and voluntary contributions to do
some of the work being attempted by these
bodies.
Tuesday, March 11, 1958
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development): The hon. member would
not do away with the voluntary agencies?
Mr. MacDonald: Let me emphasize at the
outset that I agree with the hon. Minister in
his comment this afternoon, that I think that
there is a role for voluntary agencies, not
only in terms of a community recognizing
its social responsibilities, but in the enlisting
of voluntary assistance in meeting the needs
of the community. In doing some of this work
through a private agency, inevitably they
can draw in not only hundreds but thousands
of people.
However, I do not know how one can
avoid the conclusion, when one looks at the
sort of "rat race" that has to be gone through
each year with public appeals, that too
large a proportion of this job is being left
with the private agency and voluntary financ-
ing.
If one looks back at how welfare services
have come within government purview, I
think that one finds that many of the govern-
ment services of today were originally
pioneered by voluntary agencies. In fact, if
we take the retarded children's classes,
within our recent experience, we have a good
illustration. In the first instance it was
pioneered by a voluntary agency exclusively,
then at some later stage the need was recog-
nized as being a vital enough one that it was
financed, partially at least, by the Community
Chest. Finally, as the development went on
it became recognized as so part and parcel
of the responsibility of society that it should
be taken off the basis of voluntary contribu-
tions, so that the need will be met in a
more assured fashion by becoming a govern-
ment service.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: He would not eliminate
voluntary agencies, would he?
Mr. MacDonald: Was the hon. Minister
listening to me?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes, I—
Mr. MacDonald: I just finished saying that,
that I would not do away with them.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Does he not agree that
Red Cross and the Daughters of the Empire,
716
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Community Chest and those things do
a very great deal of good and perhaps supple-
ment the effort of the department?
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps it is my voice,
Mr. Chairman. I just finished saying that
I agreed with the hon. Minister this after-
noon, in his claim that there was a role for
voluntary agencies. The history of many of
these services is that they started as strictly
voluntary agencies. They became partly pub-
licly underwritten through the Community
Chest, and in some instances have now become
completely or for the most part a government
welfare service.
But the question that I want to put to the
hon. Minister of Public Welfare is this: Has
his department examined the range of respon-
sibilities that are now left with the various
agencies in the Community Chest, with a view
to taking some of them off the voluntary basis,
particularly at the financial level, so that we
can escape the kind of high-pressure, tear-
jerking campaigns that seem to be necessary
to meet the objectives during recent years?
Indeed, even with such campaigns, we have
discovered that we cannot meet objectives.
Has any study been made of this kind of
thing in the department?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare): Mr. Chairman, I think what the
hon. member for York South is asking— the
question as I understand it— is: Are we study-
ing the possibility of integrating our services
with a private agency-
Mr. MacDonald: So they will not be left
on a voluntary basis.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, I must say that
we have discussed the matter many times
with the people concerned with these organi-
zations, and our impression— at least mine-
has been at all times that it would be ques-
tionable. These organizations even think
sometimes that we take a little too much
away from them. I hope it never happens
that public agencies or private agencies
throughout this land cease to operate and
that welfare will become strictly a state
matter.
I know the hon. member will agree with
me when I say this, that each year more
of this has been absorbed by the govern-
ment gradually, and I suppose the day will
come— I do not know when that will be-
that they may take it all over.
But again, I say that it is just like any-
thing else, if we take away the people's
responsibility, the care of their neighbours
and all that sort of thing, I wonder what the
outcome would be. I would hate to think
that the state itself will be running all the
charitable matters that are dealt with.
Now, there are not only the private agen-
cies, there is also the Red Cross, the Com-
munity Chest, and also many religious organi-
zations. I certainly would not like to step
on their toes in that respect. They do a
certain kind of specialized job which belongs
to them.
But I can assure my hon. friend that we
are constantly in contact with these people,
and in a financial way we try to see if we
can ease the burden here and there. The
hon. member can appreciate with me that
I would not, on the converse of the matter,
want to give them a blank cheque in that
kind of work— like special grants and all that
sort of thing— although we would like to help
substantially. I guess we have gradually been
absorbing quite a bit of responsibility by
assisting them to carry out their job. That is
the way I like to think about it. We would
rather help them with their job than take the
whole thing over.
I would like to repeat that we are con-
stantly in touch with these agencies, and we
have been able, over the years, to rectify
some matters and ease the burden here and
there. But as far as I am concerned I do not
like the idea of taking the whole thing over.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, I want to be associated with the hon.
member for York South in extending our
thanks to the hon. Minister and the Deputy
Minister and the departmental staff for their
co-operation, which is always so freely given.
Now the question that I would like to put
to the hon. Minister concerns the collection
of over-payments of allowances and pensions.
I remember last year, when the hon. Minister
presented his estimates, he said this, and I
quote:
I believe this is an unjustified practice,
particularly in cases where there was no
fraudulent intent. I would suggest to the
federal authorities that we are quite willing
to waive our share of these recoveries if
they are prepared to dispense with these
practices.
Now, I have found in these particular
cases, Mr. Chairman, that not only is the
pension deducted on the means test basis,
but the over-payments have to be returned,
which is a tremendous hardship, I think, on
a person getting a pension on a means test.
Now the hon. Minister registered his objec-
tion to that last year. I wonder if he has
taken up this matter with the federal authori-
MARCH 11, 195a
717
ties, particularly as we have had a govern-
ment favourable to this one, since last June
10?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Chairman, I can
assure my hon. friend from Oshawa that I
have not changed my mind at all in this
matter. But as he knows this is a Treasury rul-
ing in Ottawa, and we have stated many times
that we are willing to forego our part in it if
they will do the same.
Now, although I do not wish to make any
political speeches at the present time, I must
say that so far, since June 10, I have received
some hearing which I could not get at another
time. And I have succeeded in clearing up
some matters satisfactorily, and I have high
hopes that I will continue to succeed, provid-
ing that nothing untoward happens that would
thwart my efforts.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): I, too, should
like to pay a tribute to the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare and since the hon. members
of the Opposition are doing this this evening,
perhaps the hon. members in support of the
government can do the same.
The hon. Minister is very modest about the
things he has accomplished in the past 9
months. I am prompted to say this because
in the federal Hansard of October 25, 1957,
hon. Mr. Martin, former Minister of National
Health and Welfare in the old Liberal govern-
ment, in being questioned on a particular
issue— and that issue was the question of
reducing the residence requirements from 20
years to 10 years— was asked by a Mr. Mc-
Queen, why it was not done. Hon. Mr.
Martin replied:
My hon. friend is quite right. I was not
able to persuade certain governments, in-
cluding the government of Ontario, of the
desirability of doing that very thing, but
if I had, my hon. friend may be assured I
would have taken the step to bring about
a reduction in the resident requirement
under the existing Act.
I bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman,
that that was as of October 25, 1957.
All hon. members of this House will recall
that the matter was raised by our hon.
provincial Minister of Public Welfare, at the
federal-provincial conference in the fall of
1956, and we were all present here in the
House on March 27, 1957, when our hon.
Minister stated:
May I again say that the 20-year resi-
dence requirement is discriminatory and
antiquated, and when hon. Mr. Martin
says that he failed to persuade or convince
the Ontario government of the necessity
of consenting to this reduction in residence
requirements, I am afraid that he was
confused, that he was mistaken as to who
was trying to convince who.
Indeed, Ontario's hon. Minister, on June 7,
did enter into the agreement, as it then
stood, with the federal government, and the
headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail of
that day was: Cecile Blasts Ottawa, But
Signs Agreement.
I may say that I was amazed to find that
our hon. Minister of Public Welfare could
be aroused to the extent that he would even
blast Ottawa, but in this case he was on very
sound ground. Not only had Ontario's hon.
Minister been trying to persuade the gov-
ernment in Ottawa as to the lowering of the
residence requirements from 20 to 10 years,
but he had been trying to get other agree-
ments, and again he was successful.
We remember that, in 1956, the province's
hon. Minister spoke out for permitting an
increase in the maximum income allowable.
And today that is the case.
And then, before completing, Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to pay a tribute to our
hon. Minister for what he has done in the
way of supplementary allowances. In the
spring of 1956, I had conversations with him
and spoke in this House of the necessity of
increasing supplementary allowances from the
$10 to at least $20 maximum. I had been
trying to persuade him to share it with the
municipalities on a 50-50 basis.
All hon. members of this House were
pleased when he not only increased the maxi-
mum to $20, but brought in a shareable
allowance of 60-40.
Such is the nature of the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare that a month ago he increased
it quietly and modestly, and the first informa-
tion I had from him was a letter dated
January 17, when without the sound of trum-
pets or anything, he announced that now
the province would share to 80 per cent, the
payment of the $20 supplementary allow-
ance.
An hon. member: Who aroused him?
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member is blowing
the trumpets.
Mr. MacDonald: Why not pay the whole
thing?
Mr. Thomas: They do in Saskatchewan.
718
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Yaremko: May I refer to the hon.
member for Bruce, who spoke of past
accomplishments which his party could
point to with pride. I can tell him now,
or suggest to him now, that instead of
referring to those things, he can now look
back with pride that when he was an hon.
member of this House, he saw legislation of
this kind fought for, and in some cases, almost
blasted out of Ottawa.
I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare, and I suggest to him that he
continue to insist— as he stated to the hon.
member for Oshawa— on the removal of those
things that he thinks are not fair. I have
fullest confidence in the hon. Minister that
he will insist, and although he may have to
blast again, he will do that.
I suggest to him, too, that he go on record
as saying to the government which will be
re-elected on March 31, that in anything that
they do in Ottawa, we will go along with
them, as this government has told them since
1954, and that if the government now in
Ottawa wishes to reduce the residence re-
quirements to 5 years, then this government
will go along, and if they decide to increase
the maximum limits of the old age pension
from $55, this government will go along.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Maloney has the floor.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, has he?
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Mr.
Chairman, do you always have to accede to
this hon. gentleman from York South? Does
nobody else exist in this House?
Mr. Maloney: I feel, Mr. Chairman, that—
Interjection by Mr. MacDonald.
Mr. Maloney: Now, he is not going back
into the bottom of that barrel he has under
his seat all the time, I hope. Well, I would
certainly be able to get him out of it, I can
tell him that.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, with refer-
ence to this particular estimate, I notice that
my hon. friend's voice is not too good, so I
will not try to tempt him too much to get
him into debate, which would probably make
it worse.
I feel that I would be remiss in my duty
if I, as a member of this Legislature, did not
pay my very sincere tribute to the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare for the very
remarkable manner in which he has advanced
the public welfare situation in this province
since he has become its hon. Minister.
He, of course, himself, cannot attribute all
of that success to what he has done by his
own personal desires. But we do consider
that this is a humanitarian department, deal-
ing with the humanities and do recognize
that the hon. Minister has associated with
him, as his Deputy Minister, one of the most
outstanding public servants that this province
has ever had, a man who, in my conception,
has done more for the public benefit and the
public welfare of the old people, the blind
people, the needy people, those who are in
need of assistance, than any other public
servant. Therefore, I say to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that this estimate should go through
without any further discussion.
Vote 1,704 agreed to.
On vote 1,705:
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I
agree very much with what the last hon.
member has said, and I might say this—
Mr. Chairman: We are on vote 1,705.
Mr. Whicher: I am on vote 1,704. I do not
know exactly where you are. But I want to
say this, that I agree very much with what
the last hon. member has said, and I might
say, that as far as we are concerned in the
Opposition, there is no department of govern-
ment where we have received more co-opera-
tion than we have received from The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare.
I have a question to ask on item No. 4
of vote 1,704, with regards to the mothers'
allowances.
Now, I believe that, this past year, legis-
lation was passed whereby unwed mothers
received mothers' allowances for their chil-
dren. Now what I want to know is this. I
believe that it has been the department's
policy, where perhaps maybe 2 or 3 chil-
dren were born, that they have not given
mothers' allowance for the reason that they
might feel that if a cheque was forthcoming
to the mother, it might encourage this sort
of thing, and perhaps 4 or 5 children might
be born.
Now I would like to know if this is just
a policy of the department, or is it law?
When does the department pay, and when
does it not pay, in this circumstance?
Hon L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, might I say, on vote 1,704, I
noticed that the hon. member for Bruce won
from you the right to discuss this item, and
I would like to say just a word or two.
MARCH 11, 1958
719
Mr. Whicher: He has won it too.
Hon Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to
my hon. friends opposite, that they amaze
me. I have listened to my hon. friends oppo-
site on various occasions talking about supple-
mentary old age pensions, and I have made
some inquiries tonight, and so help me they
never mentioned supplementary old age
pensions.
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. Prime
Minister give us a chance. We never got
around to asking yet.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, is that so? Well, I
might as well anticipate them then and say
this. Back in this House, I recollect in the
late 1940's, the old age pension level, at that
time, was $30. As a matter of fact, I could
go back before that time, but it was $30.
Mr. MacDonald: Back in the 1940's, it
would be.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right. Now, in this
House there was all sorts of talk from the
other side about increasing the old age pen-
sion to $40. In other words, the province
paying the $10 itself.
I want to tell hon. members that if that
had been done, the federal old age pension
would never have been raised to $40. Now
last year, there was a lot of talk in here, the
fact is, the Opposition went to the people on
it, but they did not say very much about it
when they got to the people, either one of
them— that is the CCF or the Liberals. But in
any event, they went to the people with this
matter as part of their platform.
Now I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the prov-
ince had been foolish enough to get into that,
the pensions would not be $55 today. The
province would be holding the bag, and in-
stead of being able to put the money where
we should put it— in education— we would
have been frittering it away on something
that the federal government ought to pay.
Now I am saying that to the hon. members
opposite. I just want to point that out, be-
cause we will hear little about supplementary
old age pensions at this time.
Now, supplementary old age pensions, of
course, should be payable by the province as
they are being paid at the present time, in
cases of need and hardship where the muni-
cipalities are best able to judge the problems
of those cases. But I can say, that nothing
would be worse, nothing would be greater
folly, than to get the province into paying
a supplementary allowance across the board,
dissipating our resources, and taking the part
that the federal government ought to take.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have taken this
position:
If the federal government increases the
pension, we will participate at once, and
we have done that. That is what we ought
to do. I would say that our money, which
is limited of course, ought to go into such
things as education and development works,
for which we are responsible. We should
not get spread out into a lot of these other
things which are merely another way of
dissipating our assets. I just wanted to draw
that to the attention of the Opposition.
I had not heard anything about it this
afternoon, in the speeches in connection with
the introduction of these estimates. I had
not heard the usual speeches, I came in
here, and vote 1,704 is pretty well over,
and I understand that nothing has been said
about it, so I raise the matter myself in
order to stir up a little trouble.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister evidently throws his finger
over this way, not only at our group but at
the CCF group.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I pointed at both groups.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, well, the finger does
not just come at us. He can point it over
there. He says that he does not want to
enter fields such as this, he wants to give
it away to municipalities for education and
all that sort of thing.
I would just like to remind the hon. Prime
Minister of this. Of every single nickel that
he takes away in the first place from the
taxpayers of this province, he has not given
one cent away. He took it away first and
he is not giving it all back. Let him remem-
ber that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Say, just a minute. I always waited till the
close of every election. I will bet the hon.
member a suit of clothes, $100, that Char-
lotte Whitton is elected.
An hon. member: What is the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary's vote?
Mr. Whicher: I would just like to reply
that. I will bet the hon. Provincial Secretary
the suit that he will not vote for her, and
if he does and she is elected, it will be the
first downfall of the Tory party in Ottawa.
He is the man who told me that, too.
720
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I suppose the hon. mem-
ber does not know the difference, but I will
tell him now. I have not got a vote in Ottawa.
I vote down at the Royal York Hotel, where
it is going to count.
Mr. Whicher: If he was in Ottawa he
would not be voting for Charlotte.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Then I would vote for
Charlotte. Will he take me on the suit of
clothes, that she will be elected?
Mr. Whicher: I will see the hon. Provincial
Secretary right behind the Speaker's chair.
Mr. Maloney: I will told the stakes.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I believe, Mr. Chairman,
that I had a question there about unwed
mothers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must
tell the hon. member that we do not look
with much favour on those cases, when they
go past the one, but there are cases of two,
and I think we usually depend quite a bit
on the discretion of the supervisor in that
area, and he knows the situation pretty well.
But I must say that we look upon that with
great disfavour.
Mr. Whicher: I agree very much with what
the hon. Minister said, but what I wanted to
get was the legal aspect of this. I mean, he
does not have to pay. Does he have to pay
for one, we will say?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: We do not have to pay
for any.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. MacDonald has the
floor.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two years ago, Mr. Chairman, there were
approximately 1,800 to 2,000 supplementary
payments being paid on old age pensions. A
year ago, there were about 4,700 or 4,800.
What is the figure today?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I am advised, Mr. Chair-
man, approximately 5,000.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, it doubled
between 3 years ago and one year ago. Do we
conclude that, in keeping with the hon. Prime
Minister's approach to this, that the depart-
ment is going to sort of level it off, and not
expand this programme any further?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, we feel that, and
we have felt, naturally, that it is used mostly
for shelter costs and those have risen. That
is where they apply, mostly.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the total annual
amount that is now being paid out? About
$500,000 as it was a year or so ago?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Yes, it would be about
that.
Mr. MacDonald: $500,000 is not going to
help our education budget.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He means half a million
dollars, is that it?
Mr. MacDonald: Not very much to the
hon. Prime Minister, not with his $99.5
million.
An hon. member: That was Rt. hon. C. D.
Howe's statement: "What is a million?"
Mr. Thomas: The vote for medical services
last year, in the mothers' allowance branch,
was $342,000 and on the old age assistance
branch, $1.32 million. Now they are both
lumped together this year, and total $1,796
million.
Now, I am aware of the arrangements with
the government and the medical association.
I believe, unless the rate has been changed,
an amount of $1.05 a month is paid into the
fund, but what arrangements are there
respecting the mothers' allowance cases?
How is that worked out?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: It is all in the same
category, say $1.05 for all cases, per person
I mean.
Mr. Thomas: Is this money handed over
to the medical association? Has the govern-
ment no say at all in the payment of the
amount of money that they receive? Has the
government no representation on the way it
is paid out? How is it paid out?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I trust the hon. member
understands that we have an agreement with
the medical association, and we have full
authority to visit the accounts at any time.
Our accountants see to it that we do too, and
we found that it has worked out pretty well.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, are they paid
100 per cent, of the bill they send in to the
association?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Oh no. I am advised that
it varies between 75 per cent, and 100 per
cent.
Votes 1,704 and 1,705 agreed to.
On vote 1,706:
Mr. Maloney: In this respect, may I, as
the representative of the riding of Renfrew
South, pay my very particular tribute to the
hon. Minister, and to his very efficient depart-
ment, for the manner in which they have
helped in the completion of the work which
MARCH 11, 1958
721
has been done in connection with our home
for the aged in Renfrew county? I under-
stand that approximately 162 or 163 beds
will be provided for older people, and it is
an aid that has been long needed. I know
that the people of Renfrew South will again
be very deeply indebted not only to the
hon. Minister but to this government for the
wonderful welfare work they are doing in
this branch of government.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Chairman, might I say a word of congratula-
tion and thanks to the hon. Minister and
his staff. I was glad to hear his Deputy
Minister mentioned today, because I have
had so much help from him through the
years. We have a beautiful new home for
the aged. I would like to tell the hon. mem-
ber for Renfrew South that, if he has one
that equals it, he is going to be very pleased
indeed.
It holds 153 patients, the beautiful rooms
are up to date in every way, and the look
of happiness one sees on those old folks
when one goes up to that home just does
the heart good, and shows what looking
after the humanities means in this great
province of ours.
Now, I often tell this story, Mr. Chairman,
and I am going to tell it again, The old
age pension and senior citizens' homes were
started in 1919 in England. Lloyd George
was the Prime Minister-
Mr. Thomas: He was a Welshman.
Mr. Wardrope: And a Liberal. However,
they were taking a vote on it, and this
arrogant old gentleman stood at the door
of the polling booth questioning every one
of the people who entered to vote and ask-
ing if they were going to vote for that
"charitable handout." He questioned one
little old lady, asking if she was going to
vote for this charity, and said:
"The next thing that Lloyd George is
going to promise you is a free trip to
Heaven."
She said: "No sir, I am sure he can't do
that, all he is trying to do is make the wait-
ing room a little more comfortable."
Mr. Chairman, I think that this story
depicts what we are doing for the old folks
in this province. That is one of the things
I am most interested in, is to witness the
care and the happiness that those in their
later years of life are experiencing today.
Let us not forget that they have earned it,
and have paid for it through their working
years. It is no gratuity, it is nothing in the
way of a free gift. They have earned it.
I am certainly pleased to see that this
government is taking the responsibility of
seeing that our senior citizens are happy and
well housed and cared for, and are now get-
ting a pension that is fairly decent, which
they did not have before June 10 of last year.
Mr. Thomas: I wonder if the hon. Minister
could tell us how many homes are under con-
struction at the present time, and how many
are projected for the year 1958?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: We have 6 brand new
ones and 15 under construction, I see, and
there are some in the planning stage. I could
not tell the hon. member exactly how many
because I do not know them all yet, they have
not made formal application except through
telephone calls. On the agenda are also a few
charitable institutions to be erected by the
different churches, the houses of providence
and so on.
I know there is one here in Toronto, there
is one also in Kingston going up, and we have
information about others, and there have also
been some inquiries from some other groups
about possible erection of homes. So I think
that, all in all, we are quite satisfied with the
progress being made and my great hope is
that we will eventually have one for every
county in the province of Ontario.
Mr.Maloney: May I invite the hon. Minister
to come down to Renfrew, when the new
home is going to be opened there in the very
near future, I understand, or in the spring of
this year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: We will all come down-
Mr. MacDonald: —and give the schools a
holiday.
Votes 1,706 and 1,707 agreed to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
Hon. W. Griesinger (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Chairman, to assist the hon.
members of this House in becoming better
acquainted with my department's programme
of capital works, I have prepared a booklet
for the assembly, which provides in detail
the major work items which have been
brought to completion this fiscal year, and
new work items on which we are planning
to make a start.
These work items are so numerous that it
would be impossible for me to acquaint hon.
722
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
members with the many undertakings which
are being carried forward, but I would like
to take just a few moments to touch on a
few of the items to illustrate the programme
upon which we are engaged.
In the fiscal year now approaching its
close, Ontario's public services have achieved
an all-time high in point of volume and scope
of benefits and assistance rendered, and
expenditure for the employment of work-
men and purchase of materials necessary to
carry on these services. Now, with a large,
carefully planned expansion programme well
established, a period of still greater accom-
plishment is in prospect for 1958-1959.
The Department of Public Works has of
necessity to play an increasingly important
role in the services of the government, in
order to keep pace with Ontario's unpre-
cedented developments in industry and com-
merce, farming, mining, and communications
reaching out into undeveloped areas of the
north, and the attendant increase in popula-
tion, thus requiring new roads, extended
policing, educational facilities, hospital and
other services. The Department of Public
Works' particular role is that of providing
new buildings, and engineering and plan-
ning services to meet the growing needs of
the various departments of government.
Consequently, we are endeavouring to pro-
vide the best facilities to enable the various
departments to carry out their responsibili-
ties, with which they are entrusted by this
House under various legislative enactments,
with the best accommodation and equipment
which we can obtain.
For The Department of Agriculture
With this purpose in mind, we are ad-
vancing construction of the new gymnasium
and physical education building at the On-
tario Agricultural College, Guelph. At this
college, a new extension to the power plant
is well under way; construction progress of
the new soils building, in the science build-
ing group, has advanced rapidly, and a new
vehicle storage and service building is also
under construction.
We plan to undertake the construction of
unit No. 2 of the science building group,
commencing with the erection of a new bio-
logy building. We also plan to erect a new
chemistry building, which will be one of
the component buildings of unit No. 3 of
the science buildings group.
At the Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph,
a new medical-surgical building, and a new
radio chemical laboratory, are under con-
struction.
Good progress has been made on the con-
struction of the new poultry service building
at the Kemptville Agricultural College. At
the Ridgetown Experimental Farm, substan-
tial renovation of the seed storage building
is under way.
At the New Liskeard demonstration farm,
we contemplate a new building to accom-
modate administration offices, laboratories and
auditorium.
For The Department of the Attorney-General
The needs of the growing population in
"old" Ontario, and the spread of population
to northern areas, have necessitated an exten-
sion of the Ontario provincial police services.
And consequently, distribution of the
expanded force requires new district head-
quarters' buildings at strategic points, plus
detachment buildings, garages and housing
units.
For The Department of Education
In the field of education, construction is
well advanced on a new junior school and
students' residence at the Ontario School for
the Deaf, Belleville. A new laundry building,
and a new staff residential dormitory, are
also being added to the buildings at this
institution, with construction of these two
structures commencing late in the year 1957.
Excellent progress has been made on the
construction of the new teachers' college at
London.
A site has been purchased for the future
construction and establishment of an Ontario
School for the Deaf, Milton.
Construction of unit No. 1 of the new
building group for the Ryerson Institute of
Technology, Toronto, is well advanced and
is rapidly nearing completion, and we con-
template starting construction of unit No. 2
of this building group to accommodate 1,500
students very shortly.
Three buildings at 21 Nassau Street,
Toronto, are in course of being converted for
use by the Institute of Trades.
The contracts have been let with con-
struction to start immediately on a new
teachers' college to be called the Lakeshore
Teachers' College, New Toronto.
At the Ontario School for the Blind, Brant-
ford, a new addition will be erected to pro-
vide an assembly hall and musical training
centre.
Tenders will be called shortly for the con-
struction of a two-storey and basement addi-
MARCH 11, 1958
723
tion, and renovations to the existing school
building, at the Provincial Institute of Mines,
Haileybury.
For the Department of Health
I think I can safely say that everything is
being done by the government to provide for
our people the best and most modern facilities
in hospitals and hospital equipment.
Brockville: Construction work on two new
pavilions for male and female patients, to
be known as continued treatment pavilions, is
nearing completion. It is also planned to con-
struct an additional two wings to Elmgrove
dormitory, and fireproof the existing build-
ings.
Cedar Springs, Chatham: A site for the new
Ontario hospital training school for retarded
children was purchased some time ago and
the contract let. Construction work is com-
mencing.
The building site contains about 375 acres
of land, most of which will be situated on the
north side of highway No. 3, while some of
it will be located between highway No. 3 and
the north side of Lake Erie, about 3 miles
westerly from Cedar Springs. The buildings
which are to be erected as a first stage
development for this hospital will accom-
modate about 1,300 patients, and when com-
pleted will eventually comprise and consist
of the following units:
Administration buildings, a small school, a
gymnasium and other recreational facilities,
central dining hall, kitchen, with sleeping
pavilions, and bath houses for 450 male and
450 female children. The northerly part of
the hospital will comprise a medical-surgical
and treatment building with bed accommo-
dation for 200 male and 200 female children
patients.
Cobourg: An extension to the kitchen and
dining hall building to expand the accommo-
dation of this Ontario hospital is under con-
struction.
Hamilton: A new power house is under
construction at this hospital, and a new laun-
dry building to expand the facilities was
commenced in November. The contract has
also been let for the construction of a new
600-bed hospital with construction to start
immediately.
Kingston: At this Ontario hospital, con-
struction is well advanced on the new 500-
bed hospital group to house the administra-
tion, reception and active treatment block,
the male and female infirmaries, and the
kitchen and dining hall building.
New Toronto: Additions and alterations to
the central building, to provide new, en-
larged, and completely equipped kitchen and
dining facilities, are under way. A new food
service building is also planned.
North Bay: Construction is under way on
a new regional laboratory building on the
grounds of the Ontario Hospital, North Bay.
We are planning to erect two new pavilions
to be known as the M-3 and F-3 buildings,
as well as a medical-surgical building.
Penetanguishene : Construction of the new
extension to the criminally insane building
at this Ontario hospital is well under way.
Port Arthur: A programme of works simi-
lar to that at North Bay is contemplated for
this Ontario hospital. Two new pavilions, to
be known as M-3 and F-3 buildings, are to
be constructed, and a new medical-surgical
building is being planned.
St. Thomas: Construction work is in
progress for a new addition to the power
house to accommodate an emergency
generator plant for this hospital.
Thistletown: The hospital buildings at
Thistletown, formerly maintained by the
Toronto hospital for sick children, were
taken over and, following extensive renova-
tion, occupied by The Department of Health
in January of this year.
Whitby: Construction of new additions are
contemplated for this hospital, to add ward
and insulin treatment accommodation for 56
patients, and needed space for doctors and
administrative offices. This work constitutes
5 one-storey wings to be added to the recep-
tion building.
Woodstock: Considerable construction work
is under way at this Ontario hospital. Good
headway is being made at the chest diseases*
division and active treatment building. A
building to accommodate the new pasteuriza-
tion plant in the epileptic division is under
way, and good progress has been made on the
addition to the power house, and also on the
new trades building. Construction of a new
piggery at the Deller farm has commenced.
For The Department of Highways
In keeping with the large programme of
highway construction, it is necessary to pro-
vide many administrative units across the
province, and these consist of office buildings,
divisional garages, stores buildings, and main-
tenance shops in many locations as listed in
our works programme. Construction, as men-
tioned, progresses at such points as Bancroft,
Burwash Road (McFarlane Lake), Chatham,
724
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ear Falls, Hearst, Kingston, Marathon,
Ottawa, Red Lake and Downsview.
We plan two new administration buildings
at the Keele Street and Wilson Avenue site
in Toronto, one for The Department of High-
ways and the other for The Department of
Transport.
For The Department of Lands and Forests
We are continuing to provide The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests with additional
administration and other types of buildings,
and works for scientific research in connection
with forestry and wild life, as well as fire pro-
tection and prevention, and housing for per-
sonnel.
At Fort Frances, construction of a two-
storey and full basement district office build-
ing is well advanced, and a new administration
office and radio workshop building at the
southern research station at Maple is well
under way.
At Sault Ste. Marie, we are planning to
add to the facilities with a new addition to
the forest insect laboratory. Various chief
rangers' headquarters buildings are to be
constructed at such places as Parry Sound,
Timmins and Geraldton.
For The Department of Mines
Construction of the new mining recorder's
office building at Kirkland Lake is well
advanced, and a new office building for
Kenora is in the planning stages.
For The Department of Public Works
Additional accommodation for the many
departments of the government is of prime
importance, and this work will continue to
be developed. A new 10-storey head office
building for the Ontario hospital services
commission will be built at once, at a loca-
tion on Yonge Street, Toronto, just south of
Eglinton Avenue. We also contemplate mak-
ing a start on an addition to the Treasury
building at Queen's Park.
It is also planned to renovate completely
the recently purchased Canadian Oil build-
ing, located on Richmond Street, Toronto,
to provide a new government office building.
A new central garage will also be provided
on Breadalbane Street, Toronto, when exten-
sive alterations to the old "Canada Carbon
building," in conjunction with additional con-
struction, is completed.
Erection of an Ontario government branch
office building at Lindsay is now under way.
A new Ontario government branch office
building at Windsor is in the planning stages.
At Mimico, a building to house offices, shops
and stores is well advanced on the site of the
existing regional buildings.
Construction work progresses on the new
public works warehouse and office building at
Orillia, and is nearing completion.
For The Department of Reform Institutions
The construction of new buildings is under
way at various locations throughout the prov-
ince for The Department of Reform Institu-
tions, and a programme has been planned to
provide additional buildings at the various
institutions to meet the necessary requirements
for this department.
Construction of a security wing is under
way at the Rideau industrial farm, Burritt's
Rapids. The building will be one wing with
full basement.
A new staff residence is under construction
at the industrial farm, Burtch.
At the industrial farm, Burwash, camp No.
5, construction is in progress on the new
200-bed dormitory and cells group. This group
consists of a 2-storey, "U" shaped main build-
ing, a 3-storey administration wing and,
centred between the wings of the main build-
ing, a 2-storey structure to contain dining and
food preparation areas. Also included in the
project is a building to house steam generat-
ing boilers and water pumping equipment for
the new building.
The new training school for incorrigible
girls, at Gait, was completed early this year
ready for occupancy.
The new training school for incorrigible
boys, at Guelph, was completed and occupied
by the reformatory staff and inmates.
Renovation of the kitchen and staff dining
room areas progresses at the Ontario reforma-
tory, Guelph.
The new Ontario reformatory at Millbrook
was completed.
Construction is well advanced on a fourth
dormitory building, to be known as No. 2
dormitory, at the Ontario reformatory,
Mimico.
A new house, unfinished inside, together
with 8 acres of land, was purchased in Novem-
ber for conversion to a new training school
for girls at Port Bolster.
For The Ontario Water Resources Commission
Construction has started on a new adminis-
tration and laboratory building for the Ontario
water resources commission, located on the
south side of highway No. 401, west of the
MARCH 11, 1958
725
Humber River, in the township of Etobicoke,
to accommodate this newly formed depart-
ment.
From what has come before, hon. members
will therefore realize the vast programme of
construction that will be following in the next
fiscal year. Providence has provided us with
a beautiful and wonderful place in which to
reside, blessed with abundant resources, fer-
tile fields, forests, streams and mines. Our
obligation is to develop these resources for
the benefit of all our people, and by our in-
dustry, integrity, and co-operation, make the
year 1958 a year of great achievement. I am
sure that the hon. members of this Legislature
appreciate, and fully realize, the importance
of the submission of the following estimates
for the endorsement of this House.
Supplementary Report, Ontario Water
Resources Commission
During the past year, acceleration was
given to the activities of the Ontario water
resources commission. Up to February 28,
1958, agreements and commitments entered
into included 23 projects at an estimated cost
of $15,124,213, involving 13 water projects
totalling $5,662,481, and 10 sewage projects
totalling $9,461,732.
It will be apparent from the accompanying
list that considerable progress has been made
in providing water to municipalities.
Engineering studies have been completed in
a number of areas where there is need for
a water supply, and the commission is con-
tinuing to make studies of wide areas to
indicate to these municipalities how water
can be obtained, and what the cost will be.
Similar efforts have been made to deal with
pollution abatement. The sewage work
included in these projects will aid materially
in this direction. Many other projects, includ-
ing sewage treatment, will be undertaken in
the immediate future. Some of these will
provide services for the large communities
which must discharge wastes into adjacent
watercourses. The commission has an inten-
sive programme under way for research and
pollution abatement, all of which will add to
the water resources of this province.
I will deal with the activities of the com-
mission under 3 headings: Completed, Under
Construction, and Pending.
Completed: Of the 23 projects mentioned,
3 have already been completed, namely at
Port Perry, Havelock and Sunderland (Brock
township), all of which are for water sup-
plies. The cost of these operations is as
follows:
Brock township (Sunderland), water
works system $ 97,300
Havelock, water works system 184,600
Port Perry, well and supply main 62,731
$ 344,631
Under Construction: Considerable progress
has been made in providing water supply
and sewage treatment facilities to municipali-
ties. As an example, in the county of Essex,
there are two major projects now under way
to bring a water supply from the lake. One
is at Harrow, the other will supply water to
Leamington, Essex and adjacent township
areas. They are as follows:
WATER
County of Essex (Essex, Leamington,
Mersea, Gosfield North, Gosfield
South, Maidstone), integrated water
scheme including pipeline from
Lake Erie $ 3,146,000
Bancroft, water works system 246,300
Harrow, water works system 510,600
Dresden, water supply works 167,500
Essex (town), standpipe 106,000
$ 4,176,400
SOME MAJOR SEWAGE WORKS
Toronto township, trunk sewers and
treatment plant $ 1,752,800
Stratfoid, treatment plant 888,600
Streetsville, treatment plant 336,000
Richmond Hill, extension to treatment
plant 354,400
$ 3,331,800
Pending: In addition, there are many pro-
jects for both water and sewage which are
pending. A number of these are close to
the agreement stage and are as follows:
WATER
Richmond Hill, additions to present
system $ 224,000
Winchester, supply project including well 225,000
Markham township, extension to existing
system and well 458,700
Frankford, water system with well 113,000
Alfred, renewal present system and well 120,750
$ 1,141,450
SEWAGE
Trenton, sewage system with treatment
plant $ 434,000
North Bay (with townships of West
Ferris and Widdifield), sewers and
treatment plant 2,130,000
Frankford, sewers and treatment plant 162,000
Brantford, treatment plant 2,910,000
Korah township, interceptor sewer 43,000
Coniston, sewage system including treat-
ment plant 450,932
$ 6,129,932
Grand Total $15,124,213
On vote 1,801:
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): The salaries
for the main office last year were $740,000,
this year $1.06 million, well, that can be
726
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
explained, I suppose, but what I would like
the hon. Minister to explain is the great
increase in the amount for travelling
expenses. Last year, the appropriation was
for $20,000; this year, it is $65,000.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: If the hon. member
will compare the old book with the one for
1958, he will find that vote 1,801 this year
includes vote 1,802 of the year before. We
have put several groups together in one vote
this time.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): I would
like to take this opportunity of expressing my
appreciation to the hon. Minister, particu-
larly for the remarks he made about the
additions to the provincial institute of mining
at Haileybury. As this assembly perhaps
knows, this school has turned out many
students, and today they are coming from
distant parts of Canada and from foreign
countries.
The accommodation is very limited, the
students are trained on the ground floor, you
might say, with the mining activities in
Cobalt, and they are selected and employ-
ment found before they complete their
course.
I thank the government and The Depart-
ment of Education for having given this so
much attention.
I also want to thank the hon. Minister for
the remarks he made about the administration
building in New Liskeard. We are very proud
of our experimental farm and the projects that
they have undertaken, particularly in recent
years, including the raising of beef cattle in
the north country.
Vote 1,801 agreed to.
On vote 1,802:
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I would say to the
hon. member for Oshawa that vote 1,802 will
be somewhat similar to 1,801. This year it
includes last year's votes 1,803, 1,804 and part
of 1,805 and 1,807, so that the salaries are
all together.
Vote 1,802 agreed to.
Votes 1,803 to 1,805, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 1,806:
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): On item No. 2 of
this vote, $840,000, how much was spent in
this past year on that particular item?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Ontario water re-
sources commission salaries?
Mr. Whicher: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I will get that in just
a moment. About $400,000 to date.
Mr. Whicher: What was it spent for, what
projects last year?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: This is for the salaries
of the commission, the employees, they have
been building up their organization for the
past year. Does the hon. member want a
breakdown of it?
Mr. Whicher: That is all right.
Mr. Whicher: On item No. 3, there is a
matter of $200,000 to provide for expenses
arising out of unforeseen circumstances. Now,
what would the hon. Minister say are the
unforeseen circumstances?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: On vote 1,806?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I would
tell my hon. friend they are doing a great job.
Mr. Whicher: I might say this, that I
remember very well the hon. Prime Minister
standing in this House and telling us that
he was going to spend $2.5 billion, so he
might be interested to know what he has
spent so far. Further, he is going to get every
red nickel of it back, approximately $15
million, and that in any major project for
sewage or water in this province, they have
overlooked him entirely and have gone to
him only for advice, and they are putting
up every dollar themselves.
Now then, does he not think this $15
million is rather small, compared to the figure
of $2.5 billion that he mentioned in this
House only two years ago?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member for T3ruce that the $2.5 billion
included all of the estimated municipal
spendings. I suppose this year probably the
total expenditures of the province, including
our own, might run to $75 million.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, when the
hon. Prime Minister was talking about $2.5
billion two years ago he was saying to the
hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDon-
ald) that he was insinuating certain things.
When the hon. Prime Minister stood in this
House two years ago, he was insinuating the
province of Ontario was going to put up
$2.5 billion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I did no such thing.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, the hon. Prime Minister
did. And I might point out that up to this
MARCH 11, 1958
727
moment he has invested in the water
resources commission only some $15 million
and that every nickel is guaranteed by the
municipalities of this province.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Sure, that is right.
Mr. Whicher: And in reality, he has not
given a five-cent piece to them.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, I would not say that.
Mr. Whicher: That is a fact.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think the hon. member
will agree that we are doing a wonderful job.
Mr. Whicher: I think the municipalities are
doing a wonderful job in paying for it.
Mr. W. Murdoch (Essex South): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to say a word or two about
the water resources commission, and the great
job they are doing.
But before doing that, I would certainly
like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Pub-
lic Works, I think he has been doing a
splendid job over the past years. He has been
doing a big job, and I know that he is very
interested in the work and is very sincere in
everything he does. I think this government
can be congratulated on having the present
hon. Minister as our Minister of Public Works
during this huge expansion period.
Now, we know that the matter of too much
water, in some places in the province, and
not enough water in other places of the prov-
ince, was discussed here in this House at
length some 3 or 4 years ago.
Since that time, the water resources com-
mission has been formed, and I would like to
point out that the first project of bringing
water to an inland town from Lake Erie was
that which brought water to the town of
Harrow.
I might say that at the present time, the
pumphouse is under construction, a 4-mile
pipe line has been put in the ground from
the lake to the town of Harrow, and at the
present time the pipes are going through the
streets of Harrow, and the 1,800 people will
have all the water they need for the first time.
Now this project has cost a little over
$500,000, and it will pay for itself, there is
no question about that.
A little farther down the lake, the second
pumping station will soon be under way. It
is an integrated system which will supply
the towns of Leamington and Essex and 4
surrounding townships. I think it is the first
integrated system taken care of by the water
resources commission.
And, in this matter the county of Essex,
as has happened many other times in the
past, becomes the guinea-pig, to iron out all
the kinks and so forth. Our personnel will
accumulate experience which can be used in
other parts of the province.
I might say we are spending, in my area
alone, over $3.5 million and when we con-
sider the need for water over the whole of
the province, it is quite easy to imagine that
the amount mentioned by the hon. member
opposite, running into billions, will certainly
be true.
I would also thank one member of the
commission particularly, Mr. William D.
Conklin of Kingsville, who is a member of
the commission.
I think we should also pay some tribute
to the councils of the towns of Harrow,
Essex and Leamington and the surrounding
townships, because the matter of figuring out
the costs and so forth has involved a
tremendous amount of work. These councils
have met with the commission on scores and
scores of occasions.
I think it was asked a few years ago which
community would be the first in the province
■to get this pumped-in water. At that time— I
quite remember there was quite a clamour—
I said that the places, the towns and com-
munities which would get the water first
would be those with the initiative to go
ahead and prepare themselves to have it first.
On this basis, I would like to point out,
Mr. Chairman, that it was right in Essex
county.
Vote 1,806 agreed to.
On vote 1,807:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I may as
well congratulate the hon. Minister too.
Everyone else is doing it, and I am very
happy to do it. I just want to know some-
thing about item No. 4 of vote 1,806,
$500,000 to provide for grants towards con-
struction of new jails.
Well now, if it is any of our business,
could the hon. Minister give us any idea
of where this is going to be spent, or any-
thing about it?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Last year, a grant
of $1 million, I believe it was, was given
to the city of Toronto for an extension to
the Don Jail. Then there was another one,
I believe, in Brantford, I just forget how
much that was, I believe $17,000; and an-
728
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
other one in Whitby, some $300,000. This
$500,000 is here for the same purpose,
to pay the balance of those grants and any
new ones that may be brought forward.
It concerns Toronto, Brant county, and
Hamilton.
Mr. Thomas: Last year, on that same vote,
the hon. Minister said that the government
was paying 50 per cent, of the cost of the
jails in Metropolitan Toronto. Now does
that 50 per cent, apply all over the province,
or only in Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I think it applies
all over. It is something which is usually
done by The Department of Reform Insti-
tutions, and we pay for it out of public
works funds.
Mr. Thomas: I think, Mr. Chairman, the
Whitby jail cost $800,000 if I remember
rightly, and they got only $350,000, that is
the reason for my asking the question.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Chairman, the matter
of the grant to the Toronto jail was
linked up somehow or other with the arrange-
ment that was made when the government
took over the use of the Concord jail farm
at Langstaff. That was why the 50 per
cent, of the cost of the Toronto jail came
in, it was some arrangement in that regard.
Now, in the matter of the Whitby jail, it
was first suggested that the cost of the Whitby
jail would be about $400,000, if the hon.
member for Oshawa recalls. At that time, my
hon. predecessor, on behalf of the government,
undertook to meet 50 per cent of the cost.
When the tenders were finally called as the
plans were approved, our department called
for certain refinements, or certain more ex-
pensive equipment and construction than was
first considered necessary by the county coun-
cil. As a result, the tender was in the neigh-
bourhood of $800,000. They came to the
department then for a further grant, and
were granted $300,000.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Although we are long since past the
item, I want to ask the following of the hon.
Minister, and I hope he will perhaps be good
enough to give me the information:
The estimates reveal that we are paying
this year almost $1 million in rentals on
leased property for government buildings. For
many years, in this province, we have talked
about constructing a building that would
house many of these services, and as years
go on we do not seem to get any nearer to
an implementation of the plan to build a big
central building to house these services.
Now, do we have the land around the new
Whitby block, is there land there that is
available upon which a building could be
built? If the land is available, is it not con-
sidered good business to construct a building
and get away from a lot of these rentals down-
town, scattered all over this great big city,
where it is hard to get at for people who do
not know where these services are housed?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: We have bought con-
siderable property between Breadalbane and
Grosvenor Streets, and that is the intention,
to build what we call a service building on
those properties. We are planning at the
present time to finish the addition to the
east block. Plans have been prepared for that.
But we have sufficient property to try to
bring all the downtown rental places into a
central location around Queen's Park, and I
think we can do it.
Mr. Oliver: I hope that can be accom-
plished.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Things move so fast
we can hardly keep up with them, but we are
trying to.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): On vote 1,807,
I wanted to bring up the question of district
headquarters for the Ontario provincial police
in Cornwall.
Now that has been requested for a number
of years, I believe; I think we have one of
the best district police forces there is any-
where in the province of Ontario. A lot of
extra work has been brought about in that
area, owing to the power project and seaway
development, and there has been a request for
some time that there should be a new
building in Cornwall to house the district
headquarters of the Ontario provincial police
there.
There have been different requests made
to The Department of Public Works to pro-
vide that building, and as I say it has been
scheduled as new work to be undertaken
some time in the future. I notice that, in
the works programme for this year 1958,
it is again classed as new work requested.
Now I want to ask the hon. Minister just
what is wrong with eastern Ontario? Why
has this building not been provided? It has
been requested for a number of years and
is badly needed.
The provincial police do not have the
headquarters to house their personnel. They
do not have sufficient office space to do the
MARCH 11, 1958
729
job they want to do. I do not think their
cramped quarters are conducive to good
police work.
I think that the people in that area should
know just when a building is going to be
provided for them. This procedure of hold-
ing it over from one year to another, and
continually classifying it as a new work order,
is just not good enough.
I do not think it is fair to either the
provincial police or to that part of eastern
Ontario that this district is serving, and I
would like the hon. Minister to comment
on it, and to give us some assurance as to
when we can expect to have that new head-
quarters building for that detachment of the
provincial police in our area.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I am happy to say
that we have the site for that particular
project. However, I would have to speak
to the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
as to what priority he would want to give
it. We work more or less on a priority
basis as far as the different departments are
concerned. Sometimes those priorities are
changed. For instance last year, up in the
Blind River area, on account of the growth
in that particular section through Elliot Lake,
we had to cut back on certain provincial
police work in order to build a detachment
building up there. These things may hap-
pen, but I will try to find out for the
hon. member just how soon the hon. Attor-
ney-General would like to have that building
constructed.
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
could I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works
a question? Are these detachment buildings,
that are being built across the province,
standard buildings?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: They are standard
design, yes. They are all designed by
architects, they will be standard design. We
pick the particular building to suit the site
that we purchase.
Mr. Innes: In other words, the department
does not have to have a different architect—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: For new plans all the
time, no. We are also using approximately 40
outside architects and engineering firms at
the present time. Our staff is not large enough
by any means to carry out the programme.
Mr. Innes: Are there any other buildings
that the department builds with that $50
million standard—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Yes, many of the
hospitals are practically of standard design.
For instance for the hospital at North Bay
we used plans similar to those we used at
Port Arthur.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): May I
ask the hon. Minister of Public Works a
question with reference to this particular
item in connection with the hon. Attorney-
General's department as it affects Renfrew
South. The town of Renfrew has recently
been municipalized as far as our police
force is concerned, and a provincial police
detachment has been established. At the
moment, we are renting space in an estab-
lishment which was formerly the Renfrew
Textiles Limited, and we expect that, after the
results which will follow on March 31, the tex-
tile industry will increase to such an extent
that it will be not only inevitable, but almost
absolutely certain, that such a building will
have to be instituted for the housing of the
provincial police. Also, may I say to the hon.
Minister that we would require housing for
about 17 officers, and I see no provision made
for it in this particular estimate.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: The only answer I
can give to the hon. member is that we are
guided by the different departments as to
what construction they want undertaken, and
at the present time we have nothing from the
hon. Attorney-General's department on Ren-
frew.
Mr. Maloney: May I assure the hon. Minis-
ter that he soon will have.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Well, let the hon.
member get busy.
Mr. Whicher: I hope the hon. Minister will
not make a mistake if he does construct
these houses and accommodation for the
Ontario provincial police, which was evidently
the case at Blind River, because I am refer-
ring to an article now from the Blind River
Leader of August 17, 1957, which states that
there was a $94,000 error up there and—
Mr. Maloney: We heard that last year,
did we not?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: That is not—
Mr. Whicher: It is not.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: $94,000-
Mr. Whicher: It just happened this sum-
mer.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: That was to bring
water and sewage from Blind River and out
to the provincial police building, but it was
not $94,000.
730
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: What was it then? I mean,
how much did it cost the taxpayers—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: We will have to look
it up. We do not have that figure with us,
but I will get that for the hon. member if
he wants to make a note of that.
Mr. Whicher: Would it not have been
better to get the water before they con-
structed the building?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Well, the growth up
in those areas up there has been such that—
Hon. Mr. Frost: There are 30,000 people
there.
Mr. Whicher: How much money did it cost
the taxpayers for this mistake that was made?
That is all I want to know.
Hon Mr. Griesinger: It was not a mistake.
We would have to join up with the Blind
River sewage and water system anyway.
Mr. H. F. Fishleigh (Woodbine): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to say that some of the
hon. members, in congratulating the hon.
Minister, were a little flippant, and I would
like to say that some of the hon. members
do not appreciate the job the hon. Minister
is doing.
This book, which contains these items,
contains millions of dollars' worth of con-
struction, and we are mighty lucky in having
a man like the hon. Minister to undertake
this work, and I see that he has his staff here,
and I hope they do not go away feeling that
we are not taking this seriously, because we
certainly are.
As a matter of fact, if we had to have
a man such as the hon. Minister in private
enterprise, he would be very highly salaried
indeed. I know of one man, responsible for
making contracts not nearly as large as these
we have here, who earns $250,000 a year.
Now, that is the kind of man we have— a
$250,000 man doing a $500 million salaried
job. I do not think that is out of proportion
at all. Personally, I do not know why he
stays here, but anyway, I for one do appre-
ciate it, and he is doing a terrific job which
will give thousands of people work during
this coming season.
Mr. Whicher: On vote 1,807, this is a $50
million bill here, so I think we should have a
question or two on it.
Now, in the estimates for 1957-1958, this
department budgeted for $45 million for pub-
lic buildings, and $15 million for the water
resources. On page A4 of the budget presenta-
tion, the government says it will spend $45
million.
Now, what I would like to know is this,
where did the $14 million go? Last year,
the hon. Minister budgeted for $60 million—
$45 million for public buildings and $15
million for the water resources— and he spent
only $45,887. What I would like to know
is, where is the $14 million? Where did it go?
Mr. Fishleigh: Well, it was paid-
Mr. MacDonald: That is just what I was
going to say.
Mr. Fishleigh: If they spent it, they have
money in the bank.
Votes 1,807 and 1,808 agreed to.
On vote 1,809:
Mr. Thomas: On item No. 2, the remedial
work, may I say I was a member of the com-
mittee on erosion in 1952, and I think one of
the recommendations of that committee was
that the government consider granting assist-
ance to municipalities where there was a great
amount of erosion. I wonder if this item of
$200,000 means the government is now pre-
pared to grant some assistance to municipali-
ties which are suffering from erosion, in order
that they can take remedial measures to cor-
rect it? If so, what is the government prepared
to-
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Is that based on shore
erosion?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, on shore erosion.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Most of the $200,000
as set up there is to take care of flash floods
and things of that kind.
Mr. Thomas: It would not apply to shore
erosion?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I doubt very much
whether it will. We have never taken any-
thing or laid anything out for erosion yet.
Mr. Manley: On vote 1,809, item No. 2, last
summer we had quite a severe hail storm in
eastern Ontario. It went right across a num-
ber of the townships there. The farmers did
suffer quite a lot of damage with this hail
storm and they waited upon the township
council, and I believe the majority of them
or possibly all of them did declare it a
disaster.
I believe some representation had been
made to the government here, that they
should contribute something towards those
people who suffered so heavily in their crop
MARCH 11, 1958
731
damage. But as yet I have not heard that
anything has been granted for those people
who suffered the damage.
I understand that they did wait upon some
of the hon. members and suggested to them
that they should set up a fund. I believe that
has now been done but as yet I do not think
that anything has come through from the
government here.
Does the government not intend to con-
tribute anything towards those people who
suffered such damage in that hail storm? I
understand that this vote did take care of
Hurricane Hazel, and I think that those
people in the affected area are justified in
looking to the government for aid in that
respect. I think it is time that those people
who did suffer should have some acknowl-
edgement of whether the government is
going to assume any responsibility and help
them out.
Hon. Mr. Frost: How much did the muni-
cipality put up?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I had something to
do with that—
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare): It would come under The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs anyway, and I had
the same thing in my riding, and I guess part
of Stormont riding was in there. I under-
stand that the people have collected their
money and were advised to go ahead and
make the distribution with the committee
that was formed. We are doing that, and they
have the assurance that as soon as it is com-
pleted, the amount will be matched by the
government.
That is being done and it is practically
completed now.
Mr. Manley: I was talking of the fact that
several people spoke to me on the week-
end and they told me that they had not
received anything yet, in form of payments,
from anyone.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Surely the hon. member
looks after his own business.
Mr. Manley: I certainly do. That is why—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to my dissatisfied
hon. friend that the arrangement that is made
by this government has never been done by
any other government. We match 50 per
cent, or 100 per cent, of the givings of the
municipalities, and any other private organ-
izations which send their money to the muni-
cipal committee in an affected area. Now,
when the municipal committee makes their
payment, then we match it 100 per cent.
There has never been a deal like that in
history before, no government ever did that
before. We have done it in several parts of
this province, and I suggest to my dissatisfied
hon. friend that he have a look around and
see what is going on.
Mr. Manley: I have been looking around
and I know what is going on.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, he apparently does
not know.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I do not know whether my question
comes under this item or not. The hon. Prime
Minister will recall that representations have
been made by a conservation, or an erosion,
committee along the Niagara on the Lake
area, and there is dissatisfaction with what
may be the result of the changing in lake
levels.
As I recall, the last time I approached the
hon. Prime Minister about this, he was seek-
ing a more satisfactory decision from the
international body. He said that he would then
come to some conclusion about what might
be done to meet more fully the representations
of this group.
Have there been any developments in that
connection?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that, in the meantime, the water
levels have gone down, and there is not an
erosion problem now, and I point out this,
that-
Mr. Whicher: Would that pay the govern-
ment?
Mr. MacDonald: What goes down may
come up.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Did the government
arrange that? Well I would not want to take
credit for that. We might have arranged that.
We do not like to take credit for good
weather and rain storms and things of that
sort, but the water level has gone down.
Now, my hon. friend from Oshawa knows
that is so, that there is not a problem there
now. As a matter of fact, the water levels of
Lake Ontario have been set. I forget the
figures.
A lower figure then, as a matter of fact,
was anticipated by the various Hydro boards,
and it may be that if the water is controlled
at that level the erosion problem will not
be as acute as it was.
Vote 1,807 agreed to.
732
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On vote 1,808:
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Chairman, I want to take this opportunity,
which is very seldom accorded to me when
the hon. member for York South is around, to
compliment the hon. Minister of Public
Works on the fine job he is doing, and for
his extreme generosity to northwestern On-
tario. I want him to know publicly that
all the hon. members from that end of the
province appreciate the splendid work he is
doing and I might add my congratulations to
his Deputy Minister (Mr. Williams).
Now, many hon. members may not know
it, but the Deputy Minister of Public Works
is one of the oldest in point of service in
this government— one of the most valuable
and one of the most respected Deputy
Ministers, and I would like to pay tribute
to him this evening.
A little while ago, Mr. Chairman, we
mentioned the Ontario water resources com-
mission which is a new body. I do not
know whether we all realize the value they
are to this province.
Dr. A. E. Berry, an outstanding man, who
has a great deal of experience and knowledge
in these things, just recently in the city
of Port Arthur helped lay out a sewage
disposal plan that is going to cost in the
neighbourhood of $2 million, and is going
to make acres of very valuable industrial
land available to our city.
We hope that the project will get under
way after March 19, and give work to some
400 men.
Now that is in no small part due to the
advice, experience and engineering skill of
Dr. Berry and the new Ontario water re-
sources commission, and I just want to
mention that because there has been some
criticism of this body, and I do not think
it is due them. I think it is going to be
a great body for the future good of this
province.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I want to get
back to this $50 million again, for the con-
struction of new buildings. Now I point out
that the hon. Minister was $14 million out on
his estimate in this number. He was out $14
million in his estimate last year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well I do not know what
the hon. member means by "out."
Mr. Whicher: Well they did not spend the
$14 million.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, then we have it in
the bank.
Mr. Whicher: That bank must be nearly
full. The hon. Prime Minister may be able
to fool a lot of people, but he is not going to
fool me on this one.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Part of that could be
made up by buildings that are under con-
struction and being carried forward into the
next fiscal year.
Mr. Whicher: All I know is what is in the
budget. The hon. Prime Minister said, in his
budget address, that he spent only $45 million
and he budgeted for $60 million. Now I
would like to know if he is going to be out
the same amount this year.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Of course, the hon.
member must appreciate that some of these
buildings which are under way take 18 months
to 2 years to build, and there will be a carry-
over of a certain amount of money.
Mr. Maloney: How much is Mr. Harris out?
Hon. Mr. Frost: He is still out. He was out
the whole election.
Mr. Whicher: I think it is only fair, in an
item as large as that, that the hon. Minister
would break down his estimates into what
he thinks he will spend in health buildings,
the Attorney-General's buildings, education,
lands and forests, and so forth.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Agriculture, a total of
$5.8 million; Attorney-General, a total of $4.45
million; education, $6,875 million; health,
$15.41 million; highways, $1.3 million; lands
and forests, $2.35 million; mines, $140,000;
public works, $10.15 million; reform institu-
tions, $3.45 million and travel and publicity,
$75,000.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, now that we
finally got down to the Ontario water resources
commission, we were discussing it under vote
1,806. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
that I think that this commission is doing a
very good job. It was about time leadership
was shown in this direction. Anyone having an
understanding of the need for water services,
and the pollution of our lakes and streams,
must realize that the leadership was needed.
Now, I would like to ask the hon. Minister
this one question, and of course, it is just that
I am seeking information. The amount of
money this year to be spent is approximately
$15 million. Now the Ontario water resources
commission, I assume, takes the debentures
from the municipality. What is the lifetime
of the debentures and what interest do they
pay?
MARCH 11, 1958
733
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I think the majority
of these are 30 years, are they not? A 30-
year debenture and the interest rate that is
paid is what it costs the commission.
Mr. Thomas: In truth, the government is
not doing very much, because the municipali-
ties have to pay it all back.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, why should they
not?
Mr. Thomas: They do not take credit for
spending community—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
be permitted to point out to my hon. friend
from Oshawa who, I believe, knows very
well how much good this is doing. Two
small municipalities in my riding have had
the two first works put in. Now, they were
not big from the standpoint of cost. One cost
about $96,000 and the other less than
$65,000.
I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if it had
not been for an organization like the water
resources commission, we could not have had
the water because we could not have
afforded it. Our credit would not stand the
debentures, and we could not have sold them
on the market at anything like a decent
price.
We do not need million dollar deals where
we come from, but $65,000 is a tremendous
amount of money for the people of Port
Perry. My hon. friend from Oshawa knows
that very well, and had it not been for the
water resources commission, we could not
have had a water works.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I pay tribute
to the Ontario water resources commission
for giving leadership. On the other hand, the
municipalities, the ratepayers in the local
areas, pay the bill themselves, and why
should the government take credit for spend-
ing $15 million? Now why should they? Let
them give the credit to the local people for
spending it. Leadership from the commis-
sion, yes, I grant that—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is the same as Hydro.
They are providing water for us, just as
Hydro is providing power.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, I have a book-
let here, the Ontario water resources commis-
sion report on the county of Oxford, but I
would like to know how many counties in the
province have they made a report on, and
how extensive the study of stream pollution
has been?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Three, and some in
part.
Vote 1,808 agreed to.
On vote 1,809:
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, pardon me,
what is taken after this report is completed?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Just what does the
hon. member mean?
Mr. Innes: Well, after the report is put out,
what action is taken by the water resources
commission to implement their suggestion?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Well that is up to the
municipality. If they are interested in having
a waterworks or a sewage deal, they come to
the Ontario water resources commission and
then it is worked out.
Mr. Innes: They have to apply. There is
no compelling on their part, and on the part
of the commission, to enforce any pollution
control?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: In some cases, yes,
there may be a mandatory order issued.
Vote 1,809 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the committee of
supply do rise and report certain resolutions,
and begs leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report certain resolutions and begs
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the House would
be agreeable if we revert to "before the orders
of the day" for just a moment. We have, in
the House tonight, a very distinguished repre-
sentative of a sister province, in the person
of the hon. John R. Courage, the Speaker of
Newfoundland. Now Newfoundland, as hon.
members know, is Britain's oldest colony and
Canada's newest province.
Hon. Mr. Courage represents the con-
stituency of Fortune Bay and Hermitage, and
was first elected in 1949, and was elected
Speaker of the Newfoundland Legislature in
1957.
I am sure that we are all glad to welcome
this very distinguished guest and visitor from
734
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Newfoundland, who comes to bring the greet-
ing and the best wishes of his province to
our government and to our people.
Orders of the day.
THE ONTARIO-ST. LAWRENCE
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ACT, 1955
Hon. W. M. Nickle moves second reading
of Bill No. 83, "An Act to amend the Ontario-
St. Lawrence Development Commission Act,
1955."
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, in
connection with this Bill No. 83, An Act to
amend the Ontario-St. Lawrence Develop-
ment Commission Act, 1955, it does add two
more counties into the parks system in
eastern Ontario. When the hon. Minister of
Planning and Development (Mr. Nickle)
was speaking the other day in this House, he
stated that a delegation came up from Corn-
wall and brought before the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) and the cabinet, certain
recommendations and certain briefs.
I want to say at the outset that this dele-
gation was received very well. I think that
they got a splendid hearing from the hon.
Prime Minister and the cabinet, and among
the matters discussed at that time was a
park in that area.
Now the hon. Prime Minister said that he
would look into different phases of the
recommendation that was placed before him
at that time, that he was going to have cer-
tain personnel from the different departments
go down and make certain studies in that
area, and no doubt that has been done.
Some of the delegates did point out to
the government that they were losing quite a
good park that the city of Cornwall always
utilized, and that was the Auld Park, and
they stressed to the government, at that time,
that they should have a park to replace the
Auld Park, and that it should not be too
far distant from the city of Cornwall.
When this bill was introduced in the
House, I received a telegram from a group
in Cornwall and I would like to read it into
the record now, if I might. It is addressed
to myself and reads as follows:
WE STRENUOUSLY OPPOSE THE INCLUSION
IN THE ST. LAWRENCE PARKS SYSTEM OF ANY
ADDITIONAL COUNTIES WHILE THE ORIGINAL
MEMBERS, PARTICULARLY STORMONT, THE SITE
OF THE POWER PROJECT, HAVE RECEIVED NO
BENEFIT FROM DISLOCATION OF OUR AREA.
AS RETAIL MERCHANTS, TAXPAYERS, AND
VOTERS WE STRONGLY REQUEST THAT THE
IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE POWER PROJECT BE
GIVEN FIRST PRIORITY BEFORE ANY BILL BE
PASSED TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COUNTIES
TO THE COMMISSION'S MEMBERSHIP.
This is signed by the retail merchants'
association of greater Cornwall.
Now I might say that we have a city now of
over 40,000 people, and I think that a park
quite close to the city is very desirable. It
has been mentioned by the chairman of the
St. Lawrence parks commission in the area,
at a public meeting at Morrisburg, that as
far as he was concerned, his jurisdiction
ended at where the parkway comes out into
the new town of Long Sault.
Now, there was a further statement to the
effect that parks were going to be taken in
east of Cornwall, and of course, including
lands in those other counties.
I do believe that there should be a full
parks system from the Quebec border, taking
in that whole area, but what I want to stress
to the House at this particular time is that
there should be a park in the vicinity of the
city of Cornwall.
Now we must realize that there are a lot
of people living in the city of Cornwall,
especially children and young people, who do
not have the facilities to drive any great dis-
tance to partake in the facilities of a park
any distance from home.
We are going to expect the people of Corn-
wall to go beyond the new town of Long
Sault, and it does entail quite a lot of expense
on the part of those people and I am afraid
that they are going to be denied the privilege
of park facilities.
So I am appealing to the House at this
particular time that the parks system should
be extended right from the power develop-
ment itself, whether it is the Hydro that does
it or whether it is the parks commission, I
think that area right from the dyke right on
the west should be included in a park com-
parable to the rest of the parks system and I
would like to have some comments from either
the hon. Prime Minister, or the hon. Minister
who is responsible for sponsoring this bill,
because it is I think, of a great deal of interest
to the people in my part of the province.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development): I can only say this to my
hon. friend, that the St. Lawrence develop-
ment commission is being extended, and it
will now be from the Quebec border to the
Bay of Quinte and will take in the counties
of Frontenac and Lennox and Addington.
Now, my hon. friend from Stormont knows
very well that, when he came up here to see
the hon. Prime Minister and members of the
MARCH 11, 1958
735
cabinet, it was suggested that he should later
come back and see the members of the parks
integration board, presided over by my col-
legue the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley)
and the associates the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer (Mr. Frost), the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) and myself.
Now my hon. friend will recall that on that
occasion it was indicated to him that the
development of the St. Lawrence parks com-
mission has to be proceeded with, with some
deliberation and thought as to what is best
for most of the people. The hon. member had
two good hearings, and I think that I can
safely say on behalf of the hon. Minister of
Labour, that we are not unmindful of his very
strong representation, and we are giving the
problem our very best consideration.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SANATORIA
FOR CONSUMPTIVES ACT
Hon. M. Phillips moves second reading
of Bill No. 100, "An Act to amend The
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like this
to go to the committee on health.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Hon. J. N. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 128, "An Act to amend The High-
way Traffic Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE GAME AND FISHERIES ACT
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves second
reading of Bill No. 117, "An Act to amend
The Game and Fisheries Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MINING TAX ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves second reading
of Bill No. 123, "An Act to amend The
Mining Tax Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MINING ACT
Hon. Mr. Spooner moves second reading
of Bill No. 124, "An Act to amend The
Mining Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT, 1957
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves second
reading of Bill No. 125, "An Act to amend
The Milk Industry Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING
ACT
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 126, "An Act to amend The
Farm Products Marketing Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
STORAGE OF FARM PRODUCE IN
GRAIN ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 127, "An Act to regulate the
storage of farm produce in grain elevators."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves second
reading of Bill No. 130, "An Act to amend
The Municipal Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 131, "An Act to amend The
Department of Municipal Affairs Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF TORONTO
Mr. A. H. Cowling moves second reading
of Bill No. 26, "An Act respecting the city
of Toronto."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION
ASSOCIATION
Mr. A. G. Frost (Bracondale) moves
second reading of Bill No. 27, "An Act
respecting the Canadian National Exhibition
Association."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
736
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF SEC-
RETARIES OF JOINT STOCK
COMPANIES
Mr. J. P. Robarts moves second reading of
Bill No. 28, "An Act to incorporate the
Chartered Institute of Secretaries of Joint
Stock Companies and other Public Bodies in
Ontario."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SYNOD OF TORONTO AND KINGSTON
OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 33, "An Act respecting the
corporation of the synod of Toronto and
Kingston of the Presbyterian Church in
Canada."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF SUNNIDALE
Mr. G. G. Johnston (Simcoe Centre) moves
second reading of Bill No. 36, "An Act respect-
ing the township of Sunnidale."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
CITY OF OTTAWA
Mr. D. H. Morrow moves second reading
of Bill No. 39, "An Act respecting the city
of Ottawa."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
Mr. A. C. Jolley moves second reading of
Bill No. 43, "An Act respecting the city of
Niagara Falls."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE
Mr. C. H. Lyons moves second reading of
Bill No. 44, "An Act respecting the city of
Sault Ste. Marie."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
UNITED COMMUNITY FUND
OF GREATER TORONTO
Mr. A. H. Cowling moves second reading
of Bill No. 88, "An Act respecting United
Community Fund of Greater Toronto."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE DISABLED PERSONS'
ALLOWANCES ACT, 1955
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 101, "An Act to amend The Disabled
Persons' Allowances Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE BLIND PERSONS'
ALLOWANCES ACT, 1951
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 102, "An Act to amend The Blind
Persons' Allowances Act, 1951."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT, 1951
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 103, "An Act to amend The Old Age
Assistance Act, 1951."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE MOTHERS' AND DEPENDENT
CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 104, "An Act to amend the Mothers'
and Dependent Children's Allowances Act,
1957."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE INDIAN WELFARE
SERVICES ACT, 1955
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 105, "An Act to amend The Indian
Welfare Services Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 119, "An Act to amend The
Public Utilities Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 120, "An Act to amend The
Ontario Municipal Board Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 121, "An Act to amend The
Local Improvement Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
MARCH 11, 1958
737
THE PUBLIC PARKS ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 108, "An Act to amend The
Public Parks Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HOMES FOR THE AGED ACT, 1955
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 122, "An Act to amend The Homes
for the Aged Act, 1955."
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions:
Bill No. 9, An Act respecting the city of
Chatham.
Bill No. 11, An Act respecting the village
of Port Perry.
Bill No. 13, An Act respecting the village
of West Lome.
Bill No. 16, An Act respecting Waterloo
College associate faculties.
Bill No. 17, An Act respecting Queen's
University at Kingston.
Bill No. 32, An Act respecting the board
of education for the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Bill No. 35, An Act respecting the town
of Fort Frances.
Bill No. 40, An Act respecting the city
of Fort William.
Bill No. 46, An Act to amend The Schools
Administration Act, 1954.
Bill No. 74, An Act to amend The Cancer
Act, 1957.
Bill No. 75, An Act to amend The Ceme-
teries Act.
Bill No. 76, An Act to amend The Tourist
Establishments Act.
Bill No. 77, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1953.
Bill No. 78, An Act to amend The Statute
Labour Act.
Bill No. 79, An Act to amend The Highway
Improvement Act, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do now
pass and be intituled as in the motions.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the
House, may I say there will be a night session
tomorrow. I would like to deal with the esti-
mates of The Department of Education and
the budget debate and Throne debate. There
are some hon. members who still want to
speak on the Throne debate. I will consult
with the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) relative to the vote that will be taken
on that item.
I think that we might proceed with the
debate tomorrow afternoon and leave the esti-
mates to the evening sitting, if that would
be all right.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.20 of the
clock, p.m.
ERRATA
(Thursday, March 6, 1958)
Page Column Line Correction
604 2 12 Change (Mr. Nickle) to (Mr. Griesinger).
646
647
(Friday, March 7, 1958)
53 Change (Mr. Nickle) to (Mr. Griesinger).
4 Change "Great camps demand this." to read "The great
competition today between tourist areas of Ontario and
those abroad demands this."
No. 31
ONTARIO
Hegtsrtature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 12, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 12, 1958
First report, standing committee on mining, Mr. W. A. Johnston 741
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 741
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 741
Ontario anti-discrimination commission, bill to establish, Mr. Daley, first reading 742
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 742
Female Refugees Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 742
Public Service Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 742
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 743
Extension of the municipal franchise, bill to provide for, Mr. Warrender, first reading .... 743
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. MacDonald 747
Resumption of the debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Belisle, Mr. Root 761
Recess, 6 o'clock 771
741
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, March 12, 1958
3 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. A. Johnston
(Parry Sound), from the standing committee
on mining, presents the committee's first
report and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment.
Bill No. 94, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Bill No. 123, An Act to amend The Mining
Tax Act.
Bill No. 124, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following: Annual Report of the
Inspector of Legal Offices for the year ended
December 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION ACT, 1954
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would
especially please my good friend the hon.
member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) who painted
such a picture a few days ago of the sword
of Damocles hanging over the heads of fathers
of students.
Every contract executed by a person under
21 years of age, that provides for the repay-
ment of a loan paid to such person out of
the provincial student aid loan fund, is bind-
ing upon such person, and enforceable against
him in the same manner and to the same
extent as if he were over 21 years of age at
the time he executed the contract.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that requires perhaps a
little explanation, which I can give in this
way.
The regulations that are being drawn up
to accompany this, also provide an explana-
tion of this particular bill. The application
form will not require endorsement by any
guarantor. The amount of the loan shall be
determined by the committee of awards, hav-
ing regard to all the facts disclosed in the
application, but the maximum amount con-
templated for a student, during any academic
year, is $500.
At the discretion of the committee and with
the approval of the Minister, a loan may be
combined with a bursary award in cases of
extreme need.
payment of the loan, together with
simple interest at 4 per cent, per annum, is
to be made at the rate of $25 a month,
beginning with April 1 following gradua-
tion.
That is, the student has no interest to pay
until he graduates and until April 1 comes
around in the following year.
However, the repayment may be deferred
at the discretion of the Minister, if the
student engages in post-graduate work. Sup-
pose, for example, he finishes here and then
says: "I want to go to Harvard for two
years." All right, he can go to Harvard, and
the payments do not have to begin until he
has completed his work at Harvard. We do
not need to give him any loan to go to
Harvard, let us say, or to any university out-
side of Ontario.
The maximum amount of the loan out-
standing to any student at any time shall
be at the discretion of the Minister, but
$2,000 has been suggested as a reasonable
limit, except under special circumstances.
Loans shall be made available to students
pursuing courses of study at present recog-
nized for bursary purposes, and also to those
taking university diploma courses, such as
occupational therapy, physical therapy and
so on.
The basic scholastic requirements shall be
third class honours or 60 per cent. To be
eligible for a loan, an applicant or his parent
742
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or guardian shall have been a resident in
Ontario for at least a year prior to date of
application.
ONTARIO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
COMMISSION
Hon. C. Daley moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to establish the Ontario
anti-discrimination commission."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill empowers
Her Majesty, with the advice and consent of
this assembly, to establish this commission.
Commission means the Ontario anti-discrim-
ination commission, and the Minister means
the Minister of Labour. The Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate
one of the members as a chairman. The Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council
may fill any vacancy in the membership of
the commission, and may fix the remuneration
of the members of the commission.
The functions of this commission are to
advise the Minister on the administration of
The Fair Employment Practices Act, 1951;
The Female Employees' Fair Remuneration
Act, 1951; and the Fair Accommodations
Practices Act, 1954.
In other words, these 3 Acts are grouped
together and will be administered by this com-
mission. The commission will also be em-
powered to make recommendations to the
Minister, designed to improve the administra-
tion of the Acts mentioned; to develop and
conduct an educational programme designed
to give the public knowledge of these 3 Acts;
and to promote the elimination of dis-
criminatory practices.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-Council may appoint a secretary and such
other officers, clerks and servants of the com-
mission as may be deemed appropriate. Also,
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor will
fix the number of members of the commis-
sion, and add to or extend the functions of
the commission respecting any matters neces-
sary, or advisable, to carry out effectively
the intent and purpose of the Act.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The County
Judges Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to clarify, or to make clear, the judicial
appointments that may be made by the
Attorney-General to the county and district
courts in Ontario, to provide for 6 additional
junior judges, and to give jurisdiction
throughout Ontario to all judges and junior
judges of county or district courts.
THE FEMALE REFUGEES ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Female Refugees Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is this: The Act deals with institutions for
the care of females between the ages of 15
and 35, on transfers from jails and training
schools, or direct from sentencing courts. As
in the case of The Jails Act, the chief official
of the department is referred to as inspector,
as the Act now stands. That is being changed
to bring it into line with modern thinking,
having the Deputy Minister as the chief
official of the department.
We are asking, in this amendment, for the
repeal of sections 15, 16 and 17.
Section 15 provides that any person may
bring before a judge any female under the
age of 35 who is found begging etc., or is
an habitual drunkard, or by reason of other
vices is leading an idle and dissolute life,
and that the judge, after an informal hearing,
may commit the person to an industrial
refuge for an indefinite term of not more
than 2 years.
Section 17 provides that a parent or
guardian may bring, before a judge, any
female under the age of 21 who proves
unmanageable or incorrigible, and the judge
may proceed as under sections 15 and 16.
We are asking that those sections be
repealed, because it is felt that they are
adequately dealt with in the criminal code,
and in other federal and provincial statutes.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Public Service Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This bill will make it possible
for any civil servant, leaving a service after 10
years, to take an annuity instead of receiv-
ing the cash he had paid in plus interest.
MARCH 12, 1958
743
Those in this category may take out an
annuity, payable at 60 years of age, for the
amount they have paid in. That is the sum
and substance of the whole thing.
We have been making real progress with
the civil service. That is why people appre-
ciate being in the civil service.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
Hon. Mr. Dunbar moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Since the public welfare bill
came into the House, making it that adop-
tions should be registered and considered as
coming from the wedlock, we must change
our Vital Statistics Act. Under the amend-
ment, when a child is adopted, the form,
the original form where he has been regis-
tered, will be sealed, and kept in case of
court action in later years. But so far as
the public is concerned, neither they or any
person in the office will know anything about
this adoption. The child will be registered
in the name of the adoptive father and
mother the same as if he were born in
wedlock.
EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to provide for the
extension of the municipal franchise."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say
a few words about this bill at this time.
The genesis of this bill comes from a ques-
tion that was submitted to the electors of the
city of Toronto on December 3, 1956, and a
somewhat similar question was submitted by
the city of London to its electors. Both were
carried by an affirmative vote.
The Toronto question was: "Are you in
favour of applying for legislation to extend
the right to vote at municipal elections, except
on money by-laws, to include all persons not
now qualified to vote who have resided in the
municipality through the year preceding
election day, who are British subjects and
who are over 21 years of age?"
Pursuant to this question, the city of To-
ronto has not applied for legislation by way
of a private bill, but has asked for general
legislation relative to this question.
May I say that a very great deal of con-
sideration has been given to the matter, which
is both involved and expensive, and unques-
tionably includes matters which could not
have been considered by the municipal coun-
cils involved, or others by whom representa-
tions have been made. There has been no
desire to delay or dictate to the municipalities
in this regard. As a matter of fact, the reverse
has been the government's attitude.
As stated, this has been a difficult and
actually an expensive matter for the muni-
cipalities which must be paid from taxes on
homes and real estate. To put such a principle
into effect involves the creation of the
machinery and the enumeration to have it
done fairly and equitably, because once the
right is given to vote, then the right of each
individual must be carefully protected.
I should point out that for years the muni-
cipal association, the association of mayors and
reeves, and the municipalities generally, have
asked to be relieved of the cost of the prepara-
tion of what is known as part 3 lists. The fair-
ness of the request was recognized by the
province in enacting an entirely new legis-
lation and abolishing the part 3 lists.
It must be recognized that this bill makes
it optional for the municipalities to reincur
the obligations that were abolished, and as
well other protective obligations, because the
part 3 lists never contemplated such persons
voting for municipal matters such as the elec-
tion of municipal council.
The bill which is now introduced, and
which will be referred to the municipal law
committee, is one which has been prepared in
an effort to meet, first of all, the desires of
the municipality which proposes that all per-
sons of the full 21 years of age, and meeting
the qualifications, should be entitled to vote,
and on the other hand, to provide the
machinery with which this can be done.
The bill proposes that a municipality which
desires to permit all persons who have resided
in the municipality for the year preceding the
election, and who are British subjects and of
the full age of 21 years, may vote on all
municipal matters excepting money by-laws,
provided the matter is submitted to the elec-
tors and is approved of on an affirmative vote.
There are only two exceptions to this pro-
vision, namely, the city of Toronto and the
city of London, which have already taken
votes which may or may not be deemed to
be an approval of the plan contained in this
bill. In view of the fact that a vote has been
held, it is optional for these two municipalities
either to bring this bill into effect by a by-law
744
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or, in their discretion, to resubmit it to a
vote of the people.
The problem of carrying out the principle
of the question submitted to the electors of
the two municipalities named has been one
to which great consideration has been given,
and the bill contains the provisions for that.
One of the first problems to be met was
this: If the right to vote were extended to the
election of school trustees, how would the
name of the person, who is not a ratepayer,
be included in the panel of electors, either
for public or separate school boards?
After a thorough investigation, it was
decided that it would be completely imprac-
ticable to determine, by way of enumeration,
the panel within which these non-paying
persons would come, therefore that feature
has been omitted from the Act.
It must be understood that legislation
which is entrenched in The British North
America Act concerns the rights of certain
school supporters, public and separate, with-
in the province. Even the slightest inves-
tigation of this matter would indicate that
it was quite impracticable to separate, by
enumeration, the class of persons, with whom
this bill will be dealing, into separate and
public school supporter panels, and there-
for this matter has been omitted from this
bill.
This bill is directed to giving the right to
vote to the class of persons named, except on
money by-laws, and the following are the
main provisions of the bill:
In the first place, the bill provides for a
list known as a resident voters list, and this
will contain the names of those persons who
shall be qualified under this Act to vote for
members of municipal councils.
The second provision is that there shall be
a question for submission to the electors,
which reads as follows: "Are you in favour
of extending the right to vote, at municipal
elections for members of council, to all per-
sons of the full age of 21 years, who are
British subjects and who have resided in the
municipality for at least one year, in accord-
ance with The Municipal Franchise Exten-
sion Act, 1958?"
There is provision made for an enumera-
tion, which is a very essential part of this
bill, and the point is that the enumeration
shall commence 60 days before the date fixed
for the polling at the municipal election. The
duties of the enumerator are then detailed,
and there are also provisions for appeal as
set out in sections 9 and 223 of The Voters
List Act, 1951, which permits a new class
of voter to have his name added to the list,
should he be missed by the enumerator.
It is important to note that, under section
7 of the bill, persons entered on the resident
voters list should not be counted as municipal
electors for the purpose of section 54 of The
Municipal Act.
This section provides that in towns, villages
and townships, where there are 1,000 voters
or more, a municipality is entitled to have
a deputy reeve represent it in the county
council. By this provision, this would not
be permitted, as complaints are being made
that the county council chambers are already
crowded, and there is a lack of accommo-
dation.
This bill of course, is not mandatory. It
is available to any municipality which enacts
the same by by-law, and then submits the
question to the ratepayers of the municipality.
The only exception is in the case of Toronto
and London, where it is optional as to
whether the question be submitted.
This bill will be submitted to the muni-
cipal law committee, where the fullest of
opportunity will be given to all persons to
discuss all of the details and principle of
the bill. If any representations are desired
to be made, they may be made to this com-
mittee. Copies of this bill are being sent
to the Ontario Municipal Association, the
Association of Mayors and Reeves, the North-
western Municipal Association, the Associa-
tion of Rural Municipalities, and, as well,
to all of the municipal councillors in the
province of Ontario.
We welcome the consideration and com-
ments of hon. members.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased that the hon. Minister has
decided to bring in this amendment. I am
reminded that we placed a similar amend-
ment in the first or second week of the
session, and I may say this, and I say it
reservedly, that if we have brought any
influence on the hon. Minister or the govern-
ment in any way at all, we are very happy
to see him introduce this legislation.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I say that
we had been considering this matter for some
considerable time before the hon. member
introduced his bill.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the hon. mem-
bers that there is not any discussion on the
first readings.
Before the orders of the day, I would like
to welcome a very large group of students,
MARCH 12, 1958
745
representing the following schools: Norwood
Park school, Hamilton; Port Perry public
school; Deer Park school, Toronto; and also
a group of ladies representing the Queen City
Chapter No. 7 of the Order of the Eastern
Star.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would
like to address a question to the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) based on news stories in
this afternoon's papers that came in just before
the House opened.
This afternoon's Toronto Telegram has a
story, the first paragraph of which is as
follows:
Former Ontario Mines Minister, Philip
Kelly, admitted last night that Mr.
McLean, mentioned by CCF leader Donald
MacDonald yesterday, in connection with
the Northern Ontario Pipe Line deals, is
his nephew. Mr. Kelly told the Telegram,
from his Smooth Rock Falls home, that his
family connection was one of the main
reasons for his resignation as Mines Minis-
ter last July.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have two questions
I would like to put to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter. I listened to his explanations, I think
extremely carefully, as to why this resigna-
tion took place, and he cited two reasons.
One was an interest in federal politics and
one was an interest in business.
Was the hon. Prime Minister, at any time,
made aware of the fact that one of the
main reasons why the former Minister of
Mines was resigning concerned his family
connections with the pipe line deals?
Secondly, the hon. Prime Minister indicated
that he had given instructions or orders or
requests— I do not know which is the correct
word— to hon. members of the cabinet not
to have any connections with these stock
deals. When he issued these instructions or
orders or requests, did they include members
of the families of those to whom he was
issuing the instructions, and if not, what
was the value of the instruction?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Well, I
would say to my hon. friend that, first of all,
I have not seen the article in the Telegram,
nor have I, by the way, had any notice of
this question. But that is quite all right with
me.
I may say that in the Toronto Globe and
Mail this morning, I noticed this:
Mr. Kelly said that Gordon McLean
[does that register on my hon. friend?] of
Ca gar/ is his nephew. He was one of
the original stock holders of the Pacific
Petroleum Company and Trans-Canada
Pipe Lines Limited.
First of all, may I say that I had no know-
ledge that Mr. McLean or any other of the
promoters was any relative of Mr. Kelly. I had
no knowledge of that, but, in any event, I
want to ask the hon. member a question
in a moment, in response to a question he
has asked me. He asked, first, if I knew
Mr. McLean was a relative.
Mr. MacDonald: The question I asked
was this: Was the hon. Prime Minister at
any time made aware of the fact that one
of the main reasons for Mr. Kelly's resigna-
tion was his family connections in these pipe
line deals, because the paper said— let me
quote the paragraph:
Mr. Kelly told the Telegram, from his
Smooth Rock Falls home, that his family
connection was one of the main reasons
for his resignation as Mines Minister last
July.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, my answer is no.
As a matter of fact, that was never discussed
with me at all. I had no knowledge that
Mr. McLean was a relative or anything of
the sort, nor did I know, believe, or think
that Mr. Kelly had any stock in the com-
pany. I do not know at this moment if he
did, and I notice in the paper that he
said no.
The second point is this, as regards the
cabinet, I think I stated quite directly that
the dealings with the pipe line companies,
and particularly the negotiations in connec-
tion with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, were
not conducted with the companies themselves
but rather with the federal government.
Neither Mr. Porter, myself, our families, rela-
tives, agents or anybody else held directly
or indirectly any stock in any pipe line
company, Trans-Canada or any other which
by any stretch of the imagination was or is
in any way associated with Ontario.
When the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines issues
became a fact, it became apparent that they
were going to be placed upon the market—
and I am again speaking from memory, that
the Trans-Canada issue was placed on the
market in February, 1957. It, of course,
was known some weeks, and indeed some
months before, that the issue was going to
be placed upon the market. I would say at
that time— and that was before there was
any real assurance that Trans-Canada Pipe
Lines was going to be a fact— that I took the
746
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
matter up with each of the hon. members
of the cabinet, and I asked them under no
circumstances, either by themselves or by
their agents or by any other way, to have
anything to do with any pipe line stock.
I would say to the hon. member that the
purpose of that was just purely this, that I
was determined— and I can assure him that
this will always be the case as long as I
am the leader of the government, and I am
sure that my successor will do the same
thing— that this government or any successor
would be able to do a job for the people
without fear or favour. Now, that is it. And
I want the hon. member to understand that
beyond any shadow of doubt.
I may say, in connection with pipe lines
doing business in Ontario— the hon. member
should know this— the pipe lines which do
business in Ontario go back a very long way
in our history. As a matter of fact, Consumers
Gas is 100 years old, and its stocks have been
traded and dealt in as an investment for at
least 100 years.
When it became apparent that pipe lines
were going to be financed in Ontario, and it
would be some time in the spring of 1957,
last year, I issued similar instructions to
every hon. member of the cabinet, and I am
under no doubt— because I not only spoke
myself but I had them checked up separately
—that every man here, every hon. member
of the government, saw to it that under no
circumstances did he hold directly, in-
directly or any other way, stock in any of
these companies. That is the case and that
is the fact, and that is the way it is going
to be, and I want the hon. member and
everybody else to understand that.
Now, I would just like to ask the hon.
member this question. In connection with
Mr. Kelly, I had no idea— I mean the paper
states that he resigned because his family
had an interest in these things— I did not
know about that.
Mr. MacDonald: And he offered his resig-
nation twice before it was accepted, he says.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, as a matter of fact
he was going to, as I understood it, but he
did not offer any resignation to me before.
But it was well known, as I say, that Mr.
Kelly was going to resign for 6 months before.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never
met Mr. McLean or Mr. Ferris, or anybody
connected with the Northern Ontario Pipe
Lines Limited, nor did I ever have any cor-
respondence with them that I can recollect.
May I ask the hon. member for York South
this: What does the fact that Mr. McLean, or
somebody else, was a relative of Mr. Kelly
have to do with the matter which was raised
by him yesterday and the day before? Now
Mr. Kelly, in fact, has stated to the press
that he has no stock in Northern Ontario Pipe
Lines Limited, but let us take a hypothetical
case. I jotted down this note as I came in here
before I heard this question or anything of
the sort.
Let us assume that it is established that the
nephew, or whatever relation he was, sold or
gave some stock to his uncle. Now, my direc-
tion to the hon. members of the cabinet—
which I do not think anybody at all disputes-
was that no hon. member, with those additions
that I outlined, was to hold such securities.
I think the hon. members of this House will
accept it, that I gave that direction, and I
can assure them that I did. I have a very
large crowd of witnesses in connection with
that.
Now, I have already said that if Mr. Kelly,
who knew my direction— I said this the day
before yesterday— was unwilling or unable to
obey the same, then, in my opinion, he did
the right thing in resigning. I want hon.
members to bear in mind that I have no
knowledge whatever that Mr. Kelly had any
such stock, and he himself denies it, and there-
fore, by raising the hypothetical question, I by
no means assume or assert or imply that he
did have.
However, suppose it were established that
Mr. Kelly in fact did have such stock, and
did not obey my injunction. He has resigned
and he is no longer a member of the govern-
ment. As a matter of fact, he is no longer a
member of the House. And may I add to this,
that no hon. member of the government,
directly or indirectly, holds any stock in any
of these companies whatever. Now then the
question is: What difference does it make if
Mr. McLean, or some other promoter, is a
relative of Mr. Kelly? What else could be
added, or what else could be done, that has
not already been done?
I perhaps have answered my own question,
but I propound that question to the hon.
member, what else could be done?
Mr. MacDonald: I think die hon. Prime
Minister has answered it.
Mr. Speaker: May I just say that no ques-
tion or no approval was given to any remarks
made before the orders of the day today, and
I would like to say that, from this time on,
we will have to enforce the rules, that ques-
tions must be placed before the Speaker for
his approval two hours before the session
opens.
MARCH 12, 1958
747
Now the rules say the question must be
before the Speaker 24 hours before the session,
but we have allowed a great deal of latitude,
and I think we should adhere to the two-
hour request hereafter.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I add to what the hon.
member has asked, that I had not seen this
report in the Telegram, and the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) has given it to me. This
report says this:
In the face of the large profits his nephew
had made in the increased value of North-
ern Ontario Natural Gas stock, Mr. Kelly
felt that his position as Ontario Minister of
Mines was untenable. "I offered my resig-
nation twice before it was accepted." Mr.
Kelly reiterated that he had no stock in
Northern Ontario Gas, Trans-Canada Pipe
Line, Twin City Gas, Consumers Gas of
Toronto, or Union Gas of Canada.
Now I say that there may be truth in
what he says. Mr. Kelly did not make any
bones about the fact that he was desirous
of retiring, that happened as a matter of
fact subsequent to December of 1956, that
is quite true. When Mr. Kelly resigned,
he stated in the letter I read to the House
that he was retiring on grounds of business
and the reasons that he gave in his letter.
Those were the reasons that were dis-
cussed with me at the time, and Mr. Kelly
did not give me any formal resignation, but
he did undoubtedly indicate some months
before that it was his intention to retire from
the government. He may have taken it that
that was a tender of formal resignation.
I did not so regard it, but he may have
so regarded it. The reasons he gave me
were identical with the reasons that he
gave me when he did tender his formal
resignation in the fore part of July, 1957.
Now I think that clears up the situation.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
The House, on order, resolved itself into
committee of supply.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
discussion, Mr. Speaker, we just had did
not permit a debate, and I just want to
make this one passing comment. The hon.
Prime Minister has found some difficulty in
giving the fullest explanations of what hap-
pened on this, he will appreciate that we
in the Opposition side are having some equal
difficulty.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): What
is the hon. member talking about?
Mr. MacDonald: I will explain in just a
minute.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, I see.
Mr. MacDonald: After I made some state-
ments in the House f the other day, the hon.
Prime Minister got up and said: "If you had
asked me any questions I would have told
you precisely what happened. Now I will tell
you precisely what happened." Then he went
to great length to tell of his discussions with
Mr. Kelly and so on.
The only point I am making is, I find it a
little difficult— after hearing all the details of
this explanation from the hon. Prime Minis-
ter, volunteered by himself— to discover that
Mr. Kelly now adds there was one more
reason for his resignation, namely the family
connection in these pipe line deals.
The hon. Prime Minister will at least have
to recognize that it is a little difficult for us
to keep adding these explanations as they
come out piecemeal, particularly when this
was one of the main reasons, and for some
reason or other the hon. Prime Minister was
not acquainted with it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Kelly says his resigna-
tion was because some family connection
had shares in the pipe line. It was part of
my injunction that no family or other con-
nection should hold them.
Mr. Nixon: How many relatives removed-
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would
like at the outset to extend my congratula-
tions to the government this afternoon for
two reasons, one that earlier this afternoon
we had two pieces of legislation come down,
both of which are in response to either a
resolution or a bill which we in the CCF
have on the order paper.
This is the kind of action that I must
confess we appreciate, and feel that we are
playing a real role in getting this legislation.
I know our hon. friend, the Provincial Sec-
retary ( Mr. Dunbar ) will say that the govern-
ment is moving fast, but I can take him back
through the resolutions of the civil service
commission for years, and years and years,
in which they have asked for an equity in
the superannuation fund and never got it.
Some two or three weeks ago I thought we
would sharpen this issue, and point out some
of the illegal procedures that have to be fol-
lowed because of the fact that they did not
have an equity in their fund.
748
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Had the hon. member
mentioned that?
Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Had he mentioned that?
Mr. MacDonald: It is on the order paper.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: 0|h, never noticed it. I
never look at anything that the hon. member
puts on the order paper.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Provincial Sec-
retary has a capacity for a blind eye when it
suits his purpose, which would trim that right
eye— or was it the left eye?— of Nelson.
Now the second reason for which I would
like to congratulate the government, or the
hon. Prime Minister himself, is on the occa-
sion of his presenting a fourteenth budget.
Whatever differences we may have with the
hon. Prime Minister, I think that this is a
very creditable record. I am very glad that
he got back into the field of Provincial Treas-
urer again because if he had not this year,
he would have been outstripped by the hon.
Provincial Treasurer of the province of Sas-
katchewan who brought down his fourteenth
budget also. So our hon. Prime Minister was
able to keep step by getting back into harness.
But there is an opposite side to this coin,
Mr. Speaker, which merits some public recog-
nition and some discussion.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I could not reply to the
hon. member because I was—
Mr. MacDonald: I am already past the
hon. Provincial Secretary, I am onto other
issues now.
When this portfolio became vacant with
the elevation to the bench of hon. Dana
Porter, apparently there was nobody in the
ranks of the Conservative party to whom the
hon. Prime Minister felt he could entrust this
post, and so he has taken it over again.
In fact, if news stories are an accurate
glimpse of what is going to happen in the
future, we are told that he is going to go
outside the ranks of the party, and pick
someone from the civil service to become
Provincial Treasurer.
Now, it seems to me a very interesting
commentary by action, on the part of the
hon. Prime Minister himself, that out of all
the ranks of some 80-plus Conservative hon.
members in this House, he feels that there
is no one to whom he can entrust this impor-
tant portfolio, and therefore— at least, on a
temporary basis— he has taken it back into his
own hands. The hon. Prime Minister has out-
matched even Rt. hon. C. D. Howe in his
hey-day. I do not think Rt. hon. C. D. Howe
ever had more than two portfolios, and the
hon. Prime Minister has at least 3 at the
moment, plus part-time Minister of Health
and part-time Minister of Municipal Affairs
for relief projects, and part-time Minister of
Agriculture for settling tobacco disputes.
As a matter of fact, I think he is the out-
standing one-man show in Canadian provincial
politics. But are not the burdens getting a
little bit great? Perhaps he should share them
among these great 80-plus hon. members
whom he has in the House, that is, without
going outside and recruiting civil servants.
However, I want to get down to the budget
itself. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the
salient feature of this budget, as with many
of the budgets in recent years, is the incon-
testable fact of our economic expansion in this
province.
The Provincial Treasurers have been able,
down through the years, to show figures in
rather striking illustration of the kind of econ-
omic development that has taken place. Any-
one will have to admit that these figures are
very impressive indeed.
But I think that it is necessary for us to
stop and recognize why we have experienced
this kind of economic development. We in
Canada, and particularly in Ontario, which is
the industrial heartland of this nation, have
gone through a period of almost 20 years of
wartime and of postwar economic expansion.
Indeed, in the postwar years, when we were
approaching a period of possible economic
decline, we found that the economy of this
nation was picked up with a pump-priming
effort to outdo all previous pump-priming
efforts, namely, the annual expenditure in
defence of something approaching $2 billion.
Since defence affects, for the most part,
industry, and as Ontario is the industrial
heartland of this country, obviously this had
an impact on the economic life of this prov-
ince, conceivably more than on any other
province.
The result has been, in this period of 15
or 20 years, a phenomenal increase in rev-
enues, as a direct outgrowth of this economic
expansion.
If we go back to the early 1940's in the
province of Ontario, our revenues were about
$100 million. This year we come very close
to $600 million, a revenue increase that for
the most part— and this is the significant
thing, Mr. Speaker— has taken place without
tax increases. We have had an increased
revenue harvest that came automatically be-
MARCH 12, 1958
749
cause of this great economic expansion. In
fact, each year there has been something ap-
proaching $50 million more revenue coming
in, without any change in the tax structure
at all.
In other words, we have had a dynamic
economy, an expanding economy, but at
the same time we have not had a dynamic
tax structure which would take cognizance
of the shifts in the economy— the shifts in
the economic power blocs within this economy
and where the wealth of the province was
increasingly to be found.
Now, Mr. Speaker, last year I drew atten-
tion to this fact, in discussing the budget,
and pointed out that what had happened
in the last 10 or 15 years was a gradual shift
to corporate income, that as our economic
life is developed through great corporations,
more and more of the wealth is to be found
in corporate income.
Now I know that this kind of information
does not fall on very sympathetic ears in
this House, but I wonder if I can just
drive home how significant this develop-
ment is by some figures that I happened to
come across a few months ago.
In the year 1955, the gross revenue of
the Imperial Oil Company of Canada was
approximately $700 million.
The gross revenue of the Canadian Pacific
Railway was $470 million.
The gross revenue of Canada Packers was
$434 million.
The gross revenue of the Aluminum Com-
pany of Canada was $412 million.
In other words, here are 4 corporations,
only 4 corporations, yet their total gross
revenue is just over $2 billion.
Just to throw that into perspective, may
I remind hon. members that, in the same
year of 1955 the total revenue for all of
the provinces of Canada was $1,413 billion.
In other words, 3 corporations— Imperial Oil,
Canadian Pacific Railway and Canada
Packers— those 3 corporations alone had $200
million more revenue than all of the Cana-
dian provinces put together.
Also may I point out that the revenue of
all municipalities in Canada— that is, cities,
towns and rural communities— was $956 mil-
lion. In other words, that was less revenue
than two of those corporations put together.
Now the point I am making is simply this.
If we are going to take a look at the economy
of this nation and province, let us consider
where the wealth is increasingly to be found
and therefore where we must get our revenues.
Obviously we must turn to the corporate
wealth as being the obvious source for these
revenues. As a matter of fact, two years ago—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: What taxes did they pay,
what did they pay in dividends, how many
shareholders have they got? They did not put
all that money in their pockets.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know what taxes
they paid. But may I point out that the first
time he spoke as a financial critic for the
Liberal party, the hon. member for Waterloo
North (Mr. Wintermeyer) made the comment
that obviously, if we were going to have more
revenue in the province of Ontario, it would
have to come from industry and corporate
income^-as the hon. Prime Minister pointed
out a year ago.
Within a 12-month period, he had switched
to the argument that corporation taxes were
too high. Now my suggestion is that they are
not too high, that we have got to get the
money from where the money is, and the
result of this refusal on the part of this govern-
ment, down through the years, to have a
dynamic tax policy to match the dynamic
economic development, has been that they
have not raised adequate revenues, and the
result of that in turn has been the kind of
debt increase that we have had mentioned
many times in this House. Ten years ago,
when the hon. member for Victoria became
Prime Minister of Ontario in 1948, the debt
of this province was $386 million. In a
10-year period it has more than doubled,
and is now going up at such a rate that very
shortly it is going to be trebled. In fact, in
that first 10-year period, for every day that
he was hon. Prime Minister, the debt of the
province increased by $100,000, and now the
debt is increasing so that it is closer to
$250,000 a day. Now this is kind of debt
increase—
Hon. Mr. Frost: How about assets, did
the hon. member look at the assets side of
the ledger?
Mr. MacDonald: I agree, I agree, but even
the hon. Prime Minister is disturbed about
the debt.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh well, I am the presi-
dent, why would I not be?
Mr. MacDonald: The answer to it is that
if we are going to keep this debt from get-
ting out of hand, we must raise more
revenue, and we have to raise it from where
it is to be found.
Now, there are two sources, Mr. Speaker.
One of these sources is from tax rental agree-
750
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ments. I do not propose to discuss that any
more today because we have discussed it
many times in the House this session, and
the hon. Prime Minister claims that he has
secured a down payment on that extra $100
million he seeks, and that he will get the
rest of it after March 31. We will just have
to wait and see.
What I want to turn my attention to is
where more revenue can be raised right here
in the province of Ontario. There are 4 sources
that I want to suggest.
The first is the coporation tax. Now last
year, the government took a step in the right
direction by adding some 2 per cent, to the
provincial corporation tax. I think it was only
a step in the right direction.
I admit quite readily that this is not the
kind of thing that a province can do until
it gets so out of line as to discriminate between
corporations in various provinces. Therefore
there are obvious limitations upon the in-
creases in corporation income that a province
can proceed with. The answer has got to be
in some action at the federal level.
I am hoping that, now that our hon. Prime
Minister has some influence at Ottawa, con-
ceivably he can get these people in Ottawa
to raise the money that clearly they are going
to require both for meeting his demands for
$100 million more, and for fufilling that great
range of election promises with which they
are now dazzling the nation.
I come now strictly to sources of revenue
within the province of Ontario, within the
power of this government. The first one is a
source that I mentioned last year. I raise it
again this year for the reason that there has
been some interesting developments in the
intervening 12-month period— that is the
revenue which this government raises from the
liquor interests.
A year ago in this House, I drew attention
to some new information that had been made
available through the Bracken commission
report, where John Bracken, former leader of
the Conservative party, examined into the
liquor situation in the province of Manitoba
and made a comparative study in all prov-
inces. Mr. Bracken made a comparison be-
tween the amount of revenue that came to
the provincial government, as compared with
the total sales, the total consumer expenditure
on beer, liquor and wine. In this calculation,
he came up with the rather startling result
that the province of Ontario's revenue from
liquor interests— calculated as a percentage of
the total sales, the total consumer purchases-
was 16 per cent, as compared with, believe
it or not, 22 per cent, in the province of
Quebec; 23 per cent, in Manitoba; 28 per
cent, in British Columbia and Saskatchewan;
36 per cent, in New Brunswick; and 40 per
cent, in Prince Edward Island.
Now, in face of that kind of thing, it
was rather encouraging to see that a year
ago this government moved to increase the
revenues from the liquor interests. They put
a tax on the breweries which brought in a
new revenue of $5.5 million. That was in
March of 1957. But, Mr. Speaker, the
astounding proposition was that, within 4 to
5 weeks, the breweries of this province were
given permission to increase the price of
beer one cent a bottle, so that their new
revenue arising from this price increase was
$12.5 million.
In other words, in March they were taxed
$5.5 million and in April they were given
$12.5 million in new revenue.
I want to remind hon. members that price
increases are not unrelated to government
action. Again last year I pointed this out
—in the report of the 1955 combines com-
mission into the brewery industry, on page
81, this is what they had to say about the
situation in the province of Ontario:
But it seems quite clear that the indus-
try, as such, never lost its voice in the
establishment of prices and in determining
them. The liquor control board never
acted on its own motion, but rather on
the requests formulated by the trade, or
at least after due consultation with the
breweries. In effect, it was the brewers
who decided what prices should be en-
forced, and to this end they acted col-
lectively through their official selling agen-
cies, The Brewers' Warehousing Company
Limited.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What is that the hon.
member is reading there?
Mr. MacDonald: The combines commis-
sion report of 1955. I must get down to the
nub of the matter, because when we talk
about breweries in the province of Ontario,
for the most part we are talking about Mr.
E. P. Taylor.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to say a few words
to my hon. friend. I just want to point some-
thing out to him because I do not want him
spending too much time in proving some-
thing that will prove to be without founda-
tion. He is always into that sort of business.
May I say this in connection with the in-
crease of a cent a bottle, or whatever it was,
in the retail price of beer in this province
MARCH 12, 1958
751
and in the key sales of beer. I can assure my
hon. friend that this was most meticulously
gone into. The whole matter was looked at
by our auditors and others, and, on the
strength of it the liquor control board, of
which the hon. member for Beaches (Mr.
Collings) is the chairman, approved of that
increase. I can assure the hon. member that
it was meticulously and carefully done, and
that all the figures are available.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, we have this slight
discrepancy in evidence, after a thorough in-
vestigation by the combine reports. They say,
without any qualification, that the source of
price increases is the brewers, and that in
effect it is rubber-stamped by the liquor
control board. In fact, may I quote the one
man who dominates and personifies the
brewery industry in the province of Ontario,
namely Mr. E. P. Taylor. On page 27 of the
report—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Who wrote that report?
Who was the head of it anyway?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the head of it is a
gentleman by the name of MacDonald from
the good old sod of Nova Scotia.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to my
hon. friend that he should know this, that the
people of Nova Scotia pay little attention to
us here in Ontario, and that he probably did
not come up here to find out what we did do.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, is that right? Well,
that was a gentle sally. I must say that the
hon. Prime Minister has mellowed in the last
few hours. If I may quote now, Mr. Speaker,
after repeated interruptions-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Taylor testified, as
reported on page 27, that the prices in Ontario
were fixed by the Brewers' Warehousing Com-
pany Limited, with the approval of the liquor
control board. It is as simple as that.
The hon. Prime Minister may have brought
his auditors in, but this is what the combines
report states.
Now, let me be fair about this. Of the $12.5
million new revenue resulting from this 1 cent
a bottle increase that the government, through
its agency, granted to the breweries, the
brewers have to pay a tax to the federal
government which is about 22 per cent. So
one-fifth of this new revenue would go to the
federal government. The rest of it would be
available to the brewers right here in the
province of Ontario. Which means to say, Mr.
Speaker, that in the month of March, this
government taxed the breweries of Ontario
$5.5 million, and in the month of April it
gave them approximately $10 million new
revenue through its own agency.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: So what?
Mr. MacDonald: So what? What is meant
by "so what?" The government did not tax the
brewers at all. They taxed the breweries $5.5
million with one hand, and one month later
they gave them the privilege of extracting
twice that amount of tax out of the consumers
of the province of Ontario.
Now the question that is in my mind, and
the question I asked last year that provoked
such a succession of interruptions from our
hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Stewart), is:
Why this cosy relationship? Why this tender
solicitude for the breweries?
Mr. W. J. Stewart (Parkdale): He has not
forgotten that, eh?
Mr. MacDonald: If the government raises
$5 million from them, can they not let that
tax stand for something more than a few
weeks without handing double the amount
back to them again? In fact, Mr. Speaker, this
is a really exciting situation that is developing.
For example, up in Ottawa last November,
the new government through its hon. Minister
of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has moved to prose-
cute the breweries and Mr. E. P. Taylor. This
is a spectacle that I am rather looking for-
ward to. I am looking forward to it for
this reason, that Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker,
when he was in the Opposition in the year
1953, on Thursday, May 14, was speaking
in the House of Commons, and made this
comment. I quote from the verbatim record
of the federal Hansard:
Personally, I feel that if the combines
investigation is to be made effective, penal-
ties in keeping with the crime will have
to be brought into effect, that is, penalties
that will penalize seriously enough to inter-
fere with the gains that can be secured
by directors that connive and contribute.
When wrong-doing is estabished, then
amendments must be made to insure that
those who actively— or passively, if you
like— act as directors shall not escape un-
scathed from a prison sentence. A fine is
a poor substitute as a punishment for a
wrong-doing.
Then hon. Mr. Garson, the Minister of
Justice, comes in, and says "Well, you can-
not put a corporation into prison."
752
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker was very explicit,
he ended this way:
I am not talking about imprisoning a
corporation; I am talking about the
directors. It should be mandatory where a
director acquieses, either directly or pas-
sively, by standing by, knowing wrong-
doing is taking place. The possibility of a
fine being imposed is no deterrent to
wrong-doing.
Now if, as this report of the combines
commission indicates, there is a genuine com-
bine, and the courts agree, I assume that Rt.
hon. Mr. Diefenbaker is going to be as tough
in 1958 or 1959 as he was in 1953. We may
then find Mr. E. P. Taylor experiencing a
penalty never as yet imposed as part of the
combines law, namely, that those who violate
it can spend two years in jail. That, Mr.
Speaker, will be something to behold, because
we will have the Tory government at Queen's
Park subsidizing Mr. Taylor $10 million or
$15 million a year through increased
revenues, after the tax raise last year, while
the Tory party at Ottawa is considering
putting him behind bars for violating the
combines law of the land.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does my hon. friend think
that Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker is going to
get in?
Mr. MacDonald: I have answered that
question as to what is going to happen in
general terms, and this is not the place to
reiterate it.
But there is a new source of revenue, Mr.
Speaker. If this government wants to keep
the debt of this province from increasing,
there is the $5 million that they put on last
year, and there is the $10 million extra that
they have given to the breweries in the inter-
vening period through a price increase— $15
million. If we want to help keep that debt
down, it is right there for the taking, as soon
as this government has the political courage
to take it. But, as Mr. E. P. Taylor pointed
out, or as this report points out, Mr. E. P.
Taylor is a pretty tough guy, even with the
hon. Prime Minister of this province, so no
action takes place.
The second source of revenue that I want
to draw attention to, Mr. Speaker, is our
natural resources revenue. I have touched
upon this to a degree, and I do not want to
spend any time unduly rehashing it. Last
year we increased our mining revenue in this
province, or we increased our mining royal-
ties, so that we anticipated an increase in
revenue from some $8 million to $17.5 mil-
lion. We discovered, when the end of the
year came, that we had not received $17.5
million— we have only $11.1 million.
The hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Spooner)
has given some explanations as to why we
have this lower figure. But one of the reasons
he gave was that perhaps they had been a
little over-optimistic in their estimate of new
revenues this increase in mining royalties
might bring in.
I was rather interested, in light of his com-
ments yesterday, to go back to the figures, and
to find the government still expects, in this
coming year, to get $15.6 million in mining
revenues, which would be $4.5 million more
than they got this year. So apparently, with-
out any increase in royalties they expect a real
resurgence in the mining industry— changes in
copper or changes in the uranium picture—
which will bring in more revenue. I trust it
will happen.
Now, when we switch to the other great
natural resource — our forests — I find this
astounding fact, that in spite of an industry
which has developed so that today it repre-
sents a productive wealth of some $600 million
or $700 million, this government is actually
budgeting this year for a deficit in the rev-
enues it expects to get from the forest re-
sources. The budget figures indicate that they
expect, as revenue, from the forest resources
something like $20.5 million, and that they
expect to spend, in The Department of Lands
and Forests in the next year, $21.6 million.
In other words, in this industry they
expect that the people of this province, out-
side the industry, are going to have to sub-
sidize the industry to the extent of $1.1
million.
Mr. Speaker, this raises the question which
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) put to the hon. Prime Minister a
day or so ago: What is this government's
policy with regard to revenues from natural
resources? These are resources that belong
to the people of Ontario. They are resources
upon which today we have built two great
industries which represent $1.5 billion of
new wealth each year, and yet, in the past
year the total net revenue, after what was
ploughed back in these two departments to
service the industry, to the people who own
these resources, was something less than $10
million. This just does not make sense.
Yesterday, when I raised this in the dis-
cussion in the mining estimates— or was it
the day before yesterday?— somebody asked:
"Do you want to increase these revenues?"
My answer was yes, and I will tell hon.
members the reason why.
MARCH 12, 1958
753
I am putting this forward very seriously,
and for those who are opposed, I wish they
would consider it for a moment.
When we increase our revenues from min-
ing royalties and logging taxes, these increases
become a deductible item in the calculation
of the federal income taxes, an expense item
for the corporation. Since they can deduct
it, in effect they can save a good proportion
of the provincial tax by their deduction
when they calculate their federal corpora-
tion income tax.
Obviously it is plain commonsense— if we
want to look at it strictly from the point of
view of Ontario— that if we want this revenue,
why not raise it at the resources level, where
the corporation can then turn around and
use it in their calculations as an expense in
their calculations of their federal income tax?
The second thing is that, if we raise it
at the resources level, we get the whole
dollar. If we let it go to Ottawa as cor-
poration tax, then the hon. Prime Minister
complains— even with this new government,
he has a bit of complaint— he has to go and
beg to get a fair share of that dollar back
into the coffers of the province of Ontario. If
he raised it himself he would have the whole
dollar.
So why not, in the general interest of the
province that needs this revenue, raise it at
the resources level so that it would be of
greater benefit, and there would be benefits
accruing to both the corporation and directly
to the province itself?
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
May I ask the hon. member whether he has
made any determination of what the net cost
is to the pulp and paper industry? He has
said that one-half would be. Does he suggest
for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that this entire
levy could be charged against operations?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is charged against
the operations.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The entire levy?
Mr. MacDonald: The entire levy.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, no.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I am sorry. The hon.
Provincial Treasurer can confirm this, because
I am certain that all mining royalties, and all
logging taxes, in the province of Ontario, are
an expense of the corporation which they can
treat as an expense when they are calculating
their federal income tax. Sure, it is right.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I concede that last year
we thrashed this out. It works out to about
half-
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I grant that feature.
Corporation taxes— what is it, 46 per cent., 48
per cent., or something like that?— it works out
to that half level. But the point is that it still
is calculated as an expense.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): The fact is that if
we take another $1 from them in logging
tax, it is still going to cost them 50 cents, is
that not true? It is going to cost them 50 cents
on every $1 we take, and they do not have
the money at the moment. The mines are
closing up now.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: We want no more inter-
ruptions.
Mr. MacDonald: Our problem is that our
government claims it does not have the
money, and my general answer is that if it
needs the money it had better go where the
money is, and that, by refraining from going
where the money is, our tax structure is get-
ting more out of balance. Indirectly, it is
falling on the little fellow instead of falling
on the person who has the greatest capacity to
pay.
So there are 3 sources of new revenue:
corporation tax, liquor tax revenues and
natural resources revenues.
The fourth source that I want to discuss
now is a weight distance tax, such as was
recommended in the toll roads committee
report. That report acknowledged that the
working out of the weight distance tax is a
complicated kind of proposition, but it made
a specific recommendation for an interim kind
of approach— that of breaking down heavy
vehicles beyond 18,000 pounds, into categor-
ies, and grading the licences in accordance
with the weight categories, so that we would
get a rough approximation of the same
revenue which we would get with a weight
distance tax.
The toll road report also urged removal of
another strange inequity that has existed for
years in our tax structure in the province of
Ontario. Heavy transports cause half the costs
of our modern highways. These big vehicles
in effect double the cost of the road, because
of the heavier base that must be put into it.
If it is a PCV licenced vehicle, it pays a fairly
heavy licence. But there are a significant num-
ber of these big vehicles in the province,
which are privately owned and are not public
carriers. These are brewery trucks, or oil
trucks, used for their own business, which
764
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
do not pay the rate, or anything like the rate,
that the PCV licenced operators do.
Now, one of the recommendations of the
report was to equate the revenues that come
from these two kinds of vehicles, because they
may be exactly the same tonnage and cer-
tainly they are wearing or destroying our
roads at exactly the same rate. But there has
been no government action.
Now, why the delay in this action? If this
is an obvious inequity in our highway
revenues, on this level, as well as on the level
of weight distance tax, am I to conclude that
the very effective and vociferous lobby of the
truckers' association is going to postpone this
year after year, so that another $12 million
or $15 million— which was the rough calcula-
tion of revenue that might come from this
kind of tax— is going to be missed year after
year, even though the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer says he needs more revenue?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Could I correct the hon. member for York
South? I think he knows that the PCV tax
is a small tax in comparision, that on a large
vehicle it might amount to $125 compared
to $600 or $700 of the ordinary licence. It
is not the great part of the tax.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I do not profess to
be an expert, Mr, Speaker, on the breakdown
of these taxes. But this I know for certain—
and I think other hon. members who are on
the toll roads committee will confirm it—
we gathered evidence pointing to the inequity
between a privately owned vehicle, that is
used by a company for its own use, and a
PCV licenced vehicle— and the latter is defin-
itely higher, many times higher.
I can remember the surprise on the faces
of hon. members of the committee, and the
hon. chairman of the committee, who ac-
knowledged that they did not realize this was
the case. Most of us did not realize it was the
case.
On at least half-a-dozen occasions, the
question was asked as to why this kind of
inequity has persisted in our highway rev-
enue structure for so many years. Well, I
submit this as another wrinkle alongside the
more important question of weight distance
tax.
On the question of a weight distance tax,
Mr. Speaker, may I point this out? It is a
fact beyond dispute that approximately 50
per cent, of the costs of our modern highways
—because of the depth of the road bed, be-
cause of the site levels, because of less sharp
curves, because of all of these factors— derives
to meet the needs of about 4 per cent, or
5 per cent, of those vehicles that are travel-
ling on the roads.
Certainly, the figure in the instance in the
state of California was that 52 per cent, of the
cost of the roads derived for 4 per cent, of
the trucks, and while we have made no
detailed calculation, it is approximately the
same kind of thing in the province of Ontario.
Now, why do we not raise a more equit-
able amount of revenue from these monsters
of the highway, which make it necessary to
put 50 per cent, of this cost in, to begin
with, and are contributing most to the
destruction of the roads?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I would
point out to the hon. member that we do
have a just tax. His figures as to the cost of
the highway that is caused because of the
large trucks is altogether incorrect. About
20 per cent, of the cost of the highway is
due to the heavy loads that go over that
highway. The hon. member understands, as
we all do, that the right of way is the same,
that the maintenance, the winter maintenance,
and the care of the roadsides are entirely
the same.
I may say that I think we have a very
fortunate arrangement as far as our highway
traffic is concerned. Many hon. members
recognize that, on Saturdays and Sundays,
our highways are full of traffic and the trucks
are not there. Those are the days when it
serves all of us small people with our cars;
therefore we have the truck traffic and the
passenger vehicle traffic at different times,
and it works out wonderfully well, and
makes an efficient operation. The whole
operation is efficient. We get the use of our
highways 7 days per week, and we feel that
the tax distribution is fair.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, all I can say, Mr.
Speaker, is that if this is the conclusion the
hon. Minister has come to, I can understand
why we do not have a weight distance tax.
But I draw this to his attention—
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I might say-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
York South has the floor, and if he does not
want to give it up, it is up to him.
Mr. MacDonald: I draw this to the hon.
Minister's attention, that if this is the con-
clusion of the government, they might as well
take a significant proportion of this toll roads
report, and the money that was expended, and
throw it out the window.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that is not the conclusion, but he is
MARCH 12, 1958
755
jumping at conclusions. We have all taxes
under very intensive consideration-
Mr. MacDonald: I was under the impression
that it was under intensive consideration, but
the hon. Minister has just made a statement
to the effect that he thinks that the present
tax revenue is a very equitable one. Well, if
it is a very equitable one now, why is the
government studying the weight distance tax?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I must inform the hon.
member that we did institute an extra tax
since the time of the gas tax and the diesel
tax. The gas tax, an addition —
Mr. MacDonald: And the fuel tax.
Hon. Mr. Allan: And the fuel tax, which
was raised from 11 cents to 13 cents per
gallon. Now, I might point out to the hon.
member that, in certain jurisdictions to the
south of us, they are not able to impose taxes
such as the gas tax and the diesel fuel tax
such as we did here, and I think they would
have been very happy to have been able to
change places with us and had the gas tax
and the diesel fuel tax in place of the weight
distance tax.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to get into a long argument this after-
noon with the kindly gentleman who is the
hon. Minister of Transport. But I draw to
his attention that, when we increased the
tax on diesel oil, all we did was to remove
the inequity between two trucks, one of
which is using diesel fuel and one of which
is using gasoline. We did nothing about
removing the inequity between the big vehicle
and the little vehicle.
Now the second thing, Mr. Speaker, is
that the hon. Minister points out that we
added 2 cents on the gasoline tax. Sure, and
that is the reason why I am complaining.
The report of the toll roads committee, on
the basis of evidence in the United States
and Canada is that if we add a further
tax to the gasoline tax, 90 per cent, of that
load falls on the automobile operators.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is not correct.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is in the reports.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Not 90 per cent.
Mr. MacDonald: I hope when the session
is over that the government will have enough
money that they can send the hon. Minister
down to Florida for a week to read this
report. After 2 years of study, it is definitely
stated in the report that if you increased
your gasoline tax from 1-1 to 13 cents, 90
per cent, of that load would fall on the
little cars.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Not 90 per cent.
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, it is true. I won-
der if the hon. Minister has ever read the
toll roads report?
Well just to sum up this business of new
revenues, Mr. Speaker, I cannot calculate a
figure as to what new revenue the govern-
ment can get from corporation tax; but I
can estimate that, if they were to increase
their revenues from liquor, they could get
between $15 million and $20 million more,
I am certain.
On the weight distance tax, the figures
that were used in the toll roads committee
report were something like $15 million, with
adjustments that might net $10 million to
$12 million new revenue.
Then, finally, we have the difficult estimate
of what new revenue is possible through
more equitable charges on natural resources.
I suggest that from these 4 sources, there is
a certain revenue increase, between $25
million and $30 million, which could be
doubled to $50 million or $60 million, de-
pending on what level the government can
fix the corporation tax or natural resources
taxes.
If this government is going to go around
complaining that the debt has gone up— well
no, the government does not complain, the
only man who complains is the hon. member
for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay). He keeps point-
ing it out, but the rest of the government
supporters try to hide it, pretending that
the debt is not going up. But it has been
going up $50 million to $60 million a year.
This coming year it is going to go up $100
million. Next year, it may well go up to
$150 million.
Mr. W. J. Stewart: He hopes.
Mr. MacDonald: Well no, these were the
careful calculations of the hon. member for
Waterloo North. I am borrowing from him.
I read his speech when I was down with
the "flu bug" since I was not able to hear
it directly. And on this question of debt,
I think his calculation is correct. Here is
a way in which this government can at
least reduce that increase.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn for a
moment to the question of housing. I was
interested when I looked in the tables in
the back of the budget to discover that, in
the years from 1952 to 1957, the total num-
ber of new and converted housing units that
756
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we built in the province of Ontario— by we,
I mean the people of the province of Ontario,
not the government— was 258,000 homes in
that 5- or 6-year period.
During that same period, Mr. Speaker—
which happens to be the period which opened
with the promise of our hon. Prime Minister
in London, Ontario, that the government had
set an objective of 5,000 low rental homes—
during that same period of building 258,000
homes for those who could pay for them,
or borrow the money, we have not yet built
5,000 low rental homes.
How close we are to the figure, I do
not know. I have a question on the order
paper and I am looking forward to see what
the latest figure is toward that objective
of 5,000.
Now against this background, Mr. Speaker,
I want to refer briefly to that incredible state-
ment of the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development (Mr. Nickle) with regard to
the whole Malvern project, and his com-
ments with regard to Andrew Brewin, Q.C.,
as having raised a succession of CCF road
blocks, which had stood in the way of the
Malvern project.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
dwell any more than, in passing, to the
ethics of the hon. Minister who, himself a
lawyer, attacked another lawyer for activities
in a professional capacity— and made that
attack, incidentally, from within the protected
position of the Legislature.
I would like to ask this question, though,
Mr. Speaker, since when does a lawyer's
work in a professional capacity become part
of his political activities? This is a new con-
cept that the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development introduces. As a matter of fact
it raises an interesting prospect, because I
happen to know of one or two well-known
Conservative lawyers in the city of Toronto
who spend a fair amount of their time pro-
fessionally defending prostitutes and dope
pedlars. Are we to conclude that this is
part and parcel of their political activity, and
that they are now standing in the way of
society's efforts to do something about these
evils?
This is the only conclusion one can come
to on the basis of this fantastic theory and
attack that was made by the hon. Minister
of Planning and Development upon Mr.
Andrew Brewin.
In fact, he started out— and I wish he were
here— he started out with a factual error. In
fact, the whole statement is so much "mish-
mash," coming from a lawyer. He started out
by stating that on September 16, 1954, Mr.
Brewin had said such and such with regard
to this case.
The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that
on September 16, 1954, Mr. Brewin had
nothing to do with this case.
The man who had the case at that time
was a well-known lawyer by the name of
Mr. J. J. Robinette. Because circumstances
were such that Mr. Robinette could not con-
tinue on the case, they sought another good
lawyer, and got Mr. Brewin, and he has
handled it since then.
The hon. Minister perhaps is not aware of
the fact that, when the Ontario branch of
the Canadian law society met a few weeks
ago, they had a panel which discussed this
whole complicated issue of expropriation,
and one of the men invited by the law society
to sit on this panel was Mr. Andrew Brewin.
Also, the hon. Minister may not be aware
that Mr. Brewin has now prepared a written
continuation lecture for the law society on the
issue of expropriation. Now perhaps in his
ignorance the hon. Minister was not aware of
these facts.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Why does not Mr. Brewin
write a book?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, that is just about in
keeping with the kind of comments made by
the hon. Minister earlier.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: He might as well get the
truth.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Brewin obviously is
not at all fearful in pitting his reputation with
that of the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development in the legal profession, because
he knows quite confidently who is going to
come out second best.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I have always been of
the suspicion that the hon. member has been
"in cahoots" with him, and the hon. member
has corroborated my thinking this afternoon.
I sometimes think the hon. member is behind
the scenes to make the balls for him to throw.
The hon. member wanted to direct Malvern,
and the pair of them failed.
Mr. MacDonald: The mind of the hon.
Minister runs on the basis that somebody has
to make the balls if he is going to throw them.
That I can quite believe, as far as he is con-
cerned. But let me assure him that Mr.
Brewin does not need anybody to make any
ammunition to throw, he is quite capable of
doing it himself.
MARCH 12, 1958
757
But the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker,
is that to blame Mr. Brewin and the CCF for
this government's procrastination on the issue
of the Malvern development is just making
excuses. If this government, if this depart-
ment, if this hon. Minister, had exercised just
half as much imagination and ingenuity as
Mr. Brewin did in a professional capacity, we
would have houses out in Malvern at the
present time.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Drivel, utter drivel.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, we would have had
houses out there. The hon. Minister could
have taken a second expropriation order and
moved on the proposition.
Even now, the hon. Minister comes in and
misleads this House into believing that now
they are in a position that they can go ahead
and put in the main sewers and servicing. I
wonder if he is aware of the fact that officials
in his own department told the farmers, when
they met in the offices of the department last
November, that they could stay on the land
for the rest of 1958?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: May I ask a question of
the hon. member, Mr. Speaker,—
Mr. MacDonald: I have not conceded the
floor. I do not want to take any more—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I would like to clear this
point up.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister can
clear it up when his estimates come up.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member does
not want to hear the truth.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, maybe the hon.
Minister is right, if he is going to give it
to me.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The statement the hon.
member made is quite incorrect.
Mr. MacDonald: The fact of the matter is
that the choice of Malvern in the first instance
was another typical arbitrary, ill-considered
judgment by this government, so much so
that the hon. member who happens to repre-
sent the area (Mr. Sutton) got up and made
protest in this House a week or so ago that
people in his own area are not happy about
the development.
It will result in an even greater unbalance,
as between the industrial and the residential
assessment, unless the government is willing
to go in and take over most of the charges,
because they chose an area away out in the
country beyond the lines of existing services.
Of course, the hon. Minister meanwhile
goes on his merry way, the quintessence of
pomposity, the only man I know who can
strut while sitting down. I think it is about
time that somebody got him a pin to prick
the balloon of his—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Somebody said that
yesterday, copycat.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that right? Well, some-
body did not say this, and I will say it now,
that I hope somebody some time soon will
buy the man a little hat pin so that he can
prick the balloon of his own self-inflated ego
and delusions of grandeur, so that he can
come floating down to earth, close to these
houses that need to be built.
Certainly none has been built, or very
few of them up to now. The hon. Minister
is making excuses, and blaming it on so-
called CCF roadblocks.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member does
not want them built, he wants to wreck the
economy of this country.
Mr. MacDonald: Of course I want them
built.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No, he does not. The
only salvation he has is to wreck the confi-
dence in this country.
Mr. MacDonald: He is not only the quin-
tessence of pomposity, but the source of idle
chatter.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The hon. member re-
minds me of the empty wagon that makes
the most noise.
Mr. MacDonald: Now there is a novel
statement, I wonder where that one came
from, I wonder where the hon. Minister bor-
rowed that one from?
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn briefly to the
issue of education. The hon. Provincial
Treasurer announced that our grants were
going to go up from $100 million to $133
million this year. This is a very welcome
increase. I do not think that anybody will
for one moment deny that is the case.
In fact, I will have to confess to the hon.
Provincial Treasurer, to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter, that for a moment he almost had me
persuaded. I thought in listening to him in
his very persuasive presentation of the case
that it was just possible that this government
had now reached the stage, in 1958, when it
758
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had fulfilled its promise of 1943— to meet 50
per cent, of education costs. I thought, well,
that is not bad for a Conservative govern-
ment after 15 years.
But the budget came down on a Wednes-
day, and the hon. Prime Minister had skipped
over the highlights in his presentation. I took
a busman's holiday that evening, and read
the prepared budget statement. I found some
very interesting information in the tables
accompanying it.
There is a table on page A-29, and in this
table it pointed out that in the year 1957
the total amount of taxes raised for school
purposes at the municipal level was $185
million. In the same year the government
made grants to education of $100 million,
so that the total expenditure from govern-
ments and local levies was $285 million— of
which the government grants represent
exactly 35 per cent.
This year, if one projects the increase in
local levies on the basis that they have
increased in the last 5 years, an average of
about $17 million a year, that means the
tax levies at the local levels this coming
year, 1958, will be $202 million. The govern-
ment is going to make grants of $133 million
for a total expenditure of $335 million— which
means that this government is now going to
be meeting precisely 40 per cent, of school
costs.
Mr. Speaker, I had 6 hours of having been
persuaded by the hon. Prime Minister, and
then the persuasion went out the window be-
cause the facts demolished the impression he
left. The fact of the matter is that last year
this government paid 35 per cent, of the cost
of public and secondary schools, and this
year, even with this great increase in grants,
they have come up to 40 per cent. So we will
give them another 15 years to get to the
fulfilment of that promise of 1943.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member knows
there are a good many items in local expendi-
tures, and he must remember the local boards
have autonomy themselves which they charge
up to the cost of education, which are not
subsidizable and never will be subsidizable,
he knows that.
Mr. MacDonald: I know that, but the fact
still remains that this is what is raised as the
local tax levy, and this is what the govern-
ment contributes, and last year it figures out
at 35 per cent., and this year it figures out at
40 per cent., even with the increase, welcome
though it is. In other words, the increase is
no more than keeping up with the increase
in cost of education, not much more than that.
Now the other point which the hon. Prime
Minister made was a lovely propaganda point.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon.
Prime Minister that if there ever was a mis-
leading statement, this was it. He made refer-
ence, in discussing this increase in Ontario's
school grants, to the increase of $1 billion that
President Eisenhower has made for education
in the United States. The misleading thing
about this, Mr. Speaker, is that this $1 billion
in the United States is an increase in federal
aid to education. It is an increase after they
have had years of federal aid to education.
Unwittingly, what the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's statement raises is this question: In
Canada we have no federal aid to education,
let alone an increase of $1 billion. We have
no aid to education from the federal level
despite 75 cents of our tax dollar going to
Ottawa, and in spite of the fact that we
have a good Tory government that in Oppo-
sition supported that perennial bill of the
CCF for federal aid to education.
They supported it in the Opposition, but
what have they done since they got into
the government? Nothing!
I will tell hon. members what they have
done. "Honest John" had a speaking engage-
ment at the important educational conference
held recently in Ottawa. But it was a little
embarrassing to come and talk about educa-
tion, with the sensitivity of Mr. Duplessis
on this issue, and the need of the Conserva-
tive party to get votes through Mr. Duplessis
in the province of Quebec. So Rt. hon. Mr.
Diefenbaker turned the date down, though
there may never be for years a forum
equal to it discussing educational policy.
Clearly the Conservative party at Ottawa is
not going to fulfil its promises of federal aid
to education, and this is one of the reasons
why we cannot cope with the crisis in
education.
I will agree with the hon. Prime Minister
that the educational load has grown until the
federal government has to share with the
provinces in the meeting of the financial
requirements of that load. I will not for one
moment deny it, for with 75 cents to 80 cents
of the tax dollar going to Ottawa, items like
highways and education which take so much
of our provincial budget make it necessary
that we get more of that money back
specifically to meet these needs. But I am
hoping, now that our hon. Prime Minister of
Ontario has his boys up at Ottawa, he is
really going to be tough in seeing that some
of this money does come back for educational
purposes, because if we do not, we are not
going to solve the crisis in education.
MARCH 12, 1958
759
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that I have never contended that
the money should come from Ottawa specific-
ally for education. I think we should get a
fairer share of the tax fields, and then we
would raise the money and look after educa-
tion ourselves.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. Prime Minis-
ter in effect saying that, as the Conservative
Prime Minister of the province of Ontario,
he does not agree with what has been the
Conservative policy down through the years,
and the actions of his hon. colleagues in
Ottawa, namely federal aid to education?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Personally, I do not think
there should be federal aid, I think we should
have our money and then we will run it our-
selves.
Mr. MacDonald: No wonder the Conserva-
tive party finds it rather easy to get cosy
with Mr. Duplessis, because that is precisely
his view.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that I am
after $100 million. If I get that, then I will
do better.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, in
conclusion, I want to make just a brief refer-
ence to the amendment, which was made by
the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr.
Wintermeyer). The rules of the House do
not permit sub-amendments on a budget
debate.
I want to say that we will support that
amendment. We will support it not because
we are enthusiastic; we will support it
because it accuses this government of lack
of leadership in the items such as those that
we dealt with in the budget, and I agree
with it. I wish it would go much further
because it needs to go much further.
I was rather interested for example, a week
ago listening in this House— in fact I listened
open-mouthed to this one— to a certain hon.
member making a speech in which he made
many demands of the government, and then
he ended up in the concluding moment before
he sat down with these words:
I say to the hon. members of diis govern-
ment never let it be said of us that we
are arrogant and complacent. I say to the
hon. members of the cabinet, let them
always listen to the elected representatives
of the people, and give us the chance to
do the things for our people that need to
be done. Let them not brush us aside, be-
cause that is what they did in Ottawa after
22 years.
Now those were very interesting words,
particularly coming from the hon. member
for Renfrew South (Mr. Maloney),- who is a
sort of combination of Rt. hon. G. D. Howe
and hon. J. J. McCann all rolled together.
This was the plea.
Mr. Maloney: Very able men for 22 years.
Mr. MacDonald: This was the plea. In other
words here was an hon. member on the
government side-
Mr. Maloney: The hon. member said that
on television.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say it on tele-
vision, I was on radio, the hon. member could
not see the television-
Mr. Maloney: The press got it anyway.
Mr. MacDonald: That is correct, I have said
it already.
Mr. Maloney: Sure he has.
Mr. MacDonald: He was pleading with this
government not to be smug and complacent.
Well, I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that
never was a plea more appropriate, because
this government, just like the Liberals at
Ottawa prior to June 10, now can do no
wrong. Like the Liberals prior to June 10, it
is getting insensitive to the needs of the little
people. As a result, it is bringing down such
arbitrary legislation as, for example, the un-
realistic relief project proposal. Perhaps I
should say the hon. Prime Minister brought
it down; I do not want to blame the whole
government, I think it was his pet project
which was thrown back in his face by the
municipalities.
I sat in the education committee about
two weeks ago and listened to two perfect
examples of the attitude of this government.
Here were a group of executive members
of a provincial organization, representing the
retired women teachers, women who have
taught 40 to 50 years in this province, and
are getting something less than $600 a year
pension. Many of them today are 80 to
90 years of age.
They came last year and asked that the
pensions be raised to a level in keeping with
the cost of living.
What was the attitude of the government?
Well, Scrooge never had a stonier heart.
They could get no action.
They came back again this year and they
have made their plea. But what does this
government care about a couple of hundred
votes, because that is all that is left of this
760
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
little band of teachers. Very soon they are
going to die off anyway, so there is no action.
Mr. Maloney: So is the hon. member, very
shortly.
Mr. MacDonald: This is the kind of
insensitivity they now display. Now, the
other example was this delightful business
that was raised by the hon. member for
Bruce (Mr. Whicher) with regard to school
grants.
Why is it, for example, that when our
schools are closed because of a snow storm,
or last year because of Asian flu— some act
of God— why is it that the whole load of
maintaining the school has to be dropped
in the local municipality? Why cannot the
government for that day, or two or three,
or whatever it is, bear its share of the costs
of the grants?
Well, the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Dunlop) says, the law will not permit
it. Well, I ask: What are we here for
but to change the law, if the law is not
a just one? But the hon. Minister brings
in no suggestion, no changes. When this
issue was raised in the education com-
mittee, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr.
Thomas) exploded the whole stand of the
government. The hon. member for Oshawa
asked: "If it is impossible to pay school grants,
when the school is closed, how do you ex-
plain the fact that the hon. Prime Minister
comes down and opens a school in Oshawa
and he gives the children all a holiday, and
he assures the school board that they are
not going to lose their grants. How does he
explain the fact that the hon. Minister of
Education comes down to Pickering and
opens a school. He gives them a holiday and
he assures them that they will not lose their
grants."
Well, says the hon. Minister in the educa-
tion committee, "I do not like doing it."
Well, I know just how painful it was for
him, but he still did it.
Now here is the remarkable proposition.
Acts of God cannot budge the law, but
God and the law both have to take a back
seat to the hon. Minister of Education or
the hon. Prime Minister as they move across
the country and make political good fellows
of themselves, opening schools and assuring
them that they are going to get their school
grants even though the children were out.
In other words, we have two laws in this
province— one that the rest of us have to
live up to, and another that this government
can play with if they think there is going
to be some politics in it.
This is proof of the government's insensi-
tivity to the needs of little people, of its
smugness and arrogance arising from a big
majority for too long.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while we feel in
the CCF that this amendment to the budget
is not a strong enough one, but at least it is
pointed in the right direction, so we will
support it.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Mr,
Speaker, may I say just a word to correct
a wrong impression which the hon. member
for York South left with this House. In
speaking of Malvern, he said that all we
had to do was expropriate again. This is
not right, and I will show why it is not.
It just goes to show that he speaks from
ignorance.
The law is that when one files against a
property under the expropriation laws, the
market value of the property is fixed as
of that moment. Now after all this delay
went on, and there were appeals, had we
lifted that expropriation, that filing, and
started anew, we figured out it would have
cost the taxpayers of the province of Ontario
approximately $2 million to $2.5 million
more. Is that what he wanted us to do? The
thing is ridiculous, completely.
Mr. MacDonald: What they did not have
was a good enough lawyer. They just got
trimmed, that is all. The lawyer just got
trimmed and that is what he is complaining
about.
Mr. Maloney: Just on that point, I was in
The Department of Planning and Develop-
ment when this whole thing started. We
had an excellent lawyer. He took it from
the first hearing before the municipal board
right through to the highest court of appeal
in this land, and he won every round. That
is how good he is.
Mr. MacDonald: What the hon. member
does not know is the details in that whole
case.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He was not a CCF lawyer
either.
Mr. H. F. Fishleigh (Woodbine): If they
think Mr. Brewin is a high class lawyer, I
used to defeat him every year in Ward 3
for at least 3 or 4 years.
Mr. G. J. Monaghan moves the adjourn-
ment of the debate.
Motion agreed to: the House resumed.
MARCH 12, 1958
?61
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the Speaker do now
leave the chair, and the House resolve itself
into committee of supply.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to put the hon.
member for York South right on this matter
in relation to education so we might as well
call this.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
said it was going to be this evening.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Yesterday afternoon there was a
reasonable, and I think a definite, understand-
ing, that we go on tonight. Now what is
being done here, anyway? The day before
yesterday, the hon. Prime Minister did not
know when they were coming. Yesterday, he
stated that they would come up after the
recess tonight, and now he is going to start
them at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well they can go through
with this estimate now as well as tonight.
Mr. Oliver: They can go through! They
can go through, did he say?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am quite content, but it
would seem to me that it would be the logical
and the proper time to go ahead with them.
I mean I have no objection. The hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury (Mr. Monaghan) was to
follow. He has no objection to adjourning
the debate at this time.
Mr. MacDonald: What good is the hon.
Prime Minister's word anyway?
Mr. Maloney: Better than the hon.
member's.
Mr. Oliver: Surely there must be some
basis for procedure here. The understanding
was that we were to have my hon. friend for
York South on the budget debate. Then we
were going to switch to the Throne debate
and have one or two speakers until 6 o'clock.
There was not the slightest indication that
we were going to have the estimates of
The Department of Education before 6
o'clock.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that I always try to accommodate him,
and if he would like that, I will go ahead and
do that.
Mr. Oliver: Well I do not know that it is
a question of accommodation, to me, but I
think it is a question of procedure, my hon.
friend gave his word to the House yesterday.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
rise and report no progress, and begs leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to; the House resumed.
The Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report that it has come to certain
resolutions and reports no progress, and begs
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. Belisle (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in the debate on the
speech from the Throne, I would like first
of all to add my appreciation for your con-
tribution in maintaining order and keeping
the high prestige and dignity that has been
so long cherished by your predecessors, and
I hope that you are spared for many years
to carry on in this courteous manner.
I would like to add my word of welcome
to the new hon. members of this House and
congratulate the hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy) for his very inspiring address in
moving the Throne speech. He is a man
whom I greatly admire, he has rendered
great services to his riding and province, and
I am very pleased that I paid him my respect
in my maiden speech.
I would like also, Mr. Speaker, to con-
gratulate the hon. member for that famous
old constituency of Glengarry (Mr. Guin-
don), who seconded the speech from the
Throne in such an excellent manner.
My congratulations also go to our new
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Dymond), and to our new hon. Minister of
Mines (Mr. Spooner), of whom we feel very
proud. We in the mining industry feel that
the hon. Minister of Mines will prove to be
a great asset to this government, and one
of the finest hon. Ministers of Mines that we
have had. His knowledge of our problems
has already indicated that, during his short
term in office, he has endeared himself very
much to the hearts of my people in the great
mining communities and riding that I have
the honour to represent.
Mr. Speaker, may I now refer to what I
consider a very fine Throne speech, one that
heralded many advances in human better-
ment and progress for our people in this
province. It further advances the programme
of human rights, which, after all, is the most
important thing in our political history.
Also, I am pleased with the health and
welfare services, mentioned in this speech,
762
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
over which the hon. Minister of Public Wel-
fare (Mr. Cecile) so ably administers.
The new great Ontario hospital plan, that
has already received Royal assent by the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor (Mr.
Mackay) is something of which we will all
be proud. I know this will be of great benefit
to the people, because it will remove the
catastrophic financial effect of illnesses of
long duration, which in the past has driven
many of our people into a state of poverty.
The plan will be so well received by the
Ontario people that our great leader, the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost), will return to
power with a greater majority, leaving no
room in this House for our overnight guests.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers of my constituency
are very grateful for what this government
has done in the past few years, in the way
of Hydro expansion to rural communities, and
I am still hoping that a way will be found
for the community of Foleyet to have hydro
in the near future.
In mentioning the far-reaching reforms in
our school grants system, I would like to
suggest that grants per classroom should be
increased for the north; considering the high
cost of construction, it would lessen greatly
the many growing pains that we have in my
riding.
Mr. Speaker, our population growth and
our vast increase in productivity have been
rising at a very rapid pace; this growth with-
out industrial assessment, and very little
commercial assessment, has placed a very
hard burden on the home owners, and my
people feel that mining grants towards miners
should also include workers in smelters and
concentrators.
May I say that, last year, I was opposed to
amalgamation, and after the evidence pro-
duced at a hearing on amalgamation by the
Ontario municipal board just recently in Sud-
bury, the taxpayers of Nickel Belt are more
convinced than ever that amalgamation will
not produce more revenue by which their
municipal taxes can be reduced. Rather, they
are thinking that, if municipal assessment on
mining properties wipes out the present min-
ing grants, they will be worse off financially.
I do not believe this government needs
amalgamation to solve the financial problems
besetting Sudbury and district municipalities.
All that is necessary is to cut Sudbury and
surrounding municipalities in on the gold
mine of liquor profits, mining tax, and per-
haps gasoline tax. For many years, we have
been very generous with our contribution to
the provincial Treasury, and now that the
demand for base metal is not as good, we
feel that we should receive assistance that
will help our home owners and small busi-
nessmen.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the
attention of the hon. Minister of Labour ( Mr.
Daley) as I did two years ago, that there
should be an administrative office of the
workmen's compensation board in Sudbury,
plus a medical and rehabilitation centre. As
the largest city in northern Ontario, with the
greatest concentration of workers in the
north, Sudbury has most certainly been over-
looked in this respect.
This concentration of effort in the Toronto
area is all very well, but it by no means
meets the needs of northern Ontario and the
Sudbury and Elliot Lake areas in particular.
There are far too many stories of red tape,
delays and lack of attention to sick and dis-
abled persons to discount the suggestion that
the workmen's compensation board is func-
tioning efficiently.
There is a man on relief in the city who
became ill several months ago. He spent
some time in the hospital in Sudbury, then
had to be released because the workmen's
compensation board claimed the case did
not conform with board regulations in respect
to the claim for assistance. Many other
claimants are experiencing "by-mail" diffi-
culties.
I sincerely think that this government
should remedy the situation by seeing to it
that this area has better service in work-
men's compensation cases, from the adminis-
trative side, and a treatment centre for
temporary care, at least, of ill and injured
workmen.
And, Mr. Speaker, after a meeting that
we had on March 4 with the chairman of
the compensation board I am more convinced
than ever that the workmen's compensation
board officials have built themselves an ivory
tower that will eventually fall, if better
services and better co-operation are not given
to the injured workmen.
At this time, I would like to bring to the
attention of the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Allan) a problem that is causing grave
concern to my people. It is the problem of
issuing motor vehicles and chauffeurs'
licences. I feel the Sudbury chamber of
commerce has done a very good job, con-
sidering the quarters and location they have,
but I ask the hon. Minister why other bureaux
cannot be opened in Capreol, Chelmsford,
Garson and Noelville?
If the hon. minister feels that an increase
of licences was warranted, I think that they
MARCH 12, 1958
763
should receive more services. The chambers
of commerce in Capreol, Chelmsford and
other localities have offered their services;
legion branches have also offered their serv-
ices, but so far the whole population of
150,000 people have had to line up for hours
and days.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from
the Sudbury Daily Star some comments and
complaints on this matter:
ENGINEER-MAYOR LETS OFF STEAM ABOUT
AUTO LICENCING; "WHY DO WE HAVE TO
GET THEM AT SUDBURY OFFICE?"
Mayor Harold Prescott, of Capreol, drove
into Sudbury on business a day or two
ago, and drove back to Capreol later . . .
resenting every mile of the way.
The business in question was the re-
newal of licence plates at the office of
Sudbury district chamber of commerce, a
chore which the mayor strongly feels could
be handled with less bother at Capreol.
"I can't see why motorists from Chelms-
ford, Creighton, Garson, Falconbridge,
Levack, Massey, Hanmer and so on, should
all have to come into Sudbury for this,"
declared the volatile mayor Prescott, who
earns his living as a locomotive engineer.
"In some cases it entails a journey of
some 40 miles, to say nothing of the prob-
lems of parking that have to be faced
when the visitor arrives in the city."
He pointed out that Capreol and Chelms-
ford each has a chamber of commerce
which could handle the business for their
respective areas. "Does Sudbury hold onto
this just to bring business into the town?"
he asked. "Why should we be penalized
simply because we don't live in Sudbury?"
He suggested that offices at Capreol,
Chelmsford and Garson could comfortably
handle the surrounding district.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to congratu-
late the hon. Minister of Highways for the
important road project which he started in
my riding, namely the Wahnapitae and Sud-
bury highway, highway No. 17, the Levack
highway, and the Chapleau section of the
trans-Canada highway. The work done in my
riding was very much needed, and my people
are very thankful for it.
I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister
that the road to Garson and the airport are
in very great need of repair. To assist un-
employment in my riding, a new road from
Cartier to Levack should be started, and con-
sidering the short distance across and the good
terrain, it will not be too costly.
I would like also to thank the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) for
his great assistance in winter road projects that
will give access to very important communities
and parks.
We must of necessity speed up our high-
way works. Nickel Belt and the whole north
will develop only to the extent that we open
up the country with roads that will encourage
this vast potential of tourist attraction, and
give outlet to very important communities.
The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Griesinger) is doing a very good job in build-
ing public buildings that will be of great
asset to the different departments, and to the
province as a whole. I would like to thank
his department for their very human approach
to our problems, and the assistance his depart-
ment is giving to the unemployed of the north.
We hear from time to time in this House
a great deal of discussion about our civil
servants. It is not my intention to say very
much about this matter, for much has been
said already, but as I have been a civil servant,
I would like to say this:
It has been my privilege to deal with a
large number of them, and from many dif-
ferent departments, in the riding that I repre-
sent. I am not overstressing the point when
I say that I have found our civil servants to
be real public servants in the fullest sense
of the word, and that I have found them
notable for courtesy and assistance in every
phase of public relations.
I would ask this, that when estimates are
prepared, that provision be included for an
increase to them, as I know of no other body
of people who are as deserving as they of an
increase, particularly so when one takes into
consideration the high cost of living that
exists, not only in the cities, but in the out-
lying and northern parts of this province.
I would like to bring out one point very
strongly, for it is my opinion that a grave
injustice exists as it pertains to the present
system of accumulation of holidays. I think
that civil servants should be allowed to accu-
mulate their holidays, and that regulation 7 of
The Public Service Act should be amended
so that those who prefer to take.ui^ Jiolidays
every second year, instead of every year,
should be allowed to do so. This would allow
many whose families and connections are in
other lands to save their holidays, and thus
enable them to have a proper holiday with
their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is not always
a good thing to have a very large riding, be-
cause its expansion creates many problems and
growing pains. As I mentioned last year, Sud-
764
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
bury district has expanded very rapidly. All
this growth has placed mining municipalities
such as ours in a peculiar position. It is an
accepted fact that important concessions have
been made to our municipalities in recent
years, and I was very pleased to hear the hon.
Prime Minister, in his budget address, say
that we were to receive additional grants. It
proves once again that this government is
continually looking after every citizen and
community of this great province, and that
by doing so we will continue to be the party
of the people, for the people.
Mr. Speaker, as I am about to conclude,
I would like your kind permission to address
this honourable assembly in the language
spoken by the majority of my constituents.
I would like to express for them our thanks
and appreciation in the unsurpassed good
administration that this government has given
to all the people of Ontario, regardless of
race, colour and creed.
Monsieur l'Orateur, il me fait plaisir de
terminer mon discours dans ma langue mat-
ernel et d'exprimer a vous tous honorable
deputes mon appreciation pour votre esprit
de camaraderie et tout Fappuis que vous
m'apportez. J'apprecie grandement tout votre
aide et je voudrais me faire le porte parole de
tous mes concitoyens en vous remerciant bien
sincerement pour votre beau travail qui fait
beneficier tous les citoyens de notre belle
province, et je voudrais remercier tous les
ministres et surtout notre grand Premier
Ministre, l'honorable Leslie Frost, qui est
reconnu par tous les citoyens comme le plus
grand Premier Ministre que cette province
a eu. Non seulement il sont fiers et content
mais ils sauront le reconnaitre en nous
retournant au pouvoir avec une plus grande
majorite que nous avons obtenu le 9 juin
1955. Merci.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate,
first let me congratulate you on the fair and
impartial manner in which you have presided
over the debates in the House. I want to
thank you and your staff for your many kind-
nesses to me from time to time.
I would like, in this debate, to welcome
the new hon. members to this House. I have
had the opportunity of making their acquaint-
ance, and of observing them in action in com-
mittees and in the House, and I am sure
that every one will make a great contribution
to provincial affairs.
We all miss the members who passed
away since the last session, and I would
join with others in expressing my regrets at
their passing.
I want, at this time, to offer my con-
gratulations to the two hon. Ministers. I see
that they are not in their seats at the
present time, but the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond) is confronted
with a great task. His department is play-
ing a very important function in our society.
This department helps people who have
made mistakes to resume their place in
society as honourable and useful citizens,
and as he endeavours to carry out that pro-
gramme I wish him well.
The Department of Mines has played, is
playing, and will continue to play an increas-
ing part in the economy of our province,
indeed in our country, as it guides and
directs the development of our great mineral
wealth, and I wish the new hon. Minister
of Mines (Mr. Spooner) every success as
he carries on his programme.
I would like to offer my congratulations
to the hon. mover (Mr. Kennedy) and the
hon. seconder of the motion (Mr. Guindon)
to adopt the speech from the Throne. The
hon. member for Glengarry, in his maiden
address, demonstrated that he already has
a great grasp of provincial affairs, and I
predict he will make a great contribution to
the affairs of this province.
I was particularly impressed, as I am
sure every member was, by the address of
the hon. member for Peel.
I hope I can say this without offending
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) or any
other hon. member in this House, but I
want to say it at any cost, and it is simply
this, that if I have a particularly soft spot
in my heart for any hon. member in this
House, it is for the hon. member for Peel.
My first direct contact with the hon.
member was on a moonlit night in the early
summer of 1943, when he persuaded me that
perhaps I might be able to make some con-
tribution to provincial affairs. So I look to
him as my political father. Through the years,
he has given me much sound advice, and he
has never hesitated to criticize— in what I call
a fatherly way— when he thought I was head-
ing in the wrong direction. I have always
appreciated the hon. member for Peel and to
me he is a true friend, "one who knows all
about you and likes you just the same."
There were several points in his address
which registered above others, with me, and
I want to mention some of them. I am sure
that they registered with other hon. members
of the House but I want to mention the ones
that particularly impressed me.
MARCH 12, 1958
765
First, he mentioned the importance of the
family and the Church, and the part they play
in strengthening the fibre of a nation and
holding a country together. That is a great
truth that we should keep in mind as legis-
lators, and we should do everything within
our power to promote the interest of these
two great institutions.
He recited a poem. I do not know who
the author was but it went like this:
I gave a beggar, from my little store
of wealth, some gold;
He spent the shining ore, and came again,
and yet again,
Still cold and hungry as before.
I gave a thought, and through that
thought of mine,
He found himself— the man supreme,
divine-
Fed, clothed and crowned with blessing
manifold,
And now he begs no more.
This poem should remind us that, as legis-
lators, we are not always building strong men
and women when we give something for
nothing. Sometimes it is better to give a
thought or create a condition where man can
find himself and develop as God intended
him to develop.
Another point that impressed me, as I
listened to the hon. member, was the number
of changes that had taken place in his life-
time.
He told us how in his early days he went
to bed by candlelight because people were
afraid the oil lamps might blow up. Now we
have passed through both of those stages and
are living in the age of the electric light.
He mentioned the fact that not too long
ago, when we wanted a hard surface on our
road, we waited for the sun to dry up the
mud puddles and bring to us that hard
surface. In the intervening years, we went
through the period of cedar block pavement,
brick pavement, and now concrete and
asphalt.
He talked about the days when we farmed
with horse power, and I can remember that
day myself, but now with the internal com-
bustion engine we have moved into the power
farming age. He mentioned the days when,
in the winter months, we cut the wood for
our year's fuel supply, then we had coal,
and now oil and gas.
The thought that impressed me was that
all of these changes have taken place in the
memory of an hon. member who sits in this
House. I could not help but think that we
are living in an age of rapid change, we
cannot and should not try to check progress.
Another point that should register with
every hon. member of this House was the
statement that 80 per cent, of our farmers
grow only 20 per cent, of our food. This
means that 20 per cent, are producing 80
per cent of our food. These figures should
give every one of us cause to ponder care-
fully the problems that confront agriculture
today.
No government in Ontario has done more
for agriculture than the present government.
I could mention rural electrification, junior
farmer loans, improved roads, and highways
open 12 months in the year, and expanding
economy creating a great consuming market
for our production. I could mention the
change in our educational programme, making
it possible for our rural children to receive
advanced education. Ontario is blazing the
trail for the rest of Canada in farm marketing
legislation.
In the light of what the hon. member for
Peel said, that 20 per cent, of our farmers
produce 80 per cent, of our food, I would
suggest that we should keep an eye on com-
pulsory schemes, lest we create a situation
where the efficient farmer is forced to give
up an efficient operation because the less
efficient farmer, through compulsory schemes,
is able to force everyone to operate ineffici-
ently, because they may have the voting power
to force their ideas on everyone.
As I listened to the address of the hon.
member for Peel, as he reminded us of the
developments that have taken place in his life,
I wondered if this province would have
developed as it has if everyone had been
forced to do things the way the majority
wanted them done.
If the individual had been compelled to
conform to the wishes of the majority, is it not
possible that we might still be using candles
or oil lamps instead of electric lights, burn-
ing wood instead of gas and oil, waiting for
the sun to dry up our roads instead of driving
on pavement, farming with horses instead of
power?
Mr. Speaker, I bring these thoughts to the
hon. members of this House lest, in our
desire to help agriculture, we lose sight of
the fact that most of our forward steps have
come from individuals who moved ahead of
the mass, and blazed the trails that led to
progress.
I suggest that we must never lose sight of
the fact that the strength of the British tradi-
766
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion has been the religious and civil freedom
of the individual. These are and have been
great principles, they are principles that
should never be forgotten, and in my opinion
should never be scrapped.
The hon. Prime Minister did a great service
to the hon. members of this House when he
asked the hon. member for Peel to lead off
in this debate. I cannot think of another hon.
member who could have delivered the address
that he delivered, because he has a wealth
of experience from which to draw his
thoughts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something
about the riding I represent, about its people,
its problems and the effect that the govern-
ment policy is having in general.
For the benefit of new hon. members, let
me say that Wellington-Dufferin is a typical
inland rural riding.
Within its boundaries lie two-thirds of
Wellington county and two-thirds of Dufferin
county, including 12 townships, 2 towns, 6
villages, and a number of police villages and
hamlets.
Wellington-Dufferin is situated in the high-
lands of southern Ontario, north of the exten-
sion of the Niagara escarpment. Mainly, the
area consists of well drained farmland; the
beautiful, rolling countryside is criss-crossed
by many streams of clear fresh water. In fact,
in my riding are the headwaters of some of
the main rivers in southern Ontario.
Wellington-Dufferin has more than just
clear water. Some of our municipalities have
a natural supply of fluorine in their drinking
water; these include towns like Mount Forest,
Harriston, Clifford and Arthur. But there is
no compulsion in the riding that I represent.
A person can take his choice; he can live in
a municipality that has fluorine in the water,
or he can live in a municipality that has just
pure water.
The air that flows over our hills is fresh
and pure, we do not have the problems with
air pollution which we hear about around the
great cities. I would suggest to the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips) that, when he
is looking for a site on which to establish a
provincial institution, he keep in mind this
area of pure air, fresh water and beautiful,
rolling countryside.
The people of my riding are industrious,
peaceful, law-abiding and God-fearing. They
draw their blood lines from many racial
origins. They worship in the church of their
choice, but they live together as good neigh-
bours, ready with a helping hand when help
is needed.
There are many points of interest in the
area, in addition to what I have described.
The tourist will find much beautiful scenery
as he travels through the rolling countryside.
North of Shelburne, in the vicinity of Dun-
dalk, he reaches the height of land in south-
ern Ontario. Along the Grand River and
its tributaries, he will find the 3 flood control
dams erected by the Grand River conserva-
tion commission. The first dam— and I believe
this is the first major flood control dam in
the province — was built at Belwood, the
second is north of Grand Valley at the Luther
Marsh and the latest— and this is a $5 million
plus contract— is at Glen Allan, just west of
the village of Drayton.
I might say to the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) that there
is a logical site for a provincial park at
Rockwood. This is on the Eramosa River,
which flows into the Speed and from there
into the Grand River. In this area there is
a beautiful stream and many natural rock
formations that could be developed into
one of Ontario's finest parks, within 45 or
50 miles of metropolitan areas of the prov-
ince, taking in Toronto and Hamilton and
communities up the Grand River Valley. I
think well over a third of the population of
Ontario would be within an hour's drive of
this potential park site.
I would like to suggest that The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests have a look at
this area, and see to it that it is preserved
for the people of Ontario, lest some other
form of development takes place and it is
lost.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the people of
Wellington-Dufferin would want me to thank
the government for the many steps that have
been taken to improve living conditions. In
the rural areas, indeed in every part of the
province, if we make an honest appraisal
I am sure it is not hard to understand why
the government party, headed by our hon.
Prime Minister, is recognized as the people's
party and the people's government.
The list of benefits to the people is so long
that I will not go through it, lest all hon.
members of this House join in support of the
government and we lose our two-party system.
To save hon. Opposition members from too
much embarassment, I will mention only a
few of the benefits, and I will make a few
suggestions that might be considered by
various departments of government.
I would say The Department of Health has
done a tremendous job for the people, and
as I drive through my riding and indeed
through Ontario, and look at the great addi-
MARCH 12, 1958
767
tions to our hospitals, I realize that this
building programme has been made possible
because we have a government in Ontario that
has been, and will be, very generous in its
capital assistance.
I do not think I need to remind hon.
members of this House regarding the assist-
ance the department has given to our county
health units. But I do think the hon. members
of this House will be interested in one of the
achievements of the Wellington county health
unit. This unit operates under the direction
of Dr. B. T. Dale, a man who has made a
great contribution.
I want to mention the fact that, for nearly
two years since the coming of Salk vaccine,
there has not been a single case of polio in
the whole county, and I believe Dr. Dale
administered the vaccine to the various
children.
I know the people I represent would want
me to thank the hon. Prime Minister and his
government for the leadership given in bring-
ing about a government hospital plan. This
will mean a lot to our people. They want me
to express their thanks for the provincial
leadership in the drive, along with the co-
operation we have received from the new
government at Ottawa under Rt. hon. John
Diefenbaker. By working together, in a few
months we have accomplished much more
than— well we have accomplished much-
while other people had merely talked for
years, yet brought nothing to fulfilment.
I hope that in carrying out this hospital
plan, the hospital commission recognizes the
great assistance that they can secure in the
rural areas by co-operating with the rural
co-operative medical groups. These organiza-
tions have rendered a great service in rural
Ontario in the past, and I believe that they
could do a selling job for the commission in
the future as they carry on their programme
of co-operative medical service.
I hope the commission recognizes that, and
makes use of this great organization.
In the field of education, I would like to
remind the House that industrial expansion is
taking place all around Wellington-Dufferin
and this has created many problems for our
school boards.
We have many people, working in indus-
tries, who live in the healthy surroundings of
our country, towns, villages and townships.
Yet the industries are located in other muni-
cipalities. This expanding population of com-
muters creates the need for additional school
services, but the assessment on their places
of business, as I said before, is in another
municipality.
I am aware that this government has in-
creased school grants 12-fold since 1945. No
government in the history of this province has
done as much to help our school boards as
the present government has. We are pleased
to know that even greater assistance is com-
ing this year, which will help to solve the
problem that confronts a municipal taxpayer,
particularly in the areas where there is little
industrial assessment.
I want to congratulate The Department of
Education and the government for introducing
student loan funds. These funds will assist
those who want to go on and take higher
education in our universities. This is some-
thing that will have general approval, I am
sure.
I know that some people may feel that no
interest should be charged for these loans, but
I personally feel that there is nothing wrong
with the principle of charging the same inter-
est rates that we charge on our junior farmer
loans. I do not see how a government could
justify charging interest to our young farmers
while loaning money interest-free to future
doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Although all
these professions and callings are important
to our economy, and in my opinion everyone
should receive the same treatment from the
government.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say some-
thing with regard to public welfare.
I am sure that everyone is pleased that this
government, in co-operation with the Diefen-
baker government, has done so much to help
our citizens who are in receipt of welfare
assistance.
They have not only made life more pleas-
ant for many of our citizens by increased
and realistic pensions, but they have also
cut in half the municipal taxpayers' share
of relief costs.
I want to suggest again to the department
that they try to work out some type of pen-
sion for widows who have held families
together, then in later years have found it
hard to go back into business, and are unable
to qualify for old age or disability pensions.
That goes back to what the hon. member
for Peel said about the part the family plays
in strengthening the fibre of a nation. Some
of these widows held their small families
together, and in my opinion made a great
contribution to our nation, and I think that,
perhaps working in co-operation with the
federal government, some system— perhaps
by a means test — could be worked out
whereby widows who need help could receive
it. After all, they have made a great con-
tribution to the nation.
768
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now I want to say a few words about
highways. First, let me thank the hon. Min-
ister of Highways (Mr. Allan) for the im-
provements his department is making to the
existing highways in Wellington-Dufferin, in-
deed throughout all Ontario. I would com-
mend him, and also the hon. Attorney-Gen-
eral (Mr. Roberts), for their efforts to cut
down accidents through better engineering,
driver examinations, and law enforcement.
I would like to draw to the attention of
hon. members some statistics regarding motor
accidents. Contrary to what some people
suggest— that trucks are the major cause of
accidents— most of the accidents in Ontario
occur on the days when the trucks are off
the roads. Perhaps the trucks act as a
governor with regard to speed. I want to
quote some statistics for 1956.
We find that 15 per cent, of the accidents
occur on Monday, 11 per cent, on Tuesday,
11 per cent, on Wednesday, 12 per cent,
on Thursday, and 15 per cent, on Friday.
These are the 5 days of the week that the
trucks are most active on the highways. In
other words, on those 5 days, the average
percentage of accidents per day amounts to
12.25.
On Saturdays, the inter-urban trucks to
a large degree leave the highways, and on
Sundays practically all trucks are off the
highways. We find that, on Saturday, the
accident rate goes up to 22 per cent, of the
total, and on Sundays to 16 per cent. In
other words, 38 per cent, of all accidents
occur on the two days when most of the
trucks are off the highway, or an average of
19 per cent, per day. That percentage is cut
down to 12.2 on the days when we have our
trucks operating at capacity.
I might point out that, in 1956, passenger
cars were involved in 9.2 per cent, of the
reported accidents for every million miles
travelled, and at the same time commercial
vehicles were involved in only 5.3 per cent,
of the reported accidents for every million
miles travelled.
I would remind hon. members that, among
the commercial vehicles are the group that
is forced to file proof of financial respon-
sibility: the PCV and PV operators. These
figures would indicate that filing proof must
have some favourable effect on the accident
rate. I am pleased to know that we are
moving in the direction of developing in the
minds of people some sense of financial
responsibility.
I am pleased to know that the department
is presently engaged in further studies along
this line, and is strengthening our unsatisfied
judgment fund, and through that fund per-
haps we are making our motorists respon-
sibility conscious.
Now, I would like to draw to the atten-
tion of the hon. Minister of Highways the
problem that confronts Wellington and Duf-
ferin counties. This problem has developed
from a fact that there is a great need for
additional high standard roads to take care
of increased provincial traffic— both passenger
vehicles and heavy trucks— in the southern
part of the country, particularly in the area
between highways Nos. 7 and 9, and between
highways Nos. 6 and 10. This area is approxi-
mately 30 miles from east to west, and 30
miles from south to north. In this particular
area we have many commuters driving to
and from work to industry in the surround-
ing municipalities.
We have heavy transport vehicles using
county roads, and there are no other roads
for them to use, there are no north-south
highways between highways No. 6 and 10, a
distance of nearly 30 miles.
Now, this whole situation has been and
will be greatly aggravated by the discovery
of a huge deposit of sand and gravel situated
25 or 30 miles north of Lake Ontario. Driving
down a week ago Monday from Caledon to
Brampton on highway No. 10, a distance of
14 miles — I covered the distance in 20
minutes, so hon. members will know I was
under the speed limit— I met or passed 28
gravel trucks, and this is the off season.
This material, as we know, is moved in
large heavy trucks. The deposit I have men-
tioned extends, we know, from highway No.
10 at Caledon to an area north of Acton.
Already 9 companies are operating, or are
preparing to operate, in this area.
I have discussed this problem with a British
firm that has purchased about 900 acres
adjacent to the village of Erin, and they tell
me that they estimate, on the basis of tests,
that they have 75,000 tons of gravel and sand
per acre— in other words some 67.5 million
tons. Now, hon. members can imagine what
such heavy loads will do to our county roads
unless we have a higher standard of roads in
the area. And that is just one firm; there are
9 firms in the area.
Now, we all know that the greatest develop-
ment I suppose in North America is taking
place in the area north of Lake Ontario, par-
ticularly between Toronto and Hamilton. I
have listened in this House to hon. members
talk about the golden horseshoe, and about
Canada's industrial basin on the north shore
of Lake Ontario. I have heard hon. members
talk about the great developments that will
MARCH 12, 1958
769
follow the completion of the St. Lawrence
seaway.
Now, we find this huge deposit of natural
building material right in the centre of this
future development. Providence has been kind.
I suggest that we should co-operate by build-
ing roads which will make possible the
delivery of this material in economical loads
by direct routes.
I have heard hon. members talk about
cheaper homes and cheaper buildings. I won-
der if they realize what it will mean if we
have to divert these trucks onto the existing
highways.
For instance, if one wanted to take a load
of gravel, say, from the village of Erin down
to Oakville, he would have to go back about
8 miles to highway No. 10, then come back
into Oakville, an extra distance of 15 miles,
to stay off our county roads and use the high
standard highways.
I have checked with a number of firms to
find out what this extra 15 miles would mean,
and I am told that for every mile travelled
over 20 miles, the trucking industry charges
approximately 4 cents per ton a mile— or in
other words, if a driver goes 15 miles out of
his way, the cost of sand and gravel is in-
creased by 60 cents a ton, or 90 cents a yard,
when it is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
Translating that into the terms of the
deposit I mentioned, held by this one British
firm, we find that the lack of proper roads
could cost the ultimate user an extra $40
million. Then let us remember that there
are 8 other firms already established in
the area.
I would suggest that the cost of building
just a few miles of high standard roads in
a north-south direction would be a good
investment for the people of Ontario.
I do not think that we should expect the
home builders in the surrounding area to
pay the extra cost that will be necessary if
we are going to keep off the county roads,
and use the high standard highways. We
have the people who are building homes,
schools, churches, hospitals, business estab-
lishments, industrial plants, roads, streets
and highways. I think that we could render
a great assistance to these people, and take
some of the burden of taxation off the people
I represent, by having developed in that area
the needed north-south high standard roads.
I would suggest to the department that
they should give careful consideration to the
suggestions of Wellington and Dufferin
counties when they request the department to
do something about building the road from
Oakville north into that area, extending No.
25 highway north, and building the road
between Orangeville and Fergus, because the
industrial development has reached that far
north. By so doing, for a fraction of what
would be involved in transporting this neces-
sary building material around by the exist-
ing routes, we could provide a great service
to the people in that area where we know
the greatest development in North America
is taking place, and where Divine Providence
has seen to it that we have the necessary
building material right in the heart of the
developing area.
I would suggest that it is not altogether
fair to ask the taxpayers of Wellington and
of Dufferin to build the necessary roads when
the major benefit will be received by other
people in other municipalities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out
that I am not trying to establish a new
principle. When they found iron ore at
Steep Rock Lake, the province of Ontario
did not ask the people of Atikokan to build
the highway, the province built it.
When they found copper at Manitouwadge,
the local people did not build the road, the
province built it.
When they found uranium at Elliot Lake,
the local people did not build the road, the
province built it.
When they found gold at Red Lake, the
local people did not build the road, the
province built it.
That has been the principle carried out in
other instances, and I suggest, since we
found this huge deposit of natural building
materials in the centre of the greatest
development that is taking place in North
America, that if high standard roads are
needed the province should build them.
Now I want to say a few words about
agriculture. I have already said that no
government has done more for agriculture
than the government headed by the hon.
Prime Minister. I want to congratulate the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Good-
fellow) in the way he administers that
department.
A year ago, on March 20, I told the
House that the overall policies of this govern-
ment had attracted 1.5 million new people
into the province, and created a great con-
suming market at our door. This year, our
total population in Ontario has reached
5.75 million people. A year ago I said that in
spite of the best efforts of this government,
farm prices were still down and I asked why.
And to answer my own question, I quoted
770
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
federal government figures to show that the
government which was defeated on June 10
had been allowing the importation of farm
produce and depressing our prices.
I might read some of the figures that I
quoted a year ago. What sent me on this
investigation was a statement that appeared
in the Globe and Mail, reporting Mr. Harris'
presentation of the budget, when he said
that heavy imports, particularly from the
United States, help to restrain the rise in
Canadian prices by making more goods avail-
able. These heavy imports pushed Canada's
deficit in foreign trade of goods and services
to a record $1.4 billion, double that of 1955.
A year ago, I said that this was a statement
of policy by the hon. Minister of Finance,
that there had been a deliberate policy of
allowing goods in this country to restrain the
rise in the price of Canadian goods.
I mentioned some of the things that were
brought into the country, including $1,699
million worth of mutton, over $6 million worth
of potatoes, over $3 million worth of turkeys,
over $3 million worth of other poultry, and so
it went all down the line, eggs, cheese, the
things that our own farm people were
producing. They were producing these
things at low prices due to this policy that
was carried out by the government that
was defeated on June 10, that of bring-
ing in goods to keep the price down. I
was not in the least bit surprised on June 10
when the rural people from one end of Canada
to the other said "we have had enough." That
was the end of that government.
Now, Mr. "Speaker, may I state that, as
I listened to some of the people, who were
talking in this federal election, say that this
Diefenbaker government is fooling around
with trade and were going to get the people
into trouble, I began to get a little curious
and decided maybe I had better see just what
is happening. I did not know whether I could
make this speech or not, but I went over to
the Parliamentary library, and there I took a
look at what the market prices were for some
of our major farm produce a year ago, and
what and how our prices today compared with
that figure.
Those of us who farm remember 1951,
when we sold steers as high as $40 per 100
pounds and hogs about the same figure. We
remember how, for 4 or 5 years, the prices
went down and down, under this policy of
bringing in goods to restrict the advance in
farm prices. Last year, the price of choice
steers was down to about 20 cents a pound.
I went over to the library and I compared
the market quotations for the same day of
the same week, Tuesday, February 12, 1957,
and Tuesday, February 11, 1958. This is
from the Globe and Mail:
MARKET COMPARISONS
Tuesday, Feb. 12, 1957 Tuesday, Feb. 11, 1958
Generally strong tone in
trading
Ontario Stock Yards,
Toronto, Ontario
Trade was active on
Ontario Public
Stock Yards
STEERS
Choice $19
Good 18
Medium 14
Common 12
HEIFERS
Choice 17
Good 16
Medium 14
Common 12
Cwt. Cwt.
-20 $22 -23
-18.50 20.50-21.50
-16 18.50-20
-14 17 -18
20
-16.50 19 -20
-16 17 -18.50
-14 14.50-16.50
FED YEARLINGS
Choice 20 -21.50 22 -23
Good 19 -20 20 -22
Medium 16 —19
COWS
Good 11.50-12
Medium 10 -11
Common 9 —10
Canners and
cutters 7 — 9
15.50-16
14 -15
13 -14
10 -13
BULLS
Heavy
Bologna ...
.. 13
VEAL CALVES
Choice
Good
31
. 26
Common
12
HOGS
Grade A ...
Sows
. 34
. 25
Stags
15
-13.50 17.50-17.75
-29
LAMBS
Good 22.25-
Common 14
Sheep 3 - 9
36
29 -33
18 -24
30
23
15
24
- 9
BUTTER AND EGGS
Canada first grade 58c 62%-62%
Tender able butter 58c.
Country price
churning cream 60c.
EGGS-Delivered to Toronto
A. large 36 .
A. medium 34 .
A. small 32 .
B 31 .
C 26 .
62^-62%
64
36
34
29
29
25
-37
Cattle population in Canada on June 1, 1957:
11,245,000.
Average weight: approximately 1,000 lbs. at 3Vb
cents per lb.
Increased value: $374,795,850.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I read these
figures I could not help but think that if
that much has been accomplished by the
Diefenbaker government, in stabilizing trade
and establishing sound policies in 8 months,
MARCH 12, 1958
771
I am quite sure the farm people are going
to give them 4 or 5 years to do a real good
job.
I have always said that when agriculture
is on a sound basis the country is on a sound
basis. I am sure that everyone in this country
appreciates the farm stabilization policies that
are being carried out in Ottawa today, and
with this change of trade policy, putting a little
bit of restriction on this dumping of goods
into this country to keep the prices down, we
have this country well on the way back to
a sound stable economy, and I am sure that
on March 31, we will see the people of
Canada recognizing what has been done.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could have taken the
following week and told hon. members that,
on that week, the price of cattle moved up
another $1 per 100 pounds, and that, put
another $110 million in the farmers' pockets,
but I just made a comparison the same day
of the same week under two different types of
policies. I did this because I hope the hon.
members of this House will realize that times
have changed. I know that the farm people
realize the former steady decline in farm
prices has started to move in the other direc-
tion—up, up.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my
remarks because I see that it is nearly 6
o'clock. I want to commend the hon. Prime
Minister for his long and patient efforts as
he fought the battle for the municipalities and
provinces, trying to secure a fair share of the
tax dollars from the federal government.
For years, until June 10, it looked as though
we were up against a stone wall, but the wall
tumbled, and now things are different. We
have a government in Ottawa that realizes the
justice of the stand that was taken by our
hon. Prime Minister, and we have our interim
grant of some extra 3 per cent, of the income
tax— $22 million. What did we do with it?
We put it right into education, and added
another $11 million to it, and I am sure that
the people of Ontario will see to it that that
stone wall that was there before June 10 is
not built back. I am sure that they are going
to see to it that we have a government in
Ottawa that we can go back to, after March
31, and complete the agreement to put us in a
position to do an even better job for our
municipal taxpayers.
I would say to the hon. Prime Minister
that, through his stand, he has won us many
concessions, and I am sure that the people
of Ontario will not forget the battle he has
waged on their behalf.
Before taking my seat, I want to say that
it is a privilege to speak to this House, repre-
senting as I do one of the finest— I will say
the finest— rural riding in the province, sup-
porting this progressive people's government
and the greatest hon. Prime Minister that
Ontario has ever had.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr. Speaker,
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 32
ONTARIO
Legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 12, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 12, 1958
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Dunlop 775
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 806
775
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, March 12, 1958
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
Hon. J. N. Allan moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
On vote 401:
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, I freely confess to you that I
am a great admirer of the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Oliver). His fiery eloquence
fascinates me as I sit here day after day,
and sometimes I imagine that he has really
almost convinced himself that the stern warn-
ings that he directs to me are necessary.
This year, he has warned me that I should
very soon, if not immediately, dispense with
my emergency courses on the elementary
level. May I say that a condition, which he
calls a crisis, I think, a condition that has
grown up for more than 20 years can scarcely
be cured under 10 years anywhere.
We began these courses in 1952, and we
shall have to carry them on, I think, because
we have the few to teach the many. We
shall have to carry them on until 1962. That
will not be so very long and they are working
out very well.
Now let me tell hon. members a little
incident. At the Canadian conference on
education in Ottawa, there were a number of
so-called workshops. I do not like the name,
but that is what they call them. In this par-
ticular workshop, there was a representative
from each of the 10 provinces, and there
were one or two others, from where I do not
know.
They began talking about my emergency
courses and were all against them. Then,
one bright mind, perhaps a psychologist, said:
"Let us discuss this from another angle. Let
us discuss this phase of it. What would each
one of us have done if we were in the posi-
tion in which the hon. Minister found him-
self in 1952?"
They discussed it from that angle for quite
a while, and then they came to the con-
clusion that each one of them, in that group,
would have done exactly what I have done
to solve the situation.
I might say also, regarding the emergency
courses at the secondary level, that one or
two very prominent educationists, who
opposed me publicly regarding those emer-
gency courses, have come in with delegations
to tell me that it was the only practical way
to solve that particular situation.
Then, of course, there is the hon. member
for Waterloo North (Mr. Wintermeyer) who
talked about letters of permission and letters
of standing and got them all mixed up. He
was forgetting that, of those letters of per-
mission and letters of standing, 343 were
issued to teachers, who came to us from other
provinces, or from other countries. There
were 343 of them— more than one-third of
them— for that purpose.
Those teachers, coming to us from other
provinces and other countries, have been well
prepared in their own places and have come
here because they like conditions better.
So letters of permission and letters of
standing are not any great evil. They are a
great solution, and they give an opportunity
to well-prepared teachers who come to us
and who are entitled to that particular privi-
lege.
Then, of course, my genial hon. friend
from Lambton East (Mr. Janes) nearly made
me weep when he read about the terrible
conditions in those rural schools.
Mr. Whicher: Kent East, he means.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I hate
to see Tories make the Tories weep.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I mean Kent East (Mr.
Spence). Yes. That was a slip of the tongue.
He made a good speech, but he had not
discovered— of course, he did not have an
opportunity to discover— that there are a good
many new and higher grants for these same
rural schools.
Then, the hon. member for York South
was not kind to me at all. I got up and
wanted to ask him a question, and with
that long index finger, he slapped me down.
I think he said something to this effect
anyway: "I will get you when your estimates
come up." And here came the long finger.
776
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Anyway, he would not let me ask a ques-
tion, but I am not going to do that. If he
wants to ask questions, I am perfectly willing
to let him do it. I am going to return good
for evil in this case.
Mr. MacDonald: I must have been a little
weary. That was about the twelfth question.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Sometimes, as I sit here
and that long index finger is directed to this
part of the House-
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): It might be loaded.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: —it seems to me to have
become about a foot long sometimes, and,
oh my, I shudder and I think: "Well now,
how I wish that I could be as sure of any-
thing as he is of everything."
I wanted to ask him a question about grade
13 pupils when he was quoting figures, which
were correct enough if one explained them, but
were not correct if one did not explain them.
He stated that there were 13,217 grade 13
pupils in all Canada. That was right, was it
not? But Alberta does not have any. Sas-
katchewan does not have any. Manitoba does
not have any. Nova Scotia does not have any.
They do not have grade 13 in those provinces
and, for many, many years, grade 13 was a
course only in Ontario and in British
Columbia.
Now British Columbia has 879 of them.
Ontario has 11,487, Quebec has only 704,
New Brunswick has 98, and Prince Edward
Island has 49.
I wanted to ask him a question to get him
straight on that, to show that Ontario's num-
ber of grade 13 pupils is very good.
I think I must digress for a moment, and if
anything in the little story which I am about
to tell should seem to fit any conditions here,
that will be purely coincidental.
Some hon. members will remember the
story which has no relevance at all to any-
thing here. It is the story of Don Quixote.
Don Quixote was a legendary figure in Old
Spain. In the morning, he was accustomed
to mount his trusty steed and gallop off in
all directions at once, knocking down non-
existent windmills and using his lance to
destroy them, but he never accomplished
anything. He got everywhere, was interested
in everything, but he never, never accom-
plished anything. Now as I said, that is
purely coincidental.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Purely
coincidental.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Now, regarding teachers'
supply which is talked of so much. So far, all
is well. I would like to explain this side of it.
A man or woman who graduates from the uni-
versity, after a 3-year course, and goes to the
college of education, gets, if successful, a type
B certificate. That means that he or she is
not a specialist. He is a good teacher, able
to teach a good many subjects, but he is not a
specialist in the educational meaning of the
term.
One who takes a 4-year course, an honour
course in the university, and goes to the
college of education, may be a specialist in
mathematics and physics, or in physics and
chemistry, perhaps in English and French,
or English and history. He or she gets a
type A certificate and is a specialist.
Now we do not have as many specialists
as we should have, and we have not had
for a good many years; that is, people who
have taken honour courses.
When I was in the University of Toronto,
I arranged, against a good deal of opposition,
summer courses (now somebody is going to
say that I am always addicted to summer
courses and so I am) by which people who
have type B certificates— that is, were not
honour graduates— could work along, taking
certain specified work, and become specialists
in the subjects of mathematics and physics,
or it could be English and history, or it
might be some other of those special com-
binations. I carried those courses on for a
good many years over there until I left, and
then they dropped off. But a year ago, having
assembled the heads of the universities of
the province, I appointed a committee with
dean Earl of Queen's as chairman and dean
Lewis of the college of education as vice-
chairman, to work out again that same plan,
to provide that we may be able to say to
people who are ambitious to improve their
qualifications: "Now, here is what you need
to do, if you want to be a specialist in Eng-
lish and history, here is what you need to
do if you want to be a specialist in mathe-
matics and physics," and so on.
That committee of deans of all the 7
universities met frequently and worked out
a better scheme still, a scheme by which a
person with type B can proceed to type A,
but it is a long road, and they arranged that
the person who gets half-way through can
then have a certificate endorsed, and he is
not a specialist but he is half-way to it, and
he can get a very much better position.
So most of those people (and Queen's
University was the pioneer in that, in pro-
viding those summer courses) who get that
far are almost certain, almost all of them, to
go on and become specialists.
MARCH 12, 1958
777
So gradually we are establishing a plan
by which we shall have more specialists than
we have had before.
Now then, the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion talked to me about curricula, and his
ideas and mine are exactly the same regard-
ing curricula. He was really encouraging me
to go ahead and do what I have been doing.
Let me tell the hon. members about the
curriculum. For the past 25 years the cur-
riculum was just not all that we would want
it to be. It takes some time to get it back,
and we are getting it back to fundamental
education, getting it back to stress the sub-
jects that are really essential, in order to
equip young people for the work they have
to do.
Now, to get that done, I have established
in The Department of Education two new
branches. One is a branch on curriculum,
with Colonel Watson as superintendent, and
there are 3 officials in that particular branch.
The duty of that branch is to revise con-
tinuously the curricula in the elementary and
the secondary field. That is a change that
has been necessary and will produce great
results in the reformation, shall I say, of the
curriculum.
For instance, we can offer to the schools
not only the old course that they have had
for 25 years in social studies but we will
say to them: "If you want that, carry it on
for a little while, but take rather if you will
history, geography and government instead,
and have some real work done in those stan-
dard subjects of history, geography and, as
we used to call it, civics." So that branch
in the department is a new departure.
I also established another one. People told
me, as my hon. friend from Kent East would
say, that there were some teachers in the
rural schools who needed assistance, who were
having difficulties. I heard that there were
some, too, in the secondary field who could
do with a little assistance. They would be
good teachers, but there was something more
that they needed in the way of experience.
So I established another branch in the depart-
ment and called that one the professional
development branch. I put, at the head of it,
Mr. C. B. Routley. There could not be a
better man for that type of work. I trusted
the secondary field to inspector, as he was
then, R. H. Wallace, also particularly well
qualified for that sort of thing, and these
men— there are two in the elementary field and
one in the secondary field— are going around
the province assisting principals, finding out
where help is needed, holding meetings (read-
ing councils, some of them are called). It
is not always the young teachers among whom
they find the difficulties; they find that some
of the older teachers also need assistance. So
there are those two new branches in the
department.
I do not need to tell hon. members very
much about the Ontario school for the blind
in Brantford. Good work is being done
there, as I think the hon. member for Brant-
ford (Mr. Gordon) will agree. There are
about 200 pupils there. They are happy
people, learning, studying, playing, and alto-
gether are making very fine progress.
At Belleville is the Ontario school for the
deaf with 400 hundred children, unfortun-
ately, 400 children. We cannot take them
at Belleville until they are almost 6 years
of age, and in most countries the condition
is that those young deaf children, unfortunate
as they are, should be taken into a residen-
tial school at about the age of 3 and given
the correct sort of treatment from there on.
And so, because— again I say unfortunately
—there are getting to be more and more deaf
children in the province, with the co-opera-
tive assistance of the hon. member for
Halton (Mr. Hall) and with the co-operation
of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Griesinger), I have been able
to obtain a site partly in the town of Milton,
and partly in the township of Trafalgar.
It is 97 acres in extent. I hope to persuade
the hon. Minister of Public Works, and I
do not think it will be difficult at all, to
erect a second school for the deaf. It will
be in the Hamilton area, and in the Toronto
area where the need is greatest. So that
is another development that is going to mean
a good deal for handicapped children.
Our teachers' college at London is almost
finished, our teachers' college at the Lake-
shore, out in New Toronto, is on its way,
and we are planning another teachers' col-
lege before too long at the Lakehead, and
then after that at Ottawa.
At the Lakehead we built— that is, The
Department of Public Works built— a beauti-
ful college to replace the old Lakehead
technical institute and that has been handed
over to a board of governors on which the
Minister of Education has 3 representatives.
It is on an ideal site. It began with 173
students, 50 of them part-time teachers, who
are working towards the B.A. degree, and
so the next step is to put a teachers' college
on an adjacent site, and to have everything
that that part of the province can possibly
desire in the way of education.
Then my friend the hon. member for
Brant (Mr. Nixon) has several times talked
778
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to me and talked here about the education
of our Indian children, and it is a matter
in which I am very much concerned too.
They use a big word, hon. members know-
integration— they talk about the integration
of Indian children with other children. But
it simply means this: How are we going
to get away altogether from discrimination?
How are we going to arrange to have our
Indian children just like other children in
the public schools and high schools?
So I have been giving a good deal of
thought to that and doing a good deal about
it, too. I went up to Moosonee and to Moose
Factory in September, just to see for myself
how two groups in the same school get
along, and I saw a huge school for Indian
children only and I saw a smaller school
in Moosonee for Indian children only. But
then I saw, in both places, schools in which
there are both Indian children and white
children (shall I say?) and they were get-
ting along perfectly.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Non-Indian.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Non-Indian? Is that
a better word?
Mr. Nixon: They like it better. Yes.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Well, I am going to use
that now. I thank the hon. member. Non-
Indian children. The Indian people I found
are very proud of the fact that they are
wards of the Dominion government to a
degree; they are very proud of it.
Mr. Nixon: I do not agree with the word
"ward", at all.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: What would the hon.
member say instead?
Mr. Nixon: There are no grounds for that
term at all, as far as the Indians are con-
cerned.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: He would not say "sub-
ject" would he? Well now, I want a word.
Mr. Nixon: The original citizens.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Original Canadians?
Well, anyway, I ran into a little difficulty in
that, up at Garden River somewhere near
Sault Ste. Marie, where they did not want
their children to go into a public school. But
I would like to read two reports that I have
here, one from my own department, from
y the superintendent of elementary education,
1 the other from Mr. Fortier in Ottawa, of the
' Indian affairs branch.
Now, this first letter is this:
Indian children are admitted to Ontario
secondary schools and the cost of their
tuition is paid by The Department of Citi-
zenship and Immigration. Under this
arrangement, more than 2,000 Indian
children are now attending secondary
schools in Ontario.
That, I think, is very, very fine and some-
thing of which we could all be proud.
Considerable progress has been made in
arranging for the admission of Indian
children to schools operated by public and
separate school boards on a cost basis.
Such arrangements are by agreement
between The Department of Citizenship
and Immigration and the school board con-
cerned, but this department co-operates
closely in bringing about such agreements.
Emo, Orillia, Sarnia, Ridgetown, Otona-
bee and Fort Frances are places where
considerable numbers of Indian children
are admitted to elementary schools.
In several places, The Department of
Citizenship and Immigration has paid for
the additional class rooms required.
Now, that is something that pleases me
very much, and I am sure that it pleases the
hon. member for Brant, too. It is estimated
that there are at present over 1,200 Indian
children attending public or separate schools
in Ontario, and that over 100 such schools
are in that situation.
Then, from the Indian affairs branch at
Ottawa, I have a report, and a very fine one,
giving me the number of Indian children in
public school and separate school in Fort
Frances; James Bay; Moose Factory Island;
Rice and Mud Lakes; Sault Ste. Marie;
Sarnia; Simcoe, 45; Walpole Island, 65;
Walpole Island public school, 135; Nipissing,
14, and so on. And then he says this:
For your information, I might say that
we have consistently explained to school
boards when dealing with them that the
Indian affairs branch has no desire to place
any extra burden upon the taxpayers of the
district. We always explain that the depart-
ment is willing to assume its fair share of
capital expenditure and tuition costs.
As well as this we might mention that, in
general, the branch pays transportation costs
for Indian students where this has been
found necessary.
MARCH 12, 1958
779
and then he goes on to say,
these Indian children have been accepted
without question throughout the province.
We have splendid co-operation from the
high school boards and so on, so I can say to
my hon. friend from Brant that the work is
going ahead, and will go ahead still further,
and that we will do everything that needs
to be done, everything that can be done,
for that so-called integration of Indian chil-
dren.
We have then another class of people to
deal with, and that is New Canadians who
come to us in such numbers. Our com-
munity programme branch has evening
classes in various parts of the province for
New Canadians. In these evening classes,
they are taught basic English and citizenship.
It is a 3-year course— 3 winters— they get a
diploma; they can present that diploma to
the judge who admits them to citizenship,
and it is accepted by him.
But then we go further than that; we have
summer courses for a good many of them,
right here close to us in the university.
Therefore we are attending, I think, to all
classes of citizens.
I had a conference not long ago with the
presidents and heads of all the universities in
Ontario, and we discussed present needs in
university education; we spoke of mathe-
matics, science and English, and there was
the greatest expression and the most cordial
co-operation about stressing the subjects
which this country needs in this new era into
which it is entering.
Then, here is one of the most important of
the developments; there are plenty of young
men and young women wishing to go to uni-
versity, and going to university; but then there
are others who want shorter courses, who want
different courses, who are— shall we say—
practical-minded people, perhaps people who
can do more with their hands than they can
with books. So we are establishing a second
stream— one for those who want to go to
university, who can profit by a university
education, who are of that particular type,
and then a second stream for the others.
There is a class of New Canadians in the
gallery tonight, I am told, and as I have
said, we are doing everything that we can
for them.
But the great pleasure of that particular
work— having 25,000 New Canadians in these
evening classes throughout the province— is
that they realize how important education is
and are taking full advantage of it.
We just cannot get any better students
than these New Canadians, who know that
they are going to need English, and they
want to work at it and learn it, and to learn
what citizenship means in this province.
I was talking about the two streams of
higher education. We have our 7 universities,
and we shall have more, I hope, before too
long.
Then we have the Ryerson Institute of
Technology. That institution, I have learned
so many times, has an international reputa-
tion. There is none superior to it; it is doing
just the great work that it was intended to
do. But it cannot do it all.
So we have now in Hamilton, the Hamil-
ton Institute of Technology now in its second
year and doing very well; there are some
115 students attending it.
We set up another one in Ottawa, the
Eastern Ontario Institute of Technology, and
it is carrying on with about the same enrol-
ment as Hamilton, and doing very well.
We have, of course, the one at the Lake-
head, which is still doing the work it used
to do and doing it well, in addition to its
other work. Then we are setting up one in
the city of Windsor, where we expect to
have a real enrolment and the very best of
good work.
One more point is the education of retarded
children. Mr. Chairman, here is another
branch of the work which is performing a
great function, and we are always sorry to
see that work grow, but we have more and
more retarded children who need our atten-
tion.
We do not do that work directly, we do
it this way:
Parents of these unfortunate handicapped
children form a council in a town or city.
They know the need, some of their own
children will be in the school which is to
be set up. They use perhaps a church base-
ment for a while; classes must be small;
they get good teachers, frequently retired
women teachers, and they do excellent work
so far as work can be done.
Then they want a new school before long,
a building, and we pay a capital grant for
that building. We pay $250 a year for
each retarded child in the school who attends
for half a day on the regular ADA system.
We pay $500 a year for a child over 12
who is strong enough to attend regularly
for a full day, and so by means of those
grants we meet 88 per cent, of the cost,
apart from transportation.
780
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We do not meet the transportation cost
—often service clubs do that— but our grants
pay 88 per cent, of the cost outside of
transportation.
Now I come to a point that was brought
up this afternoon. Should grants be paid
to school boards that close the schools for
one reason or another? If, in the case of an
epidemic, a medical officer of health closes
the school, then the grants are paid. No
question about it. That has been the custom
for many years.
But this year we had Asian flu, but the
medical officer of health did not close the
school very often. Whatever his reasons may
be, he did not close the school. Some teachers
were ill, substitute teachers had to be paid
to take their places.
Now, if we said in the case of flu: "We
will pay the grants just as if the children
were there," what are we going to do when
perhaps there is chicken pox for a few days,
mumps, measles, all that sort of thing? Are
we going to open the door wide and say:
"No matter what comes or goes, you will
get your grants whether the schools are closed
or not"?
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
could I ask a question? Is it not true that
the hon. Minister has already collected that
money? In his estimates tonight, he is ask-
ing for $133 million. Now, I suggest they
are going to be in the estimates, and the
money is in the Treasury whether the schools
are closed all next year. The money is still
there. Why not give it to them?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think it is not a
matter of money, it is the matter of a prin-
ciple. Now look, snow closing schools in a
city. How could that be possible within a
city— a good city, a big city? We get no com-
plaints from up north.
Mr. MacDonald: No, but we get 8 inches
of snow here and we are tied up solid; they
get a foot and a half up north and they can
contend with it.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Here now, let the
hon. member hold on. I will keep some
boys in after school if they do not keep quiet.
Here is one case: here is a high school
where the children are brought in by buses,
and some of the buses get in and the boys
and girls in the town get in, and the teachers
get in, but suppose all the buses do not get
in, so we close the school for two days. Now,
are we going to encourage that sort of thing?
Why could they not go on with the school if
half the children were there, and nearly all
the teachers were there, why not go ahead
and perhaps review something for those
children who managed to get there? I think
we open the door pretty wide.
Mr. Whicher: I am just a pupil.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think probably we have
discussed the student aid loan fund sufficient-
ly, and, of course, we have training camps
where we train young people to carry on as
counsellors in non-profit camps. So, Mr.
Chairman, I have tried to explain to this
somewhat refractory class a little of what
we are trying to do in The Department of
Education.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to comment very much at all about
this subject, but I might say in starting that
I do not think there is any hon. member sit-
ting on the government side of the House
we respect more as a gentleman and a fine
chap than the hon Minister of Education.
I might say that there are others there
whom we respect as men, too, but with whose
ideas we do not necessarily agree. And I
respectfully point this out, that where there
is smoke there is bound to be a lot of fire.
Most certainly, in the newspapers and
criticism of the teachers' associations across
the province of Ontario, there has been a
great deal of smoke in the past few years.
So I suggest that if that smoke has been
there, all is perhaps not as smooth as the
hon. Minister of Education would lead us to
believe in the field of education in this
province.
I am sure that all of us who are in this
House tonight appreciate the fact that the
teaching of our sons and daughters is perhaps
one of the most important things that we
have to do in this life of ours. Most assuredly
it is important when we are teaching doctors,
lawyers, engineers or whatever profession it
may be, and I point this out, that surely it
is most important that if we are going to
properly train a lawyer— who may or may not
have to defend us as we go on in life— then
most assuredly is it important that we train
those people who are going to teach our own
sons and daughters.
I say to the hon. Minister, most respectfully,
that such has not been the case in the prov-
ince of Ontario for quite some time. No
matter what he says, in his speeches here or
to educational groups throughout the prov-
ince, the fact still remains that there are
many teachers, who are standing in front of
classrooms in this province, who are not
properly qualified to teach our children.
MARCH 12, 1958
781
While this has been mentioned many,
many times, in this House during the past
two or three years— about the fall-out and
the number of people who are improperly
trained— nevertheless it is my duty tonight to
remind the hon. Minister once more to try
to take stock in his house to make sure that
more people, properly qualified, come before
the classrooms of the schools of this province.
Now surely it is not right, when we con-
sider a professional man like a lawyer, who
has to have 4 or 5 years' training, for a pro-
fessional man like a school teacher to be
able to step out of high school and take 6
weeks' training, and in a professional capacity
as a teacher, go and teach the students in
any particular school, wherever it might be.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Does the hon. member
know that in England men and women step
out of university without any professional
training at all and go and teach? They may
take professional training if they wish, but it
is not required. A university graduate steps
out and teaches.
Now many people like the hon. member
for Bruce have criticized my plans for pro-
ducing teachers. Not one person— young, old
or middle-aged— no one in education, has
ever suggested any other way to solve the
problem. Now would the hon. member sug-
gest another way?
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope
to be able to suggest a way, but I respect-
fully point out to the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion that he just told the House that in
England they step out from university with-
out any training at all, and perhaps teach in
elementary schools.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Oh, no, high school.
Mr. Whicher: Well, the hon. Minister said
university.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: May I say this: they
step out of university with a B.A. degree and
go and teach in high schools.
Mr. Oliver: That is quite a difference-
Mr. Whicher: That may be true as far as—
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I have
just come from a little gathering at Devon-
shire House. Believe it or not, I was a resi-
dent, at one time, in North House in the
university, and they asked me back there
tonight. I had a very interesting time.
Apropos of what my hon. friend says, I
was talking with a large group of these young
people, students in engineering and science
and so on, and they asked me that very ques-
tion. They said: "We would be very glad to
teach, the only thing is that we have to
spend a very considerable time in the Ontario
College of Education," and they asked why
it was they could not go and teach as they
do in other countries. Now I think that is an
interesting point.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would ask
the hon. Prime Minister, who seems to have
come to the assistance of the hon. Minister
of Education— that I do not want them to
"gang up" on the "boys" over here. I would
say to the hon. Prime Minister that he should
have told them to simply get a letter of per-
mission, and then they would not have to
take the training, because there were 1,003
people in the province of Ontario who went
out with no training whatsoever. So the
hon. Prime Minister is entirely wrong, all
he should have told those people at the
Devonshire House tonight was this, that they
did not have to take any training, that all
they required was a letter of permission
from the hon. Minister of Education.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will send them word
at once.
Mr. Whicher: That is what the hon. Prime
Minister has been doing for a long time
and he slipped up on that one.
Mr. D. M. Kerr (Dovercourt): The hon.
member for Bruce has lost his place.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member for Dover-
court never had a place.
I was listening very attentively to the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)
this afternoon, when he was suggesting to
the hon. Prime Minister that he could pick
a new Provincial Treasurer, and there is no
one I would rather suggest than the hon.
member for Dovercourt (Mr. Kerr), because
he seems to speak up at every opportunity.
I am sure he would love to get a chance
at the budget.
Mr. Kerr: The hon. member made the
statement that there were so many teachers
working on letters of permission. Is he aware
of the fact that they have to have a certain
qualification before such a permission is
granted?
Mr. MacDonald: Some of them have failed
in college.
Mr. Kerr: One does not fail the course and
get a letter of permission. He can fail certain
subjects.
Mr. MacDonald: Some of them failed in
teachers' college, and that is why they got
the letter of permission.
782
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Kerr: They can fail certain subjects.
Mr. MacDonald: No, they fail the course.
Mr. Kerr: They are not failing a course.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member does not
know what he is talking about.
Mr. Kerr: I know what I am talking about.
The hon. member for York South does not
know.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I am sure
that the hon. member for Dovercourt by
his latest speech has shown that he is well
qualified for his position, and I will recom-
mend him—
An hon. member: The shortest provincial
treasuryship in history.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I will tell the hon.
member for Dovercourt, if he would just
listen he would get further ahead. Now I
really do not like to carry on and point out
to the hon. Minister of Education, because of
the interruptions here, the fall-out in the
teaching profession that has taken place dur-
ing the last few years, as it has been men-
tioned many times here, but for the purpose
of record I must tell him once again tonight.
In 1952-1953, there were 494 in the sum-
mer course, and there were 119 who dropped
out in the next year. I will skip some of
these. In 1956-1957, there were 976 who
entered that course and this year 216 of that
number dropped out.
Now, I suggest to the hon. Minister that,
in spite of the fact that he is telling us
everything is fine, in instances such as this
there is some trouble somewhere, and it
should be looked into.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I will tell the hon.
member, if we get the opportunity. It will
not take us long. We will not ignore it as this
government has done for the past 10 years.
It will even make the hon. member's hair
curl.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
He will be the next Minister of Education,
50 years from now.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Provincial Sec-
retary will not have to worry about it, any-
way. I hope you will bring these people to
order, Mr. Chairman. It is all right behind
me, I do not mind them. It is these people
over on the other side who bother me quite
a lot.
I might say there is no bother over here
to my left, anyway, in case the hon. member
thinks otherwise.
Now, I just wish to remind the hon. Minis-
ter that in 1957-1958, there were 3,648 peo-
ple at teachers' college and included in that
number were 1,814 in emergency courses.
Now, time after time— and I am trying to be
fair in this— the hon. Minister has said this is
an emergency situation. I suggest to him that
it is really some emergency, when out of that
number of people he has 1,814 taking emer-
gency courses.
According to his own report, we are now
training about one-third or more of our
elementary school teachers each year on this
emergency summer school course. In my
notes here— with an exclamation mark after
it— I have, "Some emergency!"
I think the hon. Minister will agree that
the time is long past when one can say that
this is an emergency. Under his Ministry,
it has become an established fact that ap-
proximately 25 per cent, of the teachers
who go out in front of our sons and daugh-
ters are not properly trained, and if it is
an emergency. I suggest he do something
about it, that he get people who are properly
qualified to teach our boys and girls in these
schools.
Mr. Wardrope: The teachers will love the
hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: I hope they love me more
than the hon. member does, that is all. Now
in this withdrawal, the normal withdrawal
of school teachers— for, of course, teachers
retire when they reach the age of retirement,
a certain number of them certainly get mar-
ried, and we lose some through death— there
is a much larger percentage of those who
withdraw from rural schools than from urban
centres, and, coming from a rural area, I am
very interested in this fact, and I think that
something should be done to correct this.
In his own booklet which he issued, in
table 17, it shows that the rate of with-
drawal from the elementary school system
in 1956-1957 was greatest in centres under
1,000 population, and next in centres under
2,500. Of these 3,759 teachers in centres
from 1,000 to 2,500 population, 623-or 16.6
per cent.— left the system, and of the 1,751
teachers in centres of less than 1,000 popu-
lation, 374— or 21.45 per cent— left the school.
This is definite evidence of a rapid retreat
from the rural and semi-rural areas.
I ask the hon. Minister, why is this so?
Why this flight? And I humbly suggest that
salaries, of course, are the main reason.
MARCH 12, 1958
783
For example, in cities, the average male
salary was $5,237 last year, and in rural
areas it was $3,428, or a difference of $1,809.
Now, surely a teacher who has the same
qualifications whether he is in a town, or
a city or a rural area, should get approxi-
mately the same salary. I suggest to the
hon. Minister that the reason they do not
get salaries anywhere comparable in rural
areas, with those of city or town areas,
is the fact that the rural areas simply can-
not afford it, and therefore, I hope that
under this new grant system— I am very
doubtful of it though, because I have been
over this table that the hon. Minister has
given us— the rural areas will be able to
afford salaries in comparison to the city areas.
But nevertheless, I am willing to take a
chance and certainly give this equalized
assessment, drawn up by The Department
of Municipal Affairs, a chance to see how
it works out.
Now, most of the criticism that has been
given regarding the school system in Ontario
has been concerning the elementary schools.
It is a fact, too, that there are also high
school teachers, or secondary school teachers,
standing in front of classes, who are really
not properly trained. For example, I say
that it is quite possible— the hon. Minister
says that one may step out of university in
England and go right into a school and teach.
But in the province of Ontario, for one to take
a 10-week course at the Ontario College of
Education and go out and teach too.
Now, if this is the proper thing to do,
why by all means go ahead and do it, but
it seems that a lot of the teachers do not
agree that this is the right thing to do, and
they think that a complete one-year teaching
course at the Ontario college of education
should be required. Either one thing is right
or the other is right, and I suggest that one
be discarded in favour of the other.
In the year 1956-1957, there were 407
teachers who were taking the course, and the
following year there was a drop-out of 47 of
the teachers. There must be some reason for
this and, inasmuch as we need the teachers,
I think that the matter should be thoroughly
investigated to see if something can be
done to see that these people who start out
in the teaching profession carry on, and come
properly trained before the students and
teachers of tomorrow.
Now I would say to the hon. Minister, it is
not my intention to take any great time. I
might close by simply saying this. I would
like to ask what the government's policy con-
cerning university education is, particularly
insofar as its responsibility is concerned in
regard to the capital cost of expansion.
It seems that, in every budget, we have
supplementary estimates that give $1 million
to this college and $1 million to another
college. But it is equally true that we do not
know what the supplementary estimate is
going to be for next year, and I would like
to know what this government's plans are
for capital expansion in universities for next
year. I would like to know how much student
aid it is going to give? How many bursaries
is it going to hand out? And so forth. I would
like to know what percentage of maintenance
cost it is going to handle insofar as univer-
sities are concerned?
In the past number of years, we have come
a long way in education in this province. At
first, all education in Ontario was by fee.
Then we had free elementary education, with
secondary education being paid for. Now,
we have secondary education free, along with
elementary, and I would like to know this,
are we not moving toward the position of
public-supported university education? Edu-
cation under The British North America Act
is the responsibility of the provinces. What
leadership and enterprise is this government
offering?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Mr. Chairman, at pres-
ent it would be a mistake, in my opinion,
to have university education perfectly free.
There would be those who would clutter up
the classes just as was the case, before 1931,
when we had, in the University of Toronto,
so many young people who came there for
the social life and nothing else. It was neces-
sary, in order to rectify that situation, to push
the first year of those days back into the
schools, and that was done by establishing
grade 13.
Some hon. member said that there were
some 1,800 who were in the teachers' college,
they were completing their work. There is
no question whatever about their training.
I got into difficulty last year answering a
question asked by the hon. member for
Huron-Bruce (Mr. Hanna)— no, for Bruce
(Mr. Whicher)— about this very thing. He
asked: "Have you noticed that people with
a B.A. degree, or its equivalent, go into the
private schools or the independent schools
and teach without any training professionally?
That is the case." One of the papers picked
it up and quoted me as saying, in answer to
that question, that teachers in private schools
are not trained, and there was an "awful
row." They left out the one word, profes-
sionally, and the chairman of the head
masters' association was quite indignant the
784
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
next day, and I said, "Here, look at Hansard.
I said that these teachers, a good many of
them in the private schools, are not trained
professionally. "Oh," he said, "professionally.
That settles it, there is no mistake at all." So
people can teach without professional train-
ing, and can teach well— lots of them.
Mr. MacDonald: Does the hon. Minister
think doctors operate without training?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: That is a different story
altogether.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We will have to watch out.
Something is going to happen.
An hon. member: Here we go.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister of Education has been so charmingly
provocative that I could not sit in my seat.
He accuses me of being too certain about
some things. But he is the one, the one hon.
Minister, despite all his charm, who is so
certain about some things even though every-
body else in the profession may be arguing
the other way.
For example, when he made this comment
with regard to me, I just happened to reach
into my folio and pick out two press releases,
both dated the same day, September 17, 1957.
We had started a new school year. The hon.
Minister made his announcement, for the
umpteenth time, that the school teacher short-
age had ended, and he hoped that the word
"shortage" would be sort of banished from
our vocabulary.
On that very same day, there appeared a
statement by the teachers— and I draw this
to the attention of the hon. member for Port
Arthur (Mr. Wardrope), who thinks because
we make such comments that the teachers are
going to be upset.
As a matter of fact, the teachers were upset
because, when the hon. Minister made the
comment that the teacher shortage had ended,
a spokesman for the public school teachers
replied that many teachers are just baby
sitters. The federation pointed out that the
public schools of Ontario are still short some
3,000 qualified teachers despite the claims of
the hon. Minister of Education.
So we see that, in the profession, where the
hon. Minister is so very dogmatic that the
teacher shortage has ended, he cannot per-
suade the teachers, and they do not mind this
point being emphasized.
Take another dogmatic point that the hon.
Minister has just made. He said he would not
like to see university education made free at
the present time, then he went back and
picked some period in 1931 to illustrate his
point.
Why can we not make education free, and
if our universities are going to be cluttered
up beyond their capacity, then raise the
entrance standards? Why can we not make
it free now?
Here we are faced with a crisis, a crisis
which is intensified by the kind of thing that
is going on in Russia where 20 per cent, of
those who are of school age are getting a
higher education. In the United States, 18 per
cent, of school-age young people are getting
an education. Here in Canada it is 7 per cent,
or 8 per cent. Why can we not provide it on
a free basis now, and if it is going to clutter
up our universities, raise the standards?
An hon. member: How about financing
them? The CCF are always "hollering" about
that, and now the hon. member wants more
spent on education.
Mr. MacDonald: Certainly we must spend
more money on education. Mr. Chairman, I
just want to make a few general comments
on this crisis in education, not repeating what
has already been made because we are faced
with a genuine crisis. I think if we set it in
its historical perspective some of it becomes
very understandable.
A hundred years ago, very few people got
the opportunity for an education. If they got
it, it was because they were the select few
and they got it in private schools.
And what has happened, in the last 100
years, is the development of what may be
one of the most fateful experiments in human
history, the experiment of mass education, of
providing education for everybody, that every
child from 6 years of age up to at least 16
is going to have the right to get this educa-
tion.
Now, with this sort of attempt to provide
education on a mass basis to everybody, I
think it is inevitable that we were going to
run into difficulties such as growing pains.
Some of these problems form part of the
crisis in education that we face at the present
time.
For example, why we should kid ourselves
for one moment into thinking that our
schools are meeting the needs of the rising
generation when, as I listened to one of the
retired officials of The Department of Educa-
tion speaking to a service club in my own
riding a month or so ago, he pointed out the
latest figures for 1956-1957-that of the 100
pupils who entered grade 9, there were only
81 left in grade 10, there were 62 left in
MARCH 12, 1958
785
grade 11, there were 50 left in grade 12,
and there were only 25 left in grade 13?
His observation was that, on this basis, if
we judged our education system for its
efficiency as to how much raw material
we put in and how much of a finished product
we got out, that our school system was
about 40 per cent, efficient.
I think he was being a little bit generous,
because actually 25 per cent, of those who
go into grade 9 come out of grade 13.
This raises a problem which, as the hon.
Minister has quite rightly said, he is tackl-
ing in a new department, the problem of
curriculum.
How can we revise our curriculum to
make certain that it meets the needs of
the rising generation? Another problem ties
in here, and on this question let me assure
the hon. Minister that I am not dogmatic.
I refer to the desperately difficult problem
of motivation. Why is it that modern chil-
dren do not appear to be as interested in
education as they were back in my day, or
back in the day of the hon. Minister when
he was going to school? This is something
which people who are now interested in
this crisis are trying to come to grips with,
and one of the encouraging things is that,
after years of talking about the crisis, we
are now getting some focus of brains and
money in trying to find the answers. For
example—
An hon. member: The hon. member could
not get the answer to anything.
Mr. MacDonald: —here is a careful study
that has been prepared by the Atkinson
foundation, in conjunction with the Ontario
college of education, of the grade 13 stu-
dents who graduated in 1955 and what
happened to them. This is what they say
in general terms.
There has been no concerted effort to
discover the combination of traits and
abilities required for success in various
educational courses and occupations.
No concerted effort to find this.
We do not know the number of our
young people with prospects of success in
satisfying and rewarding careers who settle
for something inferior to their own and
the national detriment. We do not know
what influences induce students to leave
school before they reach the limit of their
capacity to profit by further education.
We do not know what forces we can or
should marshal in order to induce them
to develop their potentialities to the full.
So here is an initial study by top-flight
people in the field, and their answer is to
confess ignorance. Maybe this is the begin-
ning of wisdom, but this is part— maybe it
is the very basis— of our crisis, we simply
do not know why our educational system
is not doing the job that we have estab-
lished and we had hoped that it might be
doing. The drop-outs prove just how con-
clusively that is the case.
Now, I do not know what my hon. friend
across the way is going to say, but I have
a suspicion as to what it is going to be, so
I have a quotation right ready for him. In
the foreword to the study done by the
Atkinson foundation, they have on page 1
something that I think perhaps should be
pondered well by those who tend to take
the easy answer to this and say, "Oh, it is
just that the rising generation is a degen-
erate lot; that it has not got the tough
moral fibre of the generation back in our
day." There are quite a number of people
who advance this argument. However, this
is the study's comment on that:
Nor can we lay the blame [this is from
the foreword] on the possible degeneracy
of the young, for the fault will be ours.
We know what must be done. Our young
men and women have the necessary abili-
ties which are probably the one resource
that may yet save us, but we have not
capitalized on these abilities. We have
not inspired our youth to develop their
capacities to the fullest in the interest of
their country as well as in their own per-
sonal future. We do not seem to care
whether or not we use all the talent of all
our youth.
When the hon. Minister, for example,
makes the comment that he does not want
free education at a time when only 7 per
cent, of our education-aged children are get-
ting advanced education, as compared with
18 per cent, in the United States or 20 per
cent, in Russia, I say to him quietly and
respectfully that he is still guilty of not really
wanting to use the full potential of the rising
generation— in his actions, if not in his words
—unless we take the dollar sign off higher
education and make it possible for these
young people to get the education that is
available to them, and for which many of
786
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them have the ability to absorb. This neglect
may cost us dearly. As the study says:
It may also be almost too late to rectify
our mistakes of profligate waste of human
resources. Only the future can tell what
price we and our children must pay for
the errors of the past.
An hon. member: Who wrote that report?
Mr. MacDonald: The study supervisors are
Dr. Jackson and Dr. Fleming, though I think
it was a composite study, with quite a num-
ber of people being involved in it.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I would like to say a
word about that study since we are on it, if
the hon. member does not mind. The Depart-
ment of Education helps to finance it, and
of course, these men are on our staff, and we
have, I think, 3 representatives on that com-
mittee. I would just like to make one little
correction if I might be permitted.
The standards in the universiites are con-
tinually being raised. Now, that is part of
the discussion I had with the heads of the
universities in January. They all said, "We
are going to raise our standards, we are rais-
ing them every year and we are going to
keep on raising them."
Now, may I make another little sugges-
tion? The hon. member says 18 per cent, in
the United States, but they go on grade 12
or less, they go into—
Mr. MacDonald: No matter where they go,
they are at least getting advanced education.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: They go into university
on a much lower standard.
Mr. MacDonald: But they are getting ad-
vanced education.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: But if they go in at
Grade 12, surely there can be far more of
them go, ours cannot go until they finish grade
13, and there is the difference.
Mr. MacDonald: I think the hon. Minister
is misinterpreting. The quote on this was
taken from the study that was done by the
industrial foundation on education.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Oh, I quite agree, it is
18 per cent, there and 7 per cent, here, but
they get in with much less high school ex-
perience there than they do here.
Mr. MacDonald: The point is, whether
they enter university from grade 12 or go in
from grade 13, is surely of secondary consider-
ation to the fact that at least they are entering.
I am not going to argue that standards in
some American universities are lower. But I
can recall the day, a year or two or three ago,
when some people used to argue that while a
lot of people are getting an education in
Russia, their standards are low. That argu-
ment has gone out the window.
Mr. Grossman: Who said that?
Mr. MacDonald: James S. Duncan, chair-
man of Hydro, for one.
Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member sug-
gesting that he would like the educational
system in this country operated on the same
basis as it is in Russia?
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, let the hon. member
go away.
Mr. Grossman: I just asked the hon. mem-
ber a civil question— I think that is a civil
question, and I am entitled to a civil answer.
Mr. MacDonald: The answer is no.
Mr. Grossman: All right then, why does
the hon. member point out Russia as a com-
parison? Do we want to brainwash the whole
generation of children?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is a
professional anti-Communist.
Mr. Grossman: Well, I am an anti-
Communist.
Mr. MacDonald: Professional.
Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not get paid for
it, if that is what the hon. member means.
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Mr. Grossman: Well, what does the hon.
member mean by a professional? Of course,
I am an anti-Communist. I do not think the
hon. member is doing the western nations a
service by giving Russia an opportunity to
say: "Even the western people say our educa-
tional standards are much higher." The hon.
member is just helping them with their
propaganda. That is all he is doing.
Mr. MacDonald: Now that we have had
this outburst from St. Andrew— I do not know
why St. Andrew has to bear this cross— maybe
this is the appropriate place to read what I
think is a significant comment on education
in Russia, and I do not think we can pin the
writer of this as being a Communist, for it
happens to be Dorothy Thompson. Last
November, the Toronto Globe and Mail
MARCH 12, 1958
787
carried an article of Dorothy Thompson's,
November 18—
Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member con-
sider Dorothy Thompson an expert? Would
he like to say so? Does the hon. member
have a high regard for the opinion of Dorothy
Thompson?
Mr. MacDonald: I will say this: I have a
higher regard for her opinion than that of
the hon. member.
Mr. Maloney: Good old Dorothy.
Mr. Grossman: The constituents of the
hon. member for York South will be glad to
hear his opinion about Dorothy Thompson.
Mr. MacDonald: Too much fluoridated
water, that is the trouble with the hon.
member.
Mr. Grossman: Well, that is a highly
educated answer, too.
Mr. MacDonald: In the opinion, Mr.
Chairman— I want to read this, now that we
are into it— if the hon. member wants to have
a long discussion about this, all right. I was
just about finished-
Mr. Grossman: My opinions are my own,
I am not quoting everyone else on earth.
Mr. Maloney: Good old Dorothy.
Mr. MacDonald: Dorothy Thompson says:
In the opinion of this columnist, the
worst thing that has happened to the
United States in the contest for world
leadership is when the Soviets shortly after
the revolution abandoned progressive edu-
cation originally imported from America
and reinstated a system very like that
which had been largely limited-
Let hon. members listen to this, particu-
larly those on the Conservative side of the
House:
—very like that which had been limited to
the aristocracy and the upper classes and
which with some very new gimmicks the
Soviets have now made universal. This
system has now and for the first time been
extensively reported by the United States
office of education.
This education which, beginning at the
age of 7, continues for 10 years without
a break between primary and high school,
Is enormously demanding. It assumes that
school is a place for work not play and
initially concentrates on deportment. Soviet
school children are startlingly well man-
nered in and out of school.
Before they enter school, they and their
parents are presented in writing with a
code of conduct to which they are expected
scrupulously to conform.
Those familiar with the codes imposed
upon the children of the British and con-
tinental nobility when they were still the
undisputed and uncorrupted governors of
the states and societies will find them
familiar. Their children were always given
a sterner upbringing than those of the
commoners on the theory that noblesse
oblige. They were educated also to serve
the state and society instead of their own
interest.
What is unique in Soviet education is
the application of such codes and training
to mass education. Soviet education con-
centrates on creating an atmosphere con-
ducive to intensive concentration, and
studies requiring major intellectual dis-
cipline under behaviour, discipline enforced
to teachers and students themselves by
social approval or disapproval-
Mr. Maloney: Concentration camps.
Mr. MacDonald: May I continue:
The worst thing that can happen to
the school child is to be suspended or
expelled, and that can happen for either
failure to keep up with his studies or for
repeated breaches of deportment in which
there is no passing mark below excellent.
The Russian system assumes that chil-
dren are normally intelligent, and that
intelligence can be improved by vigorous
training. If a child shows himself to be
mentally deficient, he is quickly passed
into special schools to be trained in skills
not requiring a high degree of mental
capacity. If he is abnormally gifted, he
is passed into even more demanding schools.
The curriculum is not selected. Students
attend classes 6 days a week and every-
one graduating from the 10-year course
will have had years of study in mathe-
matics, the physical and natural sciences,
the Russian language, Russian and world
history and one foreign language, and have
passed nationally conducted examinations,
oral and written.
Mr. Maloney: No 40-hour week there, eh?
Mr. MacDonald: Miss Thompson says fur-
ther:
Those who graduate, invariably go on
to further professional, semi-professional
and technicological studies. This type of
788
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
education made Prussia the leader of Ger-
many and Germany a challenge to the
world. It created the leaders of the British
Empire in its hey-day-
Mr. W. J. Stewart (Parkdale): Does the
hon. member advocate that over here?
Mr. MacDonald: I thank the hon. mem-
ber for his question, because I repeat and
affirm the final paragraph of what Dorothy
Thompson said:
Mr. Maloney: Good old Dorothy.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, cannot
we put a muzzle on this?
No one and certainly not this columnist
suggests copying them, but we can cer-
tainly take a new look at our own
education [and I think this is correct] and
question whether its own aims and claims
are being realized, one of them— reiterated
in the office of education report— being the
fullest development of the individual.
Now, how can they have the claim that
our educational system is providing the fullest
development of the individual, when only
one-quarter of them remain at the end of the
educational system and the other three-
quarters have dropped out of it?
Mr. W. J. Stewart: Does the hon. member
think theirs is better than ours?
Mr. MacDonald: No, but if the hon. mem-
ber for Parkdale wants to speak afterwards,
he can get up and speak. Just let me con-
clude this. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we
should face this challenge-
Mr. Wardrope: We are too well mannered
in this House.
Mr. MacDonald: Big Chief Bald Eagle.
Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, let me say
this, the member for South York is very
discourteous, and we should get on with the
work instead of sitting here until 11 o'clock
listening to a lot of tripe. He might get his
answers from some of the New Canadians in
the House after the House arises. They will
tell him the truth.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am
about to conclude but I just want to draw
attention to what the industrial foundation
on education has pointed out— the nature of
the challenge that lies in the years just ahead
of us.
There will be over 3 million of our young
people reaching the age of university entrance,
year by year, over the next 10 years. Using
the general accepted figure that 33 per cent,
of these are capable of absorbing a higher
education, this means that 1 million intellectu-
ally qualified young Canadians could, all
other things being equal, enter our higher
educational system.
But at our proposed rate of providing
facilities to absorb these, there will be only
300,000 instead of 1 million.
In other words, what we are doing, at our
present rate, is to provide facilities for one-
third of those capable of absorbing it.
Now, if the hon. Minister thinks that we
can relax for one moment in the belief that
we have solved this crisis in education, he is
wrong. We have not solved the kind of chal-
lenge that faces us, both because of develop-
ment without our own society and because
of the threat from Soviet Russia.
I think these figures and these statements
coming out from the industrial foundation for
education are something that he should read
once again.
An hon. member: We do not have to listen
to that stuff.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to take this moment
to compliment the hon. Minister for his per-
sonal interest in our educational problems.
He has a very capable staff.
To give some idea of the vastness of his
task, I would say that in my district alone
we have over 80 school boards. Some 21 new
schools have been built since 1951, and each
has its own particular problems. The hon.
Minister has been very concerned with every
phase and he deserves the highest praise for
his efforts.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): I would
like to say that I am very pleased to hear the
hon. Minister say that they are giving con-
sideration to a second school for the deaf
and hard of hearing. I am sure that the
associations for the deaf and hard of hearing
in the Hamilton area will be very pleased,
because they had felt that a deaf ear was
being turned to some of their requests.
Now, I did intend to spend quite a lot of
time tonight in furthering their argument for
this type of a school, but now it will not be
necessary.
But I might add that we will be pleased
when it comes, even if it comes just two days
before the next provincial election.
MARCH 12, 1958
789
But there are two things that I would like
to get cleared up. I think it important that
the school should be in the Hamilton area. I
think that if we are going to do a proper job
with this type of school it should be close to
a heavy industrialized area, so that the de-
partment can prevail on the skills in industry
for instructors, and so that we can bring the
people out of the schools with an occupa-
tional training which will enable them to find
a job.
I wonder if the hon. Minister would just
clarify a couple of things. Is it definite that
we are going to have a school in southwestern
Ontario in the near future, can we say in a
few months or a year or—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: It is a site of 97 acres,
partly in the town of Milton and partly in
the township of Trafalgar, which is surely in
the Hamilton area, surely is it not 25 miles
away—
Mr. Gisborn: I understood the hon.
Minister to say that it would either be in
Hamilton or Toronto, maybe I was mistaken.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think it is closer to
Hamilton than it is to Toronto.
Mr. Gisborn: Well then, as regard to loca-
tion, I would ask for full consideration to
bringing it closer to Hamilton, or right in
Hamilton, where they can get instructors
from industry.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: We cannot have it in
a city.
Mr. Gisborn: No, they cannot have it in
a city, but there is lots of room around the
city. How about the time limit? Are we
going to get some consideration in the near
future— a year, or a year and a half, or two
years?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: It will be under way
very soon, I cannot say how many months,
but it will not be long.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for
just 2 or 3 minutes while I talk to the hon.
Minister about the summer courses, these
emergency courses. I am quite serious about
this whole matter, as I think perhaps the hon.
Minister will agree. Now, he said he started
these courses in 1952—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Commenced in 1952,
secondary in 1955.
Mr. Oliver: Now tonight he tells us that
he sees an end to the courses by 1962. That
of course is about the longest emergency that
we have had in this province. We have had
one since 1942.
I want to point out to the hon. Minister
that he let something drop tonight, when he
was speaking, that I thought was sort of a
clue, that he had been in favour of, and leaned
towards, summer courses, even before he was
hon. Minister of Education.
I am just afraid that the thinking of my
hon. friend is so partial to summer courses
that he continues to be influenced into
believing that these courses should be made
permanent.
Hon. Mr .Frost: Well, what is wrong with
a summer course?
Mr. Oliver: Well, it seems the hon. Prime
Minister does not think that it is an
emergency measure.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What is wrong with a
summer course?
Mr. Oliver: Well, the hon. Minister of
Education had already classed it, and I think
properly, as an emergency course.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, all right then,
what is wrong with it?
Mr. Oliver: Then let us just leave it at
that for the moment. There must be some-
thing wrong with it, if it is an emergency
course. I think the hon. Prime Minister can
agree with that. I want to remind the hon.
Prime Minister that, if he wants to do any
talking, he has to do it from his own seat,
he cannot do it from one beside the hon.
Minister of Education. I want to ask the
hon. Minister of Education just what steps
the government has taken, are taking, and
intend to take, to solve what he and I agree
—the hon. Prime Minister does not— is a
crisis in teacher training— what has the
government done, what is it doing, and
what does it intend to do? Could their
efforts be speeded up to end this crisis
before 1962?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Surely, this crisis was
built up from the year 1930 or 1935— some-
where there— when there were—
Mr. Nixon: There was no crisis when we
were in office.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Children born in 1940
are now 18, are they not, this year? We
have to go on with that group to teach
those who were born in 1946, when the
birth rate went away up, and we have now
790
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
only a few from— let us say— 1940 or there-
abouts, only a few to teach a great many
born in 1946.
Now may I say, I said somewhat faceti-
ously that I am addicted to summer courses.
I do like summer courses, because they come
at a time when they do not interfere with
the schools in any way, and they perform
just the function we want. No one, so far,
has ever suggested any other way to do
this than the way we are doing it. I wish
somebody would be kind enough, if there
is any other idea, to let me know what it is.
Mr. Oliver: Well, if nobody has done
anything about it, and if in the hon. Minis-
ter's opinion nobody can do anything about
it, then how does he suggest tonight that
it is going to end in 1962, what does he
mean by that?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Those who were born
in 1940 once more, may I say, are 18, in 4
years from now they will be 22 and there
will be a good many more who will be in
the 18 age group. We are going to overcome
it that way, because the birth rate was so
great in 1946, and as they come along, we
will conquer it in another 4 years.
Mr. Oliver: It is elementary.
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): Surely the hon.
Minister does not think that he is going to
eliminate it if he keeps saying that we have
lots of teachers. When there are children 16
and 17 years of age who want to become
teachers, and the hon. Minister says there
are lots of teachers in the province, it is no
incentive for them to take up the teaching
profession.
Mr. Maloney: What way does the hon.
member want it, both ways or the other way?
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River): Mr. Chair-
man, first I think I should inject a thought
here from northwestern Ontario, 1,100 miles
away.
I want to commend the hon. Minister of
Education for his summer course, for this
reason. If I remember rightly, the announce-
ment was made from the town of Atikokan
when this was inaugurated in 1952 or there-
abouts, and one purpose that it is serving is
this. At that time, and up to that time, we
people would depend upon teachers coming
from old Ontario for this reason, that it was
not within the means of a great majority of
our people to send their children to southern
Ontario to take the teachers' training course
in our teachers' college.
By setting up a course at the Lakehead, it
meant that our people were able to send
their children to the Lakehead, which is a
short distance away, so that we would in
time become self-sufficient as far as teachers
were concerned.
That condition has taken place today. I
know of several of our students who are now
teaching in old Ontario, and a great number
of our own teachers through this summer
course have been able to satisfy the demand
in our own area. Therefore, I think this is
a wonderful project.
Mr. J. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to submit my thanks to the
hon. Minister of Education for those kind
remarks about my remarks the other day
in the House. All of the figures that I
brought before the assembly the other day
concerned 1955-1956, showing the great dif-
ference between the city teacher and the
rural teacher. Since that time I have secured
the figures of 1956-1957, and I find very
little difference.
Now, I believe by the hon. Minister's
remarks this evening, if I understood him
correctly, that this situation has been cor-
rected. I wonder if that is through these
new grants or what? Or did I misunder-
stand the hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I am very glad to have
the hon. member's comment, but the grants
have greatly assisted in remedying the situa-
tion that he described the other evening.
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am not
anxious to prolong the proceedings here to-
night any more than any one else, but if
the hon. member for York South had been
in the House on March 3, he would have
heard me quote some remarks of a former
deputy minister of the Czechoslovakian Par-
liament as to what was going on in the edu-
cational system under a Communist regime
there.
I think that the hon. member is going to
find himself sorry for having quoted from
the source from which he did— Dorothy
Thompson.
Mr. MacDonald: I can quote James S.
Duncan.
Mr. Grossman: That will not do him any
harm, but the fact that he quoted Dorothy
Thompson will. However, at that time, Mr.
Chairman, I stated that it was my opinion
that we should not go totalitarian to beat
the totalitarians—
MARCH 12, 1958
791
Mr. MacDonald: Nobody was suggesting
that.
Mr. Grossman: —but there were probably
some things, perhaps many things, that we
could do to encourage some students who
have an aptitude for it, to go along and do
a better job, and encourage them to become
greater scientists and technicians and so on.
But we should not go overboard in this sort
of thing.
More important than anything, I do not
think anyone here— let me repeat— should
carry on the propaganda of the Communists
in trying to prove to the world that the
democracies are decadent, that we have no
respect for intellectuals, and that we have
no respect for teachers and that sort of thing,
because that is all that sort of conversation
is going to do.
Mr. MacDonald: Nonsense.
Mr. Grossman: Well, that is the hon. mem-
ber's opinion.
I am going to quote from a local Czecho-
slovakian paper in which a former deputy
member of the Czechoslovakian Parliament
had this to say of the educational system in
Czechoslovakia under the Communist regime:
1. In all schools, priority must be given
to party influences, political and ideolo-
gical teachings.
2. All schools must support the so-called
socialists, that is Communist reconstruction
of the state.
3. All education curricula and extra-
curricula must be performed in accordance
with the Soviet pattern.
4. Priority in many cases, exclusively in
registration, are given to children with pro-
letarian background, mainly to children of
party members.
Among others, the principles of the Com-
munist educational system are— the uncriti-
cal admiration of the Soviet Union inciting
hatred toward the western world, or at
least its ridicule, the elimination of the
prewar democratic tradition in the educa-
tional system, elevation of the importance
of the working class, and of a technical
education at the expense of humanities,
inciting hatred towards religion and fam-
ilies.
That is some comment contrary to what
the hon. member quoted— that they are taught
to respect their families.
Mr. MacDonald: He could not even hear
what I was saying.
Mr. Grossman: Well, I paid more attention
than the hon. member is apparently paying
to me.
Mr. MacDonald: I am paying very much
attention to him. He is misquoting.
Mr. Grossman: "Against traditional patriot-
ism and national pride which the Communists
supplement by working class international-
ism," and so on.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason I repeated
that here is, I had put it on the record
a week or so ago, as I shall on any occasion
when I have the opportunity, when anyone
repeats— particularly putting it on the record
of this Legislature— this propaganda, that only
the Communists respect intellectualism, only
the Communists respect their teachers, classes
and so on. I will do what I can to put, on
the same record, the contrary point of view.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, before we move on to the
vote, may I ask the hon. Minister whether or
not there are more qualified teachers dropping
out of the system than there are going into
the system each year? To be specific, I am
concerned, of course, only with those persons
who are qualified in the normal way.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I do not have that in-
formation at the moment. The general situa-
tion is that the school enrolment is increasing
about 70,000 a year, and the number of
teachers is increasing about 2,000 a year, at
the ratio of 1 to 35.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But when he says the
number is increasing, is he talking about the
total number of teachers that teach for the
first time, or the total number of qualified
teachers?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Oh yes, they are good
teachers.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, there is a standard
by which the qualification of a teacher is
measured and the department determines that
a certain teacher is a qualified teacher. An-
other type of teacher is one who is teaching
with certain permissions.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Well, temporarily quali-
fied.
Mr. Wintermeyer: All right, temporarily
qualified. I am concerned only with the
thoroughly qualified teachers.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I do not have that figure,
but I can get it for the hon. member.
792
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wintermeyer: My understanding is
that more fully qualified teachers are leaving
the system by virtue of retirement and marri-
age and the like than are entering the system.
If I am right in that, then how in the world
can the hon. Minister rise before this House
and say that he is overcoming the emergency?
I will tell him one way that he can cure it.
Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member is not
right.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now listen, the hon.
member for Port Arthur can come along with
his "wisecracks" all he wants, but this is the
most serious business-
Mr. Wardrope: It was not a wisecrack, I tell
the hon. member he is wrong. There are
not more qualified teachers-
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Minister said
he-
Mr. Wardrope: He will give the figure,
and the hon. member will find out.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well how does the hon.
member for Port Arthur know?
Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member for
Waterloo North surmises.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I surmise nothing. I
made the investigation, and that is the con-
clusion I came to.
Now I am going to ask the hon. Minister
for his figures, but until he gives them to us,
I suggest to the hon. Minister that the
obvious thing he should and could do, is to
provide scholarships and inducements for
young people to get into the teaching profes-
sion, because the same report that the hon.
member for York South read from, and that
the hon. Minister is wholly familiar with,
suggests that one of the basic reasons why
more people are not going on to college and
university is because of financial handicap.
Now I suggest that it would be worth
more than building all the roads in Ontario
next year, if the hon. Minister would pay for
the full cost of tuition and board and lodg-
ings for those students who are willing to
go into the regular courses and complete
them, and continue in our educational system
for a specific period of time.
Now the hon. Minister has asked for a
practical suggestion to overcome in part, this
emergency if you will, and I ask him what is
wrong with that particular suggestion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, might I say
that I have listened to the hon. members
opposite. I have listened to what they say
and I am one who, in the course of things,
gets around this province a very great deal,
and I am in a great many places.
Mr. Dunlop: I might say this. We have in
this province about 40,000 class rooms.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Will my hon. friends
opposite tell me how many of those 40,000
class rooms are without a pretty good teacher
today?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Not many.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Not many, of course there
are not many.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is not the problem.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I have never listened to
such nonsense in my life as hon. members
opposite can engage in. I often wonder how
they put in their time thinking up these
things?
Mr. Wintermeyer: The public school
teachers' federation says 3,000. Does the
hon. Prime Minister want an answer?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No. Just a minute now.
Listen, there are 40,000 class rooms, and I
often marvel at this. I go over this great
province of ours and I see the magnificent
schools which we are erecting and remember
this, that every 365 days, we have to provide
for school accommodation for 70,000 new
pupils. I ask my hon. friend for Waterloo
North to go back and look at his very beau-
tiful city, and take the number of school
children there are in that city. Now I do
not know how many there are in Kitchener,
perhaps 4,000 or 5,000— or would there be that
many?
Well, all right then. Suppose there are
7,000. Well, I say to my hon. friend that,
every 365 days in Ontario, we have to pro-
vide 10 times as many schools as the hon.
member has in his great city of Kitchener
altogether, and we have to get new teachers
to look after those people every 365 days.
May I say to my hon. friend that it is being
done. I say that one of the finest and most
remarkable efforts in this province is what we
are doing in education, and what we are
doing in providing equality of opportunity
to the children in this province.
We have about 40,000 teachers in this
province at the present time. Every year, we
are getting 70,000 new pupils, and that is
going to continue for several years according
to our forecasts. With those 70,000 pupils,
we are gaining each year about 2,000
teachers. Now am I not right about that?
MARCH 12, 1958
793
Some 365 days from tonight, we will have
engaged 2,000 more teachers.
I would say to my hon. friends in the
Opposition that they ought to go out and
stick out their chests at what this great old
province is doing to train its children. I tell
them that there is no jurisdiction in America,
nowhere in any state or province, doing the
job that their great old province of Ontario
is doing in this regard. Let hon. members
opposite go out and hold their heads up and
look at our achievements, and let them be
happy and be proud at what their province
is doing to provide for equality of oppor-
tunity in this great land of ours.
Now I want to say something about teacher
training.
Mr. Whicher: Let the hon. Prime Minister
put wings on. He is an angel.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well I have been trying
to tell people that for a long time. The hon.
member might as well get used to it. I have
never been able to attain that eminence,
though.
Mr. Whicher: He is halfway there already.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say this to the hon.
member, because I am not talking about
myself.
An hon. member: Yes, he is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am talking about the
province that the hon. member belongs to,
that he ought to be proud of.
Now in connection with training, I say this
to the hon. Minister of Education, that I hope
he does not end his summer courses in 1960
or 1962. I am all in favour of them. I think
it is a great thing to use the buildings of this
province, into which we are putting millions
and tens of millions of dollars every year, to
use them in the summer time.
Now is that not one of the things we
should do?
I would say that if the hon. Minister can
have teacher training in the summer time,
for goodness sakes he should have it then.
It helps us in the millions of dollars we are
spending, and that we are going to have
to spend. This is common sense.
I was, as I say, after 43 years, in North
House tonight with some fine young Canadians
who are there in the residence that I used
to be in. They were asking me about a
variety of things.
As a matter of fact, they did not ask me
as much as I asked them. I was interested
very much in their point of view.
I was talking to one fine young fellow
from the north whose father is a secondary
school teacher, and the young fellow told
me that he is interested in the teaching pro-
fession but he said this to me: "You know,
in England and other countries, once they
go through university, they can teach. That
is a disability— that we have to spend so much
time in further qualifying ourselves." Now
that is true, I think, in England and in
some other countries, where they do a very
excellent job.
Now I put this forward. I know that this
is controversial, but I would say that it
might have some merit, and that is that,
in the various university courses, particularly
honour courses, there should be a subject
option in which the student could take
a teacher's subject, say for half an hour
or for an hour a week, which would
mean that by the time he reached the degree
stage or the graduation stage, he or she
would have qualified. Now I know that
that has been put forward.
As I understand from some university
authorities, it is controversial, but I say
that there is nothing wrong with qualifying
and stimulating the qualification of teachers,
as is being done. I look forward, in this
province, to a growing population. I think
we are going to have an addition of 70,000
children or better every year, and I hope
that it runs far into the future.
I say this because it is good for business
in the country; it is good for the things that
make the wheels go round in this land of
ours, from an economic standpoint. I think
it is a great thing.
Now I would say to the hon. members
that if, instead of making it difficult for
these highly brilliant and qualified young
fellows and girls from the universities to
get in the teaching profession, we should
provide ways and means to make it easy
for them to get into it.
I think that is the answer, and I would
say that I think that to date a very great
job has been done, and the more I look
at the job of The Department of Education,
the more I think that they deserve the
greatest of commendation for the excellence
of their work.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, a ques-
tion was asked of the hon. Minister a moment
ago and— if we can rescue ourselves from
this sweetness and light and get back to
the facts of life— it would be interesting to
look at the statistical table.
794
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The question was asked: "How many
teachers are leaving the profession?" The
hon. Minister said he did not know. He said
there were about 2,000 being graduated and
that, at a ratio of 35 to 1, they would only
meet the new pupil population.
Now the question asked is how many are
leaving the profession apart from this?
On page 518 of the hon. Minister's annual
report, the information is given.
Counting only those who move into non-
teaching occupations, who marry, retire, are
superannuated, or who left Ontario or the
profession for other reasons, believe it or not,
Mr. Chairman, last year, there were 2,913
elementary teachers and 571 secondary
teachers, for a total of 3,400 who left the
profession at a time when only 2,000 new
graduates were coming into the profession
and we had 70,000 more new pupils to
teach.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member, of
course, takes books and he can distort the
figures-
Mr. MacDonald: I am not distorting the
facts. They are right there.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why, of course, we have
people leaving. There are teachers who are
retiring, and teachers who are getting married
and so on. But, on the other hand, they are
qualified teachers. Many of the married
teachers come back in again. As a matter of
fact, our teaching force is increasing by
around about 2,000 a year.
Mr. MacDonald: And 3,400 are leaving.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I mean over and above. I
mean we have 40,000 teachers now and this
time next year, we will probably have about
42,000 teachers.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh no, 3,400 will have
left in the year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Nonsense, that is pure
nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The hon. member is
ashamed of his province and he should not
live here. He should move away from here.
Mr. Wardrope: He should listen and learn
something.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: There are over 3,600 in
the teachers' colleges right now—
Mr. MacDonald: What of the 2,000 he
himself gave a few moments ago?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: —and there are 700 in
the Ontario college of education.
Mr. MacDonald: He means there are 2,000
fully qualified and 1,500 or 1,600 part time.
Mr. Dunlop: Oh, no. Therefore, in addi-
tion to the drop-outs, we are producing, by
summer courses and otherwise, some 2,000
surplus. Not surplus exactly, but 2,000 more,
net, that is it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right, now we have
straightened that up.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I was wonder-
ing if the hon. member for York South real-
izes that one day Ontario loaned a young man
to the province of Saskatchewan who taught
on the permit system. One day his inspector
came along and found out that he was not
teaching school. He was out inspecting
gophers and hunting them. Today he is the Rt.
hon. Prime Minister of Canada, as the result
of the election on June 10, and he will be
returned on March 31.
Mr. MacDonald: What does that prove?
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I have one
more question I would like to ask. I have
listened to the hon. Prime Minister try to
smooth everything out here tonight and I
would like to ask him this question, because
he has evidently come to the rescue of the
hon. Minister of Education.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not have to come to
the rescue.
Mr. Whicher: He did anyway. My question
is simply this, and these are the figures in the
book. In the past 7 years, 10 per cent, to 11
per cent, of those entering high schools com-
pleted grade 13, and passed the departmental
examinations for honour diplomas. Only 7
per cent, of those entering high schools in
grade 9 went on to university training. My
question to the hon. Prime Minister is this:
He can wave his wings around all he wants to.
Is he proud of that 7 per cent? Is that a good
percentage?
Mr. MacDonald: One of the lowest in the
western world.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Certainly I am. Yes, I
think it is wonderful.
Mr. Whicher: Seven students out of every
100 who enter high school? One of the lowest
in the whole western world, and he rises here
tonight and tells us— the hon. Prime Minister
of this province— that he is proud of the fact
that we have the lowest percentage of any
MARCH 12, 1958
795
country, in the western world, going to uni-
versity.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Why does not that hon.
member leave Ontario?
Mr. MacDonald: This government is smug
and self-satisfied.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, Mr. Chairman, might
I just say this to the hon. members opposite.
They know we have a remarkable phenom-
enon in this province. Really it is remarkable.
It is an amazing thing. The hon. member for
York South and the hon. member for Bruce
have satisfied themselves and persuaded them-
selves of this, that each year, we are losing
more teachers than we are getting, and that
if we keep on at the rate that they name
over there, in the course of the next 25 years
we will have no teachers at all. But the
amazing thing is this, our school rooms are
increasing to the extent of taking care of
70,000 more pupils a year, yet we have hardly
a school room in the province of Ontario that
is vacant.
Now, I would ask my hon. friends to go and
reconcile that with their argument. If they
would do that, I would be very glad to
adjourn the debate on this, and allow them
to go and reconcile this, and get out their
figures and their pencils and work that one
out.
My hon. friend, in his second question,
mentions our universities. May I point out
that, when this government came into office
after 150 years of the history of this province,
we had only 3 universities. We have
been in office now for the last 15 years, and
now we have 7 and possibly 8 universities.
We have increased them by 5. In other
words, in the years we have been in office,
we have multiplied the universities by nearly
3. I ask my hon. friend from Waterloo North,
is that not a wonderful record? He will agree.
May I say to my hon. friends that when
they compare different countries, of course,
they are comparing different grades. It is just
like comparing the cities of Ontario with the
cities of the United States. Every place over
in the United States is a city. I suppose when
hon. members go over there, they find that
pretty nearly everybody whom they run across
is, in some capacity or other, a university
student. They are comparing two different
things. Our universities here are very highly
qualified institutions, and I would say to the
hon. Minister of Education that I do not
think that any student is being turned away
from our universities because of lack of
capacity, although there may be high
entrance requirements in certain courses, but
there are other courses into which they can
fit.
Mr. MacDonald: President Smith said
precisely the opposite 2 years ago.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, I would say to my
hon. friends that we are doing a very remark-
able job.
Mr. MacDonald: He said-
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West): Mr. Chair-
man, why do you not keep the hon. member
down? He is rude.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
Kent West is the rudest man in the House.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Prime Minister
will recall that a year ago, January 28, 1957,
on the occasion of the speech from the
Throne, one of the significant points that
those architects of that particular speech
highlighted was the crisis in education.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would my hon. friend
read the paragraph?
Mr. Wintermeyer: We are coming to that,
and in particular the teacher shortage. What
I would like to—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member says
we are being rude if we interrupt.
Mr. Wintermeyer: —the second point I
would like to make is this— is the hon. Prime
Minister familiar with the proceedings that
took place in Ottawa on the occasion that
the hon. Minister of Education attended a
week or 10 days ago? Now I think on that
occasion, Canon Carter said exactly what the
hon. members of the Opposition are saying
now, maybe in more eloquent fashion.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Was he talking about
Ontario or Canada?
Mr. Wintermeyer: He was talking about
Canada at large.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He should come down and
see us here. We will show him something.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is all right to white-
wash these things, but the fact of the mat-
ter is that there is a real problem here at
hand. The government recognized it a year
ago. Canon Carter said exactly what I think
the hon. Prime Minister was referring to
a year ago, and that is simply this, that the
tendency to permit teachers to continue or
to carry on in a manner— that is, in an un-
qualified manner— is not a desirable thing.
796
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, the man is far superior in his
knowledge to myself. I accept him as an
expert in the field. He is critical of this,
and I suggest that this very government
was critical of the shortage a year ago.
Now, it is all right for any two people to
disagree with the Opposition in a forceful
manner, but the fact of the matter is that
there is a real crisis here. The hon. Prime
Minister recognized it in a cool and col-
lected fashion a year ago. The experts
recognize it now. Now what in the world
is the hon. Prime Minister going to do
about it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let the hon. member
look at what we are doing, look at us.
Mr. Wintermeyer: All right, they are put-
ting people in, but the fact of the matter
is that either their regular course is not
a desirable thing, or it is a desirable thing.
If it is a desirable thing, then they should
be encouraging more and more students—
not only numerically but percentagewise—
to attend that school.
I suggest that this is where the weakness
really lies. We are not going to say: "You
have not done anything/' It would be fool-
ish for us to do so. We are not going to
say that there is not a difficulty here.
Obviously there is a difficulty here, as there
is in other provinces and in other states of
the union. We recognize that, but what
we would like to see of this government is
seme imagination in overcoming the problem.
Now, what the hon. Prime Minister is
doing is this—
Mr. Maloney: There is so much imagina-
tion in the Opposition that it is really
astonishing.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well now, I ask what
is wrong with the suggestion I made just
a few moments ago— that is, paying for the
tuition, board and lodging of those students
who are prepared to take a regular course
on condition that they will stay in our system
for a specific period of time?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Who paid for the hon.
member's?
Mr. MacDonald: So what?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Whether they need it or
not?
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would not say whether
they need it or not, but surely the hon. Prime
Minister will admit that it is a desirable thing
to have more complete the regular course—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: They want everybody
to depend on the government-
Mr. Wintermeyer: —and if in some fashion
we can encourage more to complete that
course, then I think that we have accom-
plished something.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: We have been giving
bursaries for years.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Let us talk about the
bursaries. Now, this is the phenomenal situa-
tion that we have—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I must admit that my hon.
friends opposite, not only my hon. friend for
Waterloo North, mystify me. The matter is
this, now these are the cold facts, we are
training enough teachers each year to take
care of, progressively, the increase of our
school population which is tremendous.
We are increasing by 70,000 a year, and I
say to my hon. friend this, a year ago now,
they talked about teachers. Today we have
70,000 more pupils in the schools, and every
schoolroom in this province is manned, as
far as I know, unless the teacher is taken
down with mumps or measles or something
like that.
Mr. MacDonald: The provincial federation
says there are 3,000 unqualified—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is not so. What does
my hon. friend want? Is he complaining be-
cause teachers are being qualified by means
of summer courses and the like? Is he com-
plaining because they are not all taking a
year, for instance, in teachers' college? Is
that what he is complaining about?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, basically, yes.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well now, I would wonder
if my hon. friend on that point is—
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, let not the hon.
Prime Minister put me in a ridiculous posi-
tion; now, I am not that foolish.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I know but that is
the position that he put himself into.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, just a moment—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Here he is today, a year
after he complained— he made these same
speeches; I listened to them last year, there
is very little difference in them— and here we
are one year later with 70,000 more pupils,
and all of our schools manned, and we have
going through the mill at the present time
enough to take care of next year, and we will
have enough to take care of the following
year.
MARCH 12, 1958
797
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. Prime Mini-
ster satisfied with the system as it is today?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say this.
My hon. friends talk about a crisis in educa-
tion—
An hon. member: Well, he talked about it
last year-
Mr. MacDonald: It is getting closer to an
election.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to my hon.
friends that, of course, there is talk of a crisis
in education in Canada. That was the subject
Canon Carter commented on. There is talk
of a crisis in education in the United States,
as is evident by the President's giving $1
billion for education. Therefore it is there,
Mr. Chairman.
Here is our problem. We are the fastest
growing jurisdiction in North America. Right
now our population is increasing by 4 per
cent, per year, which is twice as much as
the American growth, which is embarrassing
them. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing in
Ontario is this, we are building enough new
schools to take care of those children, and
we are providing enough teachers to take
care of the teaching of those children.
Now, certainly we have the crisis and the
problem of growth, of course we have, but
I would say to my hon. friend that we are
doing the job, and I think that we are doing
it in a very creditable way. I think that we
can be very well pleased.
That we have attained perfection in this
great growth problem, nobody would say.
Of course, we have not. We are never satis-
fied that we have attained perfection, despite
the enormous developments that are taking
place in this province. Under our direction
there are always things that we can do to
better. I have no doubt that there are things
in the matter of teacher training that can be
improved on, but I think that we have a
wonderful record of achievement to show.
I say these things tonight because I have
listened to the Opposition play this record, I
think, about a half-a-dozen different times.
I have listened to the hon. members of the
Opposition get onto this subject over the
radio and in this House. I have heard them
deliberately deliver these almost identical
speeches, as a matter of fact the figures are
almost the same.
I think that they dug up some of the
speeches they delivered two years ago, and
re-delivered them on this occasion. I am
just bringing them down to facts. Let them
go and look up Hansard, and see what they
said on this subject two years ago and three
years ago.
They were talking about the disaster and
darkness and all the rest of it. Now, let them
see what is achieved in the years 1957-1958.
Now, that is all they have to do to answer
their case. That is all.
Vote 401 agreed to.
On vote 402:
Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton): Mr. Chairman,
I do not intend to take up the time of this
House, but I would like to have this op-
portunity, just for a minute or two, to com-
pliment the hon. Minister of Education on
seeing fit to locate the new school for the
deaf in the county of Halton. And there
is one thing that I would like to say to the
hon. members of this assembly and visitors,
that those children, when they come to Hal-
ton county, will have the opportunity to
live in an atmosphere more conducive to
their health and well being than one could
believe by what has spread out from a little
group here in this assembly tonight— a group
which is so small that it is barely placed
here by the voters of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, in accord-
ance with the compliment that has been paid
by the hon. member who has just spoken,
I would like to say that in Renfrew South
we have a school known as the C. F. Can-
non school, located in the township of
Radcliffe at Combermere, and I do not know
of any greater benefactor of education in
the province of Ontario than we have in
the person of the director of education, Dr.
Cecil F. Cannon, and to him I would like
to pay tribute.
Votes 402 to 409, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 410:
Mr. Oliver: Could the hon. Minister say
what he means here by federal-provincial
agreements, what are they?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Vote 410 makes pro-
vision for the cost of projects set up under
various schedules of the vocational training
agreement with the government of Canada.
Under this agreement, a certain proportion
of these costs is recovered from the govern-
ment of Canada as follows: Training of the
unemployed, which is schedule A, 50 per
cent, recovered, and for foremen and super-
visory training— that is a different schedule,
Q— 50 per cent., so that means we are get-
798
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ting help from the Dominion government
in setting up these classes.
Vote 410 agreed to.
On vote 411:
Mr. Wintermeyer: On vote 411, scholar-
ships, bursaries and so forth, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister whether he thinks
there is any good in the suggestion I made
just a little while ago, that we increase the
bursaries for students attending the educa-
tional colleges to the extent that we pay
for their board and lodging while attending
that school, under the condition that they
stay for a specific period of time in the
profession after graduation.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I am very glad indeed
to assist them. I do not know that there
are many of them who need that. The hon.
member's idea is that no matter whether they
need it or not, we should pay for it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, no. Would the hon.
Minister be prepared to state that it is the
undertaking of this government to pay for
any prospective teacher willing to complete
the course— pay for his or her expenses while
in college, or while at the Ontario educational
college— on the condition that the student
will remain in the school for a specific
period of time?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Yes we do it, we pretty
well do that at the University of Ottawa
teachers' college now. That is worth con-
sideration.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, has the hon.
Minister considered it?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Not paying board and
lodging. No, I have not considered that. I
have considered giving bursaries and have
given them bursaries.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, now, I have a
Department of Education circular before me,
relating to provincial student aid bursaries
and federal-provincial student aid bursaries,
type A and type B for 1957 and 1958. I know
that the hon. Minister has divided the province,
and demonstrated the number of bursaries
and scholarships that he is giving in respect
of counties.
Now, for example, in Metropolitan Toronto,
he is giving 9 bursaries, according to this
circular, for students attending the educa-
tional college. Now, in view of the number
of prospective students in this area, I would
suggest that that is very low. In my own
county it is 2, a total in the province is 132.
It seems to me that this particular item of
$411,523 is wholly inadequate.
I do not like to come here and say
that we complain because the item is not
large enough, but I do say that the hon.
Minister himself acknowledges that the revolv-
ing fund will serve its best purpose in the
second, third and fourth years of university,
and I agree with him.
On the other hand, he will agree with me
if I tell him that many prospective university
students are discouraged from ever entering
school because of the fact that they feel
they cannot afford it.
Therefore, I stress that it would be a good
idea to increase bursaries and scholarships
for grade 13 students, so that they may
know, prior to the time they get to grade
13, that if their scholastic standing is good,
they will a least receive a bursary for their
first or second year.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: It is just one year for
scholarships.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, well in teachers'
college, for one year at least, they would
know that this is available to them.
Now, I suggest that in university itself, in
these same counties, the hon. Minister make
bursaries available to these first-year students
in Metropolitan Toronto to the extent of 20,
in my area to the extent of 5. The hon. Prime
Minister would be interested in Victoria
county. I would hope that more than 3
people are interested in pursuing these par-
ticular bursaries, but that is the figure.
I suggest that, admirable as the revolving
fund is— and I commend this government
for it— I think it is only part of the over-
all programme that we must undertake.
The other part is to get and encourage
students who do not have financial resources
to enter teachers' college and university gen-
erally. And I say, to that extent, the limita-
tion of $523,000, which is not much in excess
of what it was last year, is not adequate.
I think that I pointed out, on one previ-
ous occasion, that in the province generally,
students are paying for 92 per cent, of the
total cost of their particular education at
the present time, and that loans and bur-
saries are paying for the balance of 7.5
per cent.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Is it not usually the
case that a student in university pays about
a third of the cost of his education?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, I am referring to
a brief on government aid to higher educa-
MARCH 12, 1958
799
tion presented to the hon. Minister, I be-
lieve, in January of this year.
Here that brief suggests that 92.5 per
cent, of the total cost to the student— that
is, tuition, board and lodging— is paid by
either the student and/or his family, and
7.2 per cent, is paid by the—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I was not thinking of
board and lodging.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes— well, I am includ-
ing both and for a student. That is, by and
large, the cost he must consider. I suggest
to the hon. Minister— there is no point in
arguing and being melodramatic about it—
I think the hon. Minister would agree with
me that that is an undesirable situation. I think
it is demonstrated that our universities are
for the well-to-do only, and that we must
increase our bursaries and scholarships in
wholesome fashion. I ask the hon. Minister,
does he feel this item of $523,000 is ade-
quate to do the job which I think will be
agreed is required to be done?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: No, it is not adequate
now. I went to Ottawa to try to get some
more, but I did not get it. But we will
get some more here.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But the hon. Prime
Minister told us just a little while ago he
does not want more money for education
as such, he wants fiscal arrangements with
Ottawa.
I am inclined to agree, frankly, that educa-
tion is the responsibility of the province.
Suppose we agree on this, then we are down
to the simple determination that, if this
amount of $523,000 is not adequate— and I
believe the hon. Minister feels it is not, as I
feel— then what are we going to do about it?
Last year, I think the figure was $483,000.
Now, we certainly have to do something in
a dramatic fashion, because, when the hon.
Prime Minister said great strides have been
made, I suggest we are going to have to
make even greater strides in the future.
I think the same reports that we are always
quoting from suggests the university popula-
tion will double in the next 10 years. If that
be the case, then surely we have to effect
some real leadership in this respect, and
increase the dollar bursaries and scholarships.
Now, I think in all fairness the hon. Minister
of Education will agree with me as any
reasonable person would. What does the hon.
Minister propose to do in the course of the
next few years to increase this amount dram-
atically?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Oh, I think we will
increase it each year. We have increased it
this year.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Is the hon. Minister
satisfied with the increase this year?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I never would be satis-
fied.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Never satisfied?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: No, I am always looking
for more.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I would think the hon.
Minister is right. Who is holding it up?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: We are not.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well then, the hon.
Prime Minister should be out doing something
about that right now.
Mr. Chairman, this is a serious point, and
definitely I do not think we should embarrass
the hon. Minister of Education unduly. I think
that he frankly knows in his mind and heart
that this is wholly inadequate, and I think the
responsibility must be put where it should
be put, on those in charge of the determina-
tion of how much money is going to be al-
lotted to this department each year, which
obviously are the Treasury bench or the hon.
Treasurer as such. Therefore, I would ask
the hon. Prime Minister whether he thinks
this item is sufficient.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I would ask
the hon. member for Waterloo North to look
at the last item in the estimates, and he will
see there $3 million in connection with the
revolving fund, all of which must be read
together.
Concerning the bursaries, I think that we
get a refund of about $100,000 from the
federal government, and the balance is our
own. I would say to the hon. member that
we have increased those, this year. In any
event, I would like to increase that as we
can.
My own judgment is this, for what it is
worth, and I do not profess to be an expert
on education at all— an expert in providing
money for it perhaps, but not on education
as such— I think that the coming year will
see more selection and more bursaries in
university training. I think that will be
the case.
On the other hand, I am bound to say this,
that I look at the matter of selection with
some misgivings. I doubt that any person
or any board can really effectively choose
one student and say that this student is
800
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
good, and put another one aside. If that
had been done, we would rule out for
instance Winston Churchill, who was no good
at school.
That is one of the things that I worry
about in connection with selections. I think
we can become too selective in our set-up, I
think there are great talents in individuals
which develop when the opportunities come
that cause them to develop. After all, I think
the test is this, how do they do when the
test comes? How do they do when they
are under pressure?
For that reason, I think the course of
things in the future will be more bursaries
and more selection, I say that with some
qualifications.
As regards the amount being enough, I
rather follow what the hon. Minister of
Education says, that we are not satisfied with
anything. This year the total cost of educa-
tion in these estimates is up to $177 million,
altogether. I think that is the total esti-
mate. There are $133 million for school
grants. As a matter of fact, I would like
to see some of those things greater, but on
the other hand, we have to look at our capa-
city to pay and the things we have to do.
University-wise, the feeling pretty gener-
ally is that, while everybody would like
to see some difference, we by and large
have been doing a pretty fair job. When
one looks at the budget for universities all
the way through, one must remember that
bursaries are not the only things. The money
we have going to universities tends to keep
down the cost. We may complain that the
fees paid by students are too high; as a
matter of fact I would like to see them come
down. But one of the things that brings
them down is the assistance we are giving
which is reflected in other things.
Vote 411 agreed to.
On vote 412:
Mr. MacDonald: I would like to ask the
hon. Minister this question: Is this to be
the total of school grants for the coming
year?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: I am interested to hear
the hon. Minister say yes.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Is that not generous?
Mr. MacDonald: The reason I asked is
this: Last year we sat in this Legislature
and passed estimates of about $100 million.
The Legislature had not been adjourned for
more than about two weeks when there
was an educational conference going on in
the city of Toronto, and we picked up our
papers to discover that the government had
reached down into the bottom of the old
sock— to quote the comment of the hon.
Provincial Secretary on one occasion, "there
is more in the bottom of the old sock yet"—
and came up with another $4 million in
grants.
The point is this, if we have a Legislature
which is asked to discuss grants, and to
pass on those grants, I think we have the
right to expect that this is going to be the
expenditure for the coming year, and that
the government, for its own political pur-
poses, with an election in the offing, is not
going to reach down into the bottom of the
old sock for an extra $4 or $5 million taken
out of the $50 million extra revenue coming
in for the coming year.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Purely political.
Mr. MacDonald: What does the hon.
Minister mean, "purely political"?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The hon. member for
York South is.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister was
purely political last April. He likes to accuse
other people of doing what he does.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It had nothing whatever
to do with politics, we did not have an elec-
tion on.
Mr. MacDonald: There was a federal elec-
tion going on, and the hon. Prime Minister
wanted to curry favour. All I want to draw
to the attention of hon. members is that, if
the hon. Minister is correct that these are
the total grants, I am glad to hear it and be
given this assurance.
But last year, two weeks after this Legis-
lature had adjourned, and had given
authorization to the grants, this government
suddenly produced another $4 million in
grants and doled them out for their own
political purposes. I suggest that if there are
going to be further increases, they should be
made now, before the Legislature, when we
would have had a chance to discuss them.
Since the hon. Minister assures us he is not
going to do it this year, I hope that proves
to be the case.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The hon. member for
York South is drowning. He is drowned right
now.
Vote 412 agreed to.
MARCH 12, 1958
801
On vote 413:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, this is the
main vote of the educational estimates, and
I would like to ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion. We were given to understand that in
these grants to the various school boards of
the province no school board will receive less
than they did last year. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: That is right.
Mr. Whicher: That is correct? Well then,
if that is correct, why is the hon. Minister—
and, mind you, I agree completely with what
Was said about an equalized assessment— but
what is the sense of having equalized assess-
ment if some are going to get more than
others? I mean, obviously we have various
municipalities here which have been assessed
only at 25 per cent, of the equalized assess-
ment figures as laid down by The Department
of Municipal Affairs. If this government is
not going to penalize them, what is going to
happen to these people who are assessed over
100 per cent.?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think—
Hon. Mr. Frost: —and we give the others
more, that is the point.
Mr. MacDonald: Bring everybody up but
nobody down, tra la, tra la.
Mr. Whicher: Well, take in the county of
Haliburton, just as an example. I just hap-
pened to turn the page over. They have been
assessed at approximately 30 per cent, of
the figures as given by The Department of
Municipal AfFairs as an equalized assessment
for the whole province. They have been
assessed at approximately 30 per cent.
Well now, that means for a long time they
have been really getting more education
grants than they should have, compared to
the rest of the province. If they are going to
get a certain grant not less than last year, my
question is this: What is the municipality
going to get whose figure is 110 per cent.?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Well, Haliburton will
not get less, but it will not get nearly as
much as it would have if it had dealt dif-
ferently with that assessment figure, and next
year it will be a little more. We are penaliz-
ing it all right, but we are not giving it any
less than it has been getting.
Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. Minister mean
the full penalty will fall in the one year-
next year?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Oh, no.
Mr. Oliver: Well, is it a 4-year period
before they have to reach the correct status—
4 years?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: I think it is for 4 years.
Mr. Oliver: Is that settled? The hon. Minis-
ter had better ask the hon. Prime Minister.
I think it is important that we know that.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Sixty per cent, the first
year.
Mr. Oliver: What per cent, the first year?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Sixty per cent.
Mr. Oliver: Then the next year it will be—?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: It will have to be worked
out again, that is all.
Mr. Oliver: Oh, just one step at a time. But
it will be a 4-year plan?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
leader of the Opposition that here is the
situation: We have had a great disparity of
assessments, and the Opposition has taken,
for instance, one place that is typical of very
many others in that area of Ontario. What is
our policy? To try to adjust all of these
things and make it as painless as possible for
them. That is what we are going to do, to
make it as easy as possible.
As a matter of fact, in all of those areas
under this system they gain a little— more than
a little bit, they gain quite substantially— but
some of the other areas, which have had high
assessments and so on, have perhaps been
penalized for that. Now they are having
their problems made up for them because
of that. That is the situation, and I think
the hon. leader of the Opposition will agree
that it is a pretty reasonable deal.
Mr. Oliver: The point I want to get cleared
and, which I think the hon. Prime Minister
went away from, is this: There is a set figure,
an equalized figure, which we are going to
attain some day. Now, in Haliburton, they
are away down. "We are not going to make
you come to that figure in one year," that is
what I want the hon. Minister to say. It will
be a gradual approach to it over a period,
as the hon. Minister says, of 4 years.
Now following that for a moment when
I am on my feet, the impact of these grants
will differ as between the city of Toronto
proper and the suburbs. Is that right, the
application will not be the same in those
two areas?
Take, for instance, the township of Scar-
borough. I think somewhat the same situation
802
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exists as we were talking a moment ago in
the area of Haliburton. In the township of
Scarborough, as I understand it, there will
have to be— if we are subscribe to this equali-
zation figure— quite a definite readjustment.
But it will apply there the same, not all in one
year but it will be done over a 4-year period.
How does this government decide it is going
to do it over a 4-year period, or over a one-
year period? How bad does it have to be, or
how far away from the equalization figures?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: In the case of Metro-
politan Toronto, the grants all go to the
metropolitan board, percentages are different
and all the rest of it. And, in making up these
grants, we had to put in a class by them-
selves 5 big cities: Toronto, Ottawa, London,
Windsor and Hamilton. And there is a special
arrangement for them which is fair and fair
to all the others. So we are going to carry
on in that way. Scarborough, for instance, is
rural, is it not? It should not be, I suppose,
but it is rural, and it is getting rural grants.
Similarly, North York, East York and York
are all rural communities.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to ask one more question. I think that
certainly we are on common ground when
we talk about the necessity of equalized
assessment, but we must get some basis as to
what these grants are. I would like to ask
this question:
Presuming that there were two municipali-
ties which were, to take a common figure, each
getting $1,000 in grants last year, and they
had the same number of class rooms and so
forth, and one of these municipalities has
the figure 30 here and the other one has 100.
Now the hon. Minister has told us the one
which has 30 will not be penalized and there-
fore they will get at least $1,000 next year—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Not penalized all at
once.
Mr. Whicher: No. But the hon. Minister
said they will not get any less than they got
last year. In other words we will say that
the municipality with the figure 30 will still
get $1,000 grant.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: No. A little more.
Mr. Whicher: For supposition, to keep the
figure even, we will say that they get $1,000.
My question is simply this: How much money
will the municipality get which has 100 this
year? Now, the hon. Minister should be able
to answer that question.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: A great deal more.
Mr. Whicher: I want to know how much
more.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: How can I answer that?
Mr. Whicher: I say to the hon. Prime
Minister that I was fair here. I said the grant
last year was exactly the same as $1,000.
The number of class rooms is identical, and
the number of pupils is identical. But under
this equalized assessment, as given by The
Department of Municipal Affairs, under one
municipality we have the figure 30 and under
the other one, the figure 100.
Presuming that under the 30 the govern-
ment is not going to penalize it at all, it
is going to get as much as it did last year.
Presuming that under the municipality that
has the figure 30 it still gets $1,000 this
coming year, how much money will the muni-
cipality get which has 100 under this assess-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Frost: If my hon. friend will give
notice of that question, we will get him the
answer.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I would agree that the
hon. Minister should have notice on a ques-
tion like that, and I would be very interested
in getting it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The committee on educa-
tion is meeting—
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: This morning. We met
this morning and we meet again a week from
this morning.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, Dr. Jackson and
officials are there. They can answer that
question.
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: We provided a number
of samples this morning of what has hap-
pened in various places.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Was my hon. friend down
there this morning?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Yes, he was there.
Mr. Whicher: No, I was not there.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I am awfully sorry.
We put that on for the hon. member's benefit.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, when the hon.
Prime Minister was speaking in the budget
debate, I think I heard him say that the
rural system of grants, their application in
the rural areas, was being brought into these
5 particular cities. He stressed— and I thought
properly at the time— that the great growth
around these areas had built up specific
MARCH 12, 1958
803
problems that were not applicable to the
rest of the province.
Now there is a point here I cannot under-
stand, particularly about the metropolitan
area of Toronto. The hon. Minister has just
said that in Scarborough, for instance, while
their grants are not going to decrease— every-
body agrees with that, they will be certainly
not less than they were— there will not be
the same increase in grants in Scarborough
as there will be in the city of Toronto proper,
and the same will be true of the rest of
the areas around the city.
I think that is right. Well what is the
answer then?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The city of Toronto
proper is in a different class from the rest
of the city, and the township of Scarborough
is in a rural class, gauged again by-
Mr. Oliver: I know, I know exactly what
the hon. Prime Minister is saying.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would point out to my
hon. friend-
Mr. Oliver: I know, but I want to con-
tinue this just for a moment. I agree with
what he says, but if there is a great growth
around Toronto, that growth is out in the
township of Scarborough. It is in the town-
ships of North York and of Etobicoke. It
is not in the city of Toronto.
Now, in the budget speech, the hon. Prime
Minister laid great emphasis on the fact that
these grants would be used in the city of
Toronto to help in taking care of the great
growth. What I cannot get through my
head is that the growth is not in the city of
Toronto. It is in the outside areas. Yet we
are dealing more fairly with the city of
Toronto proper than we are with the outside
areas. Yes, the hon. Prime Minister is—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that is not
so. Let us remember that the grants from
the township of Scarborough, and the grants
from the city of Toronto, are pooled in this
area, so that actually speaking there is a
common school board, a co-ordinating school
board, which means that the grants in Scar-
borough and North York and these other
places and Toronto are actually pooled to
a very great degree.
Therefore, again we have to take the com-
mon division there. I would say to my hon.
friend that more properly the comparison
would be between Scarborough and for in-
stance, the township of Etobicoke. Those
are two similar areas. That would be where
the comparison would be, and have not Scar-
borough and Etobicoke a common assess-
ment under the Gray system? Is there not
a common system, or are they using the old
grant system? Actually speaking, there is
some small variation according to our yard-
stick. For instance, Scarborough might be
90 per cent, and Etobicoke might be 105
per cent.
Well, in that case, there would be an
adjustment when those two muncipalities
are compared.
Mr. Oliver: I know my hon. friend knows
much more about it than I do, but if we
take these figures in this aggregation of
leaves here, we will find that the per pupil
grant and the per class room grant, in the
city of Toronto proper, are most definitely
higher than they are in Scarborough and
Etobicoke and all the other areas.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But let us remember this,
again the hon. leader of the Opposition is
comparing different things. There are cer-
tain factors in the 5 large cities that are left
out of the other cities. For instance, there are
degrees of teachers' salaries that are omitted
in the 5 larger cities but are included in the
others and, therefore, we will find that if we
were to take the number of pupils in the area
and divide them, we would get a truer result
than in trying to compare the difference in
grants between those areas.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I do not want to pursue
this, but does my hon. friend say, then, that
the impact of this new system of grants will
be as good— let us use that word— for the
township of Scarborough as it will for the
city of Toronto proper?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: Does he mean that even though
the city of Toronto gets higher per pupil,
higher per class room than these other town-
ships do—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right.
Mr. Oliver: Well then, why is the difference
made? Why was not the whole metropolitan
area put in one?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, for very obvious
reasons. Toronto, for instance, has a very
high industrial assessment, an industrial assess-
ment that might perhaps run up to 55 per
cent or 60 per cent., something of that sort.
But the township of Scarborough might have
an industrial assessment perhaps of only 20
per cent. Actually speaking, however, I think
that if it is worked out, I think the hon. leader
of the Opposition would see that the township
804
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Scarborough would receive a higher per
pupil grant than would the city of Toronto.
Mr. Oliver: Oh no.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He is comparing only one
thing there. Let him remember that in—
Mr. Oliver: What else is there besides
teachers' salaries? There is nothing else?
Hon. Mr Frost: Oh yes there is.
Mr. Oliver: Well, what is there?
Mr. MacDonald: Would not the growth
factor come in there?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, the growth factor
comes in as well. That is right. The hon.
members had better ask Dr. Jackson about this.
It is a complicated matter but he can make
sense of it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, just pur-
suing that for a moment, I believe it was the
hon. Prime Minister who said, in the explana-
tion on budget day, that he is inaugurating
the rural system in the urban areas. I think
we all agree that basically that is a good thing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would not say the rural
system, but the principles of the rural system.
We are carrying that into the urban areas.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes. I think some of us
interpreted that to mean that the whole
emphasis would be on the class room. That
is, that the hon. Prime Minister would deter-
mine what the class room requires, in terms of
dollars and cents, to operate efficiently.
Now, I am not talking technically, but very
much in layman's language.
Then, the hon. Minister determines what
that assessment per class room is, in that par-
ticular area, on his equalized basis, and if
the assessment is low, he will build it up to
the ideal. I felt that was a very worth while
step forward.
Now, I note that, in the determination of
the grant, there are 3 or 4 different factors
that are taken into consideration to make the
ultimate grant. The growth need factor is one,
and I think it is an understandable one.
But I do not like this, the teacher's salary
determination, for this reason. It seems to
me that it perpetuates low salaries. In other
words, he contributes a certain portion of
that salary. Now it is not the ideal salary, it
is usually a low salary, particularly in the
rural areas, and particularly in some school
boards where they cannot afford to pay more
salaries as good and adequate and desirable
and ideal salaries. The hon. Minister pays,
not a portion or a percentage of the ideal,
but a percentage of the de facto salary in
that particular area.
And so I say that, to that extent, this
system I think must be criticized because it
certainly does not assure that a board will
be in a position to pay an adequate salary
to the teachers in that respective school
area.
Now in the rural areas, I presume we are
going to persist in a situation where, in many
instances, teachers are earning in $2,000 to
$3,000, doing comparable work and probably
more burdensome work, than the same type
of teacher is doing in an urban area, where
the salary is considerably in excess of that.
I would say that, to that extent, this new
system should be criticized, because I am
afraid that it perpetuates an undesirable
thing, and that is low teachers' salaries in the
weaker financial areas.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, I might say that is
one of the great problems of a grant system
which is based upon cost and upon teachers'
salaries. As a matter of fact, that is one of
the reasons why the matter of teachers' sal-
aries was eliminated from the 5 larger cities
altogether, for this reason. There were dif-
ferent classes of schools, that made the dis-
parities considerable— that is, in the elemen-
tary schools.
I would say to my hon. friend that one
of the problems in other schools is this. If
we were to subsidize teachers' salaries on
the basis of the amounts actually paid, you
see, we have then increased that disparity
as between poorer schools and wealthier
schools. That is the reason why, in teachers'
salaries, a portion of the salary, say $115 a
pupil, was taken.
Now as a matter of fact, $115 a pupil
works out to what? About $3,500 a year is
it not? $3,400 on $50, that has been taken
as the maximum. Now that was done in
order not to create that disparity between
the poorer sections and the wealthier sec-
tions. That is the purpose of it.
As a matter of fact, I can say to my hon.
friend that a year ago, in introducing the
changes then, we raised the per pupil grant,
teacher-salary wise, from $75 to $100. We
found that created a great deal of difficulty
in the poorer schools. It made it very difficult
in some cases for the poorer schools to com-
pete. That was not only between separate
and public schools, but also between poorer
separate schools and wealthier separate
schools and poorer public schools and wealth-
ier public schools.
MARCH 12, 1958
805
Accordingly, very great care was taken
this time not to create a great disparity, and
although the grants all away around have
been raised, the per pupil amount was in-
creased in this case from $100 to $115. The
per pupil grants were increased to offset the
effects of that.
Now, I would quite frankly say that in a
matter so complicated— and this is a matter
of immense complication— the minute we get
into the study of school grants it is some-
thing that is almost never ending, and in
some ways it is understandable as between
various parts of the province and different
municipalities, depending upon the incidence
of high and low assessment and the effect of
industrial assessment.
I would not for a moment say that this
system is perfect, but I do think it is a very
great improvement over anything we have
had in Ontario. I am satisfied with that. I
am getting generally very favourable com-
ments from the school boards.
We anticipate next year that there will
have to be adjustments. Perhaps we are going
to find that, by a combination of these com-
plicated schedules, some places might suffer,
other places might be too affluent. Those
things are inevitable.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that Dr.
Jackson and Dr. Cannon and Mr. Stacey, who
are here, and others who worked on that
committee, took thousands of examples in
various formulas, to see how it would work
out. They did this because one can devise
one system here for, say, the city of Toronto,
and when it is applied to some other place
it is completely out of line.
That is the reason why population was
used in only one regard, and that was to
create classes within which the formula would
work. That was the only use that was made
of population.
As a matter of fact, when we first started
out, we felt that perhaps we could take the
whole urban area and apply one formula to
it. But that was found to be impossible, it
simply did not work, because for one thing
the disparity in teachers' salaries. We might
find that some areas would be paying $3,400
or $3,500, and some areas 3 times as much
as that.
All of these factors taken together meant
that the matter had to be broken down into
areas, and then a formula be devised that
would give equity in that particular class,
and then it had to be worked out up to the
top, I mean to the largest municipality, and
then it had to be looked at to see that, as
between those classes, once that was done,
there were no inequities.
That is an immense job. I may say that I
have the greatest admiration for the work of
these gentlemen whom I have mentioned.
If hon. members would listen to Dr. Jack-
son, with whom I have been associated now
for many years, as a matter of fact, back in
1945 I worked with Dr. Jackson and the late
Dr. Grear on the school grants. Dr. Grear
was a very great man; he told me at that time
that the grant system would work. Now, hon.
members will remember that was on a basis
of cost. It was the best yardstick that could
be used at that time, and it looked like a very
good one, but that was before the great up-
surge of school population in the province.
I would say that this was one of the faults
of the 1945 system, but it was the best that
could be done at that time. But it did tend to
make the rich richer and perhaps the poor
poorer. But Dr. Grear told me that it would
work out fairly equitably for a period of 5
years. As a matter of fact, Dr. Grear died in
the meantime, but he was quite correct in
that.
By 1950, we introduced a new system that
was based on a combination of things, includ-
ing attendance. We felt at that time, with the
experience we had, it would last for 5
or 6 years; as a matter of fact, at the lapse
of 5 years we started, as hon. members know,
putting pupil assistance and some other things
into the grant system.
With this new system, of course, our prob-
lem was not with the rural end. Actually
speaking, the rural system took into considera-
tion the factors we have now applied to the
urban end of things. We had achieved a
reasonable result, and we had a very fair
degree of satisfaction, particularly in the
elementary schools.
By and large, where a problem existed
15 years ago, it is now entirely altered. Often
it was not in the poorer rural areas, it was
in very many of the urban areas and par-
ticularly the wealthier areas.
Now, I would say that the committee is
meeting again next week, Wednesday morn-
ing, and many of those things could be
explained by the officials who are there.
Votes 413 to 415, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
806
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report progress and begs leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, may I remind
the hon. members that tomorrow night there
is no night session. I say that for the benefit
of my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposi-
tion, and the hon. member for York South, to
show that there is no effort to unduly hasten
the work of this House.
But the House does meet at 2 o'clock
tomorrow afternoon, when the non-contro-
versial estimates for The Department of
Reform Institutions will be instituted by the
House, followed by bills on the order paper.
Depending upon the amount of time taken,
there might be a speech or two on the budget
debate, but I would very much doubt that.
On Friday, we shall meet at 10.30 a.m.,
and the estimates of The Department of Plan-
ning and Development will be followed by
the budget debate.
On Monday, we will meet at 2 o'clock.
There will be no night session on Monday,
and there will be no night session on Tues-
day, which again I think is an indication to
my hon. friends of the fact that we are
proceeding in our orderly, calm way to do
the business of the people.
Tomorrow I will have to give the estimates
for those two days, but in any event, tomor-
row The Department of Reform Institutions,
and on Friday The Department of Planning
and Development.
I move the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 33
ONTARIO
HepMature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Thursday, March 13, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
SQBSnc>5
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
j
Thursday, March 13, 1958
Seventh report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Maloney 809
First report, standing committee on municipal law, Mr. Rankin 809
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 809
Liquor Control Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 809
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, first reading 809
Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 810
Financial Administration Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 810
Raising of money on the credit of consolidated revenue fund,
bill to authorize, Mr. Roberts, first reading 810
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Dymond 811
Administration of Justice Expenses Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 841
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 841
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 841
Libel and Slander Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, second reading 841
Private Investigators Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Registry Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Time Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Law Stamps Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Corporations Tax Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 843
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Gordon 845
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Parry, agreed to 848
Windsor Jewish communal projects, bill respecting, reported 848
City of Windsor, bill respecting, reported 848
City of Toronto, bill respecting, reported 848
Canadian National Exhibition Association, bill respecting, reported 848
Chartered Institute of Secretaries of Joint Stock Activities and Other Public Bodies in
Ontario, bill to incorporate, reported 849
Corporation of the Synod of Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian Church
in Canada, bill respecting, reported 849
Township of Sunnidale, bill respecting, reported 849
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, reported 849
City of Niagara Falls, bill respecting, reported 849
City of Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, reported 849
United Community Fund of Greater Toronto, bill respecting, reported 849
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 849
809
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, March 13, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney,
from the standing committee on private bills,
presents the committee's seventh report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the following
bill without amendment.
Bill No. 29, An Act respecting the estate
of Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen
Isabel Drope Trust, and the Charlotte Ross
Grant trust.
Your committee would also recommend
that the following bill, having been with-
drawn, be not reported:
Bill No. 34, An Act respecting the South
Peel board of education.
Your committee would recommend that the
fees, less the penalties and the actual cost of
printing, be remitted on Bill No. 34, An Act
respecting the South Peel board of education.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. D. J. Rankin, from
the standing committee on municipal law,
presents the committee's first report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 108, An Act to amend The Public
Parks Act.
Bill No. 119, An Act to amend The Public
Utilities Act.
Bill No. 120, An Act to amend The Ontario
Municipal Board Act.
Bill No. 121, An Act to amend The Local
Improvement Act.
Bill No. 131, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs Act.
Your committee also begs to report the fol-
lowing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 130, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Act.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
Annual report of the Ontario College of
Art for the fiscal year ending May 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE LIQUOR CONTROL ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Liquor
Control Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in section 1, the
purpose of re-defining beer is to give the
board control over all beverages containing
alcohol, that are made from barley, malt, or
hops, in order that it will include all so-
called beer. That would cover the subject of
"light" beer.
Then, under improvement of wine, we are
adding, to that list, wine made from honey.
As hon. members know, farmers in the past
have been making wine from dark honey.
There is one firm in that business, so we are
making it possible for them to sell their
product.
Then we are defining residence, that is to
say, regarding the case tried last year. Resi-
dence will include a reasonable amount of
land, connected with the home, as the resi-
dence where the person is.
Therefore one can be out on his verandah
or out on his lawn, and have a bottle of beer
without breaking the law.
If an hon. member came into my house,
and I were sociable enough to offer a drink,
and he accepted that, he could be prosecuted,
but I could not. We are going to have it so
that a person accepting a drink at his host's
residence cannot be prosecuted. So that is
all there is to this bill.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Dunbar moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act, 1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
810
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple
matter. Let us say, in the past, a corporation
had its charter cancelled, and perhaps they
found later, through some error of the
solicitor or the accountant— something of that
nature— that its business had not been com-
pleted, had not been wound up. Therefore,
we are giving the power to His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to open up
the matter again and renew the charter.
THE EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL
I DIRECTORS ACT
Hon. M. Phillips moves first reading of Act
intituled, An Act to amend The Embalmers
and Funeral Directors Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, an explanation of
this. There are 6 features. No. 1 is a clause
added so that the Minister of Health may be
informed of the particulars of permits, as well
as certificates of qualification, which simply
means that the Minister of Health annually
receives a number of permit holders among
the funeral directors.
Second, is to make each licenced director,
whether an embalmer or funeral director, to
show in public and in advertisements who is
in charge of the business.
Third, that he must display in a conspicu-
ous place his licence which gives the name
of the director or directors in charge.
Those sections were put in in order to
protect the public.
Then the fourth is that we changed the
name from board of examiners to board of
administration.
Fifth, up until the present time, a man
could allow his licence to lapse for a 5-year
period before it was cancelled but we have
reduced that 5 years to 3 years.
Sixth, and last, is to prevent anyone, any
one director, from carrying on several places
of business. In the future if he has several
places of business he has to have a licenced
director in each place.
THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACT, 1954
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves the first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Financial Administration Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for
enlarging, or power to enlarge, the Treasury
board from 5 to not more than 8 members,
and makes a slight amendment to subsection
1 of section 34 of The Financial and Adminis-
tration Act, 1954.
RAISING OF MONEY ON THE CREDIT
OF CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to authorize the rais-
ing of money on the credit of the consolidated
revenue fund."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes
the raising of money, on the credit of the
fund, loans up to $250 million.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome students from the
following schools: Orde Street school of
Toronto; Queensway school in Toronto;
Rippleton Road School, Toronto; Annette
Street school, Toronto; and also students
from Westerbelt business school in London,
and a group of ladies from the YWCA
mothers' club in Hamilton. These people
are here to view the proceedings of the
House, and we tender them a very warm
welcome.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I would
like to table answers to questions Nos. 2, 4,
18, 20, 22, 24, 29, 31, 15, 16, 26, and 30.
I might say I worked all night.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I would
like to read a small item from the Port Arthur
News Chronicle from March 8. Now the
reason that I bring this up, it has to do with
the $5 million that this government made
available to employ those unemployed who
had run out of unemployment insurance.
I have heard it so many times called a
phony scheme, a vote-catching scheme, and
a window-dressing scheme, due I guess to the
frustration and sorrow of the Opposition
because they did not think of it themselves.
Therefore I think I should not read this to
show how it is working out in one section.
Now this is from the Port Arthur News
Chronicle of March 8:
Fort William approves work project.
Fort William board of works passed a
motion Friday for the go-ahead in brush
and clearing work at a cost $43,500. This
is in line with Prime Minister Frost's
offer of aid for the unemployed who can-
not collect unemployment insurance.
MARCH 13, 1958
811
The work is located on Island No. 2 and
is expected to get under way by Wednes-
day or Thursday. The proposed project
will be brought before city council Tues-
day. City Engineer J. A. Marshall said
approximately 99 unemployed workers can
take advantage of this employment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I read that to show
that this is an example of the splendid way
in which this plan is working out to assist
our unemployment, and for the benefit of
the opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Perhaps today I should ap-
proach this task with some temerity, but I
assure you, sir, I am experiencing no such
sensation. Although I intend to ask this
House to vote a substantially increased
amount of money for the operation of my
department, I do so without fear or apology,
since I have made certain that each estimate
has been examined and re-examined by the
officials of the department, and I am quite
satisfied that the increase is justified.
When this House passes these estimates,
I can assure hon. members the funds will
be used with all the care and thrift tradi-
tionally attributed to the race from which
I am sprung.
Before settling down to the matter in
hand, Mr. Chairman, may I be pardoned
some personal references. When in July last
I was called to assume this portfolio, I did
so with some slight reluctance. This stem-
med in small part only from the fact that
joining the executive council of this province
called for some personal sacrifice, as it does
in almost every case. But in addition to this,
to my mind, of even greater importance was
the question of my ability and fitness to
assume the responsibilities which any port-
folio places upon the holder. However, I
recall once reading this advice, "always
do the thing you are afraid to do," so I
was proud indeed to undertake this further
opportunity of service to this country which
has done so much for me (for, after all, I
am one of those often called "New Cana-
dians" ) .
I would at this time thank all hon. mem-
bers of both sides of this House for their
congratulatory messages and many kindly
wishes so generously sent to me on my
appointment. I trust that when my record is
reviewed, it may not be found wanting in
too great measure, and that it may not be
too greatly disappointing to those who wished
me well.
For reasons which I expect will be per-
fectly patent to most hon. members of this
House, Mr. Chairman, I particularly want
to thank the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) for his good wishes as
reported in Hansard of Wednesday, Feb-
ruary 12. I want to say to him that I do
sincerely accept his felicitations in the spirit
in which I believe they were extended, for
I believe he is innately a kindly gentleman,
albeit somewhat misguided.
But in this department, where my interest
has lain for the past 8 months, we soon
learn that discouragement is a luxury we
can never afford to indulge and so I would
hasten to assure my hon. friend from York
South that I still have some hope the day
may yet come when for him shall dawn
a great light showing him so clearly that the
path he follows is surely a dead-end street.
My hon. friend at this same time made some
further remarks about my department and
its staff. With these I shall deal at some
length later on.
As has been customary in past years, the
report of my department has been submitted
in two parts. Part I is devoted to the record
of reformatories, industrial farms and jails,
while Part 2 deals with the training schools.
Taking these in this order of precedence, I
would commend to the personal attention of
all hon. members the interesting history of
our system, ably sketched by the Deputy
Minister in his remarks. This is an interest-
ing resume for several reasons.
First, it is submitted by one who has spent
many years in the practical side of this work
and has himself seen the many changes of
which he writes. Furthermore, he has played
a not inconsiderable part in thinking out and
putting into effect many of these changes,
and has therefore had ample opportunity to
assess their value and effectiveness, and too,
on occasion, to see their weaknesses.
Then, too, this preface, reviewing as it does
our system from its inception to the present
time, shows without doubt that we have made
a good deal of progress. Not that I claim
perfection or even near-perfection for our
812
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
efforts (and I shall have more to say about
this), but I can and do, with some justifiable
pride, claim for the entire staff of the depart-
ment, well merited praise and commendation
for the efforts they continually put forth and
for the progress they have made.
Next, we note some statistical information.
Statistics are usually cold and dry, but it is
said that "figures do not lie"; so in the interest
of truth alone we ought to look at and con-
sider them in some measure at least. We
note with a good deal of dismay that the rates
of convictions and commitments have both
increased appreciably— the latter by 14.8 per
cent., and the former by 15.2 per cent.
In every class or type of offence, except
one, we have experienced an increase, and
even allowing for the increasing population,
there is still a slight increase. This is not
peculiar to Ontario only, as the same experi-
ence has been reported for Canada as a whole,
as well as for several of the states to the
south of us. In this regard, it might be of
interest to note that California, credited with
having a most enlightened judicial and correc-
tional programme, reports an increase of 7
per cent.
These, I believe, are corrected statistics.
I might claim, justifiably, that this is not our
concern in The Department of Reform In-
stitutions, but we do consider it and are
concerned about it, since we hope that part
of our programme at least should exert a
deterrent effect and thus be reflected in de-
creasing crime rates.
Further, this preface speaks of treatment
as well as punishment, and it is, I think, to
the credit, not only of those engaged in the
field of correction, but also the great body of
public opinion, that we speak now of treat-
ment and punishment, rather than of the
reverse order. But I feel, Mr. Chairman, I
cannot pass over this lightly without observ-
ing that all of the people do not agree on this
subject. Indeed, I believe I can say rightly
that society is fairly evenly divided into two
schools of thought. They are on the one
hand, "that we are too strict, too harsh in
our system," and on the other, that we are
too easy, "that we mollycoddle our charges
too much."
My hon. friend from York South expressed
the hope that I, and I quote, "can resolve the
confusion of purpose within the department."
I will deal specifically with this hope, but I
make the above observation just to point out
to you, sir, and to the hon. members, how
much confusion and question and doubt sur-
rounds this entire problem in human rela-
tions.
Considering treatment first for a brief
space, since I have to admit very frankly, sir,
this I believe to be our first concern in the
department, I would direct your attention to
the second part of our report, that concerning
the training schools, for here practically the
one consideration over-riding all others is
treatment. When we think of the background
of the majority of these children— for in very
fact, sir, children they are— we can readily see
that treatment must be of paramount import-
ance in any programme that is to be effective.
From whence come these students to our
schools? What causes them to fail to conform
to what we all accept as a normal pattern of
behaviour? I believe we will all agree that no
child is born bad, is born a criminal, and I
would go further, sir, and suggest that I at
least cannot believe any child is born with
a natural tendency to criminality or delin-
quency.
Following the pattern of former years, we
note in the "Factors Contributing to Delin-
quency," that 90 per cent, or better can be
attributed to the home and parents — poor
homes, broken homes, unstable homes,
alcoholic parent or parents, immorality,
mental and emotional instability of parents,
desertion by parents, criminality in parents-
whatever the fault, the victim of that fault is
the unfortunate child or children, and I
would personally include in the list of defec-
tions, immaturity of parents, for I seem to
note a growing trend toward earlier marriage,
resulting in children being born to parents
who are themselves little more than children
and certainly too immature to assume the
responsibilities of parenthood.
But the inescapable fact, Mr. Chairman, is
this, that in this respect I am convinced our
approach has not been altogether good. We,
and by that I mean society, should have been
concentrating on the basic causes of delin-
quency and seeking thereby to effect a cure.
I do not say this, sir, with any hope or inten-
tion of seeking to direct attention or criticism
away from our department, but rather because
I share with all those in my department con-
cerned with the training schools, and also, I
am very pleased to note, a great and growing
body of public opinion, that this is a long
overdue approach to an old, a difficult, and
an increasingly grave problem.
And so today, Mr. Chairman, I take this
opportunity to appeal with all the vigour of
which I am possessed, to all hon. members
of this House, and indeed all thinking people
of the province, to urge the beginning of
intensive, well-ordered research into this
problem of juvenile delinquency.
MARCH 13, 1958
813
Now, sir, we might take a look at what
we are trying to do and what we are accom-
plishing in this field of correctional treatment
of our juveniles through the province's train-
ing schools. As all hon. members know, we
at present operate two schools for boys, and
one for girls, and in addition to this, we have
supervision over one school for girls and two
for boys operated by Orders of the Roman
Catholic Church.
In our own schools we have under residen-
tial care 210 girls, and 460 boys. In addi-
tion, we have in placement a further 100 girls,
and 550 boys. The latter group have already
undergone a period or periods of in-residence
training and are now placed in their own
or foster homes, where they remain our wards
till wardship is relinquished by this depart-
ment, or until they have reached the age of
18 years.
We have to turn to some figures again, to
find our students range in age from 8 to 17;
the greatest number falling in the age group
13 to 15 inclusive.
I have already pointed out to hon. members
the most important common factor contribut-
ing to their delinquent pattern, namely, broken
and disturbed homes. Some believe, and
would have us believe, that the majority of
these youngsters are of low, weak, or defective
mentality. This, Mr. Chairman, is not borne
out by fact, as we find in our group that ap-
proximately 50 per cent, fall within the range
of the normal to highly intelligent. A large
percentage of them, approximately 83 per
cent., are from urban areas— this may be
suggestive. Race and creed have also been
considered statistically with, I believe, no
conclusive opinion reached.
These matters, Mr. Chairman, are not inves-
tigated and reported just for the purpose of
providing information in the hope that some
of it may be of interest to some of our people
—rather all this is part and parcel of the
research being carried on continuously by the
staff of our department.
It is part of a plan undertaken by the staff
of the department in the hope that we might
ourselves find some answers to the questions
asked by so many in every jurisdiction. It
is our contribution to the research project
which we feel so urgently should be seriously
tackled by some other authority; namely, the
causes of juvenile delinquency, and how best
to deal with this problem.
But I should point out here, too, that
research is assuming greater and more impor-
tant proportions in our programme than ever
before, and I am pleased to inform this House,
through you, Mr. Chairman, that my staff, in
co-operation with Judge Stewart of Metro
juvenile court, and his court staff, has just
begun a new research project, the first of its
kind in this province if not in the whole of
Canada, and one which we hope will be most
fruitful in results.
Now for our programme for students in the
training schools. In the case of the younger
students, chief emphasis is naturally placed
on academic training. The curriculum set up
in consultation with The Department of Edu-
cation is followed throughout, and is well
accepted by our students. I believe our results,
looked at broadly, are equal to the results
found in comparable groups in any of our
public schools.
It must always be borne in mind that our
students all start out under handicaps— some
of them severe indeed. Not the least of these
handicaps is the lack of discipline so evident
in all of our students. When they first come
into our care, to teach them discipline is, of
course, one of our prime duties and responsi-
bilities—for I am one of those who believes
unswervingly in the need for, and value of,
discipline.
I realize that I tread on dangerous ground
when I speak of this. In the minds of so
many, this quality discipline, which is basic
to sound character building, is so often con-
fused with militarism and regimentation. If
I may step aside for a moment, I would make
the personal observation that I have never
seen any harm stem from military discipline,
and conversely I have seen much good flow
therefrom.
In regard to this matter of discipline in the
training schools of the province, I would say,
without excuse or apology, that I sincerely
hope every member of the staff dealing with
our students will always bear in mind that
good discipline is essential to the building of
character, and is equally essential to fitting
every one of our young people for citizen-
ship.
In our programme, there is no emphasis or
insistence upon militarism, or discipline that
can by any stretch of the imagination be re-
lated to militarism. But I would make very
clear to the hon. members of this House that
those phases of our training programme re-
lated to cadet training, and such, are among
the most popular with the students, and to
be able to take part in those activities is
considered a prize to be sought after and to
work hard toward. Those who have seen our
cadet corps at Bowmanville, on parade, or
our girls' band at Gait, will know and appre-
ciate what I mean.
814
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But I do repeat that discipline— sure, firm,
but at all times fair— must be insisted upon,
and it is niost refreshing to note the pendu-
lum of popular opinion in this matter is
swinging back again, away from the "self-
expressionist" school, to something aproach-
ing a "middle course."
Since our students spend all of their time
in residence, it is necessary to consider every
aspect of their life and activity. A programme
must be instituted with this in mind— hobbies,
work projects, handicrafts, sports, athletics,
and recreational activities are all included in
this programme.
In the case of older girls and boys, greater
emphasis is placed upon vocational training.
I do not mean by this that we. attempt to
train the student fully in any certain trade or
vocation. They are not usually in our care
long enough for this, but we do strive to give
them a grasp of the fundamentals in the hope
this will be of some value when they take
their place in society again.
Throughout all their stay in our training
schools, I can assure hon. members, every
attempt is made to guide and counsel our
charges, to give them a sense of belonging,
to develop in them some feeling of security,
to straighten out their warped minds, to
reorient their distorted thinking— all this in
the hope that their latent capacities and
potentialities may be brought out, their per-
sonalities may be caused to blossom forth—
in a word, sir, that they may be guided to-
ward their natural destiny.
The intensive programme during the time
of the student's residence in the school of
necessity cannot be continued when he or
she is placed again in the parental or a foster
home. But these homes are investigated very
carefully and thoroughly, having first in mind
the needs of the student. While we cannot
hope for a perfect score, yet I am able to
state today that we have had a good record
in this regard. As evidence of this, I would
direct the attention of hon. members to the
fact that, out of 874 student placements, 278
had to be returned for a further period of
training— I will have more to say about this
later on— and 20 were sent to other institu-
tions.
When we speak of treatment, we appear
naturally to think of the need for the services
of professional people, and indeed, these
have for some time been an integral part of
our Ontario system. Our professional staff at
present comprises 3 full-time and 7 part-time
psychiatrists; 11 full-time and 3 part-time
psychologists; 2 graduate social workers, in
addition to physicians, dentists, nurses,
teachers, and chaplains. We also have one
graduate dietitian and one graduate occu-
pational therapist.
There is a scarcity of social workers, but
I am pleased to be able to announce that we
have 6 coming to us from Great Britain
within the next few weeks, and two who have
been studying at Toronto University under
our bursaries, will join our staff this summer
on graduation. Taken all in all, our profes-
sional staff is in very satisfactory condition,
and forms a very necessary part of the entire
correctional team. There is no doubt now of
the value of treatment in the correctional
system. But is it being used adequately; is
there still a greater place for treatment of this
kind? These and many other questions still
remain to be answered, and are among the
many questions constantly under study by
the staff of my department.
I would be negligent were I to leave this
subject without making mention of our train-
ing schools advisory board. This board con-
sists of 5 members— 4 men and one lady-
all of them giving their services generously to
a cause in which they have great faith, and
for which they have a considerable love. Like
so many of our people in various other fields
of endeavour and public service, I would
commend them and their efforts to the atten-
tion of this House, and indeed to all the
people of our province.
If I have appeared to emphasize this phase
of the work of my department, I must admit
this has been intentional, for I am persuaded
that herein lies the hope of our greatest suc-
cess in the whole field of correction and
reform. I recall reading a long time ago of
a priest who said, "Give me the first 7 years
of a child's life, and you can have the rest;
for in that time I believe I can mould and
pattern his thinking, his outlook and his
attitudes."
I am not sure I can fully accept this state-
ment, but I do agree that if a child comes
into care at the time of the first signs of
abnormal behaviour, help then is most easily
given, and in the main is most readily
received. Get the child when he is first stray-
ing into a deliquent pattern, before he has
built up hate, bitterness and animosity, while
he has still some faith in society, and I
believe we can do more to help him.
Rising out of this faith and this belief, I
would ask hon. members to take a look at
the immediate future of our training schools.
During 1957 our admissions increased, in the
case of girls, 51.28 per cent., and boys 23.79
per cent. Our girls' school at Gait was built
MARCH 13, 1958
815
to accommodate 100; today the population is
almost 200.
To help relieve this, we set up a small unit
for about 25 of the youngest girls. This was
primarily as a further experiment in classi-
fication; to take very young girls when first
sent to us, and to try to train them com-
pletely apart from older girls, and those who
had been in our school for some time. This
will open in a few weeks now, but we are
faced with the urgent necessity of building
here a school for 100.
Although we purchased within the past 8
months another house adjoining the boys'
school at Cobourg, we are already over-
crowded there, as we are also at Bowman-
ville. We are at present actively seeking a
building site for another boys' school to
accommodate 100 to 125.
Perhaps some may counter by suggesting
we shorten the period of in-residence training,
or that we might enlarge the facilities we now
have and build up the present schools to
double their capacity.
Dealing with the latter suggestion first, I
may say that the advice of almost all, who
may be considered to be expert in this field,
is that no school should plan for more than
100 students if good results are to be expected.
Indeed in England they believe 40 to 60 to
be the ideal number of students for any one
school. At the present time, it is the policy
of our department to consider 125 as the
absolute optimum capacity.
In the matter of shorter in-residence train-
ing periods, we have some very revealing
figures from our own experience. In our
Gait school—
Year
Average stay
Girls Returned
1953-1954
12 mos.
80
1954-1955
14 mos.
61
1955-1956
18 mos.
19
1956-1957
18 mos.
16
These figures would show that unless ade-
quate in-residence training can be provided,
the failure rate rises and, as a corollary, the
cost becomes greater.
Turning now, Mr. Chairman, to part I of
our report, dealing with reformatories, indus-
dustrial farms and jails, we are pleased to note
that the admissions to those institutions in-
creased by only 43, or less than .5 per cent, in
1956-1957, as compared with the previous
year. Taking into consideration the natural
increase in the general population, there
would thus be a decrease in the number
sentenced to those institutions.
There was a somewhat larger number sen-
tenced to jails, the figure here increasing 1.85
per cent, over the previous year. I do not
intend to consider the reasons for this, but
would say in passing that it may be due
in some measure to the greater use of proba-
tion, an instrument which many believe should
be used much more extensively.
I have to admit we have not made the
advances in this branch which we probably
might have made, for very good reason. As
hon. members no doubt know, the federally
appointed commission, known as the Fauteaux
commission, made certain recommendations
which, if implemented, would make very great
changes in our system. To date, much study
'and consideration of these recommendations is
still being made, so it would be unwise if we
were to go ahead with many things planned
by our department until some decisions have
been reached by the federal Department of
Justice.
I do not mean to convey the impression
that we are at a standstill, waiting for the
next move from the federal people. We still
continue our programme, and do those things
which cannot be delayed, at the same time
making whatever progressive changes can be
made without involving the province in exten-
sive, costly changes.
Training, with a view to rehabilitation, is
still the keynote of our programme, especially
in the case of young offenders. The training
centres at Brampton and at Burtch continue
to do excellent work, with continued good
results insofar as reclamation of inmates is
concerned.
I have a tremendous faith in the value of
hard work as a therapeutic measure, and I
was most pleased to note that the staff of
this department almost without exception had
this same faith. As a result of this attitude,
it is unusual to find much loafing about our
institutions, and I believe I can say with
some conviction it is equally unusual to find
much of the inmates' time spent in useless
or non-productive work.
I believe there is a place for some types
of work which may be considered menial or
undignified in the field of punishment, but
I also believe this place is definitely limited.
In addition to the various industries car-
ried on in our institutions, we have co-oper-
ated with The Department of Lands and
Forests in particular in projects of great
value to the province. These have included
fire-fighting, conservation projects, brush-
clearing and burning reforestation, clearing
camp and park sites, and such. These are
most valuable phases of our programme, as
816
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they give men an opportunity to show their
initiative and ability, and also give us an
opportunity to assess the value of our re-
formative work.
Since these projects are out in the open,
only very little in the way of security
measures can be carried on. Yet I think I am
correct when I say that not one man at-
tempted to escape, and indeed there was a
good deal of rivalry for these jobs.
These projects were also valuable to us
from the standpoint of the health of the men.
During the epidemic of flu last fall, far fewer
of our men on these jobs were afflicted than
was otherwise found. I am proud also to
state the morale of the men so employed
was always very high, and my department
will be pleased when the present seasonal
lull in employment is ended, so that we may
send our inmates again to these jobs in the
outdoors.
The work in the various specialized centres
and clinics continued through this year as
before, and was expanded in certain aspects.
The Alex G. Brown clinic for alcoholics
continued its already fine record, and is still
something of a model being copied by other
jurisdictions. Having now been in operation
for 7.5 years, we are able to assess more
definitely the value of the work being done
here; some figures may be of interest.
Some 1,898 patients have passed through
the clinic to this time. Of these, we have
been able to follow 1,200, and find that
35 per cent, of them can be considered as
greatly improved, while the remaining 65
per cent, have had 4 relapses or more since
the treatment, and have therefore to be con-
sidered unimproved.
Perhaps some may argue that 35 per cent,
is not a very high record, but I would like
you to remember, Mr. Chairman, and
through you the hon. members of this House,
that many, many of these men, included in
this 35 per cent., were little better than
derelicts for whom society had given up all
hope of reclamation.
The clinic for drug addicts has been more
disappointing. It has not been in operation
as long as the alcoholics' clinic, and so can-
not yet be compared on the same basis. It
has been necessary, since I came into the
department, to tighten up security measures
very considerably here, and we are closely
watching the results. It is our intention to
continue the work in this field, and we have
had conferences to review our findings, to
compare them with the experiences of others,
and to plot our future course.
We can say with truth at this stage that
our experiences in this most difficult field are
at least no worse than any others, and are
much better than some.
With the opening last June of the new
maximum security institution at Millbrook,
some of the work previously being done at
the neuro-psychiatric centre at Guelph was
transferred there. Certain of the sex offenders,
and the more difficult psychopathic cases,
now go to Millbrook for treatment.
We believe that this unit will be a fruitful
field of research. A good deal has appeared
of late in the press concerning this institu-
tion, and about its part in the greatly im-
proved morale of the inmates of all the other
institutions.
I am neither prepared nor in a position
to say if this is so or not. I can say, how-
ever, that Millbrook is not yet fully occupied,
and if its presence is the reason for better
behaviour in our inmates, then it was and
is a good investment.
As hon. members no doubt know, the new
plant for the production of car markers is
now located in the Millbrook institution, and
is currently turning out plates for 1959.
This plant, I am assured, is the most modern
on this continent. Other industries are in
operation here, and still others are planned,
because here, as elsewhere, work is a thera-
peutic measure.
It may be of more than passing interest to
know that, on the day this building at
Millbrook was officially opened, more than
4,000 people were present, and I would sug-
gest to every hon. member to make an effort
to visit Millbrook, to see for himself some-
thing of the work we are trying to do.
It may appear that our only concern is for
men in the reform institutions, and that the
women are permitted on sufferance or toler-
ated only. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be
very happy if we did not have to provide
institutions for women, but apparently some
of the women misbehave just as many men
do, so we have to provide some place for
them, and they are very much our concern.
It has often been said that we have not
tried to do for them what we have done for
the men, and for this charge there may have
been some justification; of this I cannot
judge.
I would point out, however, that some of
the criticism, at least, has come out of some
lack of knowledge of what we try to do for
the women under our care. There is a definite
programme at the Mercer reformatory; it is
well planned and well accepted.
MARCH 13, 1958
817
The total number of women is just over
100, and as a result there is not the diversity
of training available to them that there is
for men. A fairly large proportion of them,
over 60 per cent., have had 3 or more
previous convictions, thus coming into the
recidivist class, a group for whom training
seems to do little.
In the matter of treatment, we have been
accused of neglecting the women and not
providing for alcoholics and drug addicts, as
we have in the case of men.
As hon. members will no doubt recall,
prior to my assuming this portfolio, an
attempt was made to establish a clinic for
alcoholic women on the grounds of Mercer;
the results were disappointing; the plain fact
was, the women did not want treatment and
refused to accept it.
Now, as a country doctor, I would seriously
suggest that if the patient does not want to
be treated, it is foolish and indeed worthless
to force treatment upon her. I wonder if any
hon. members ever tried to force a woman
to do something she did not want to do?
It may be we will again be able to try this
experiment; should that time come, I assure
hon. members it will be tried, for we have
an entirely open mind on the matter.
This does not mean, though, that nothing
is being done at present. Our psychiatrist at
Mercer and the director of social work are
both doing a good deal of individual work
with alcoholics and drug addicts, work which
we all believe to be very worthwhile.
A new, small institution, completely open,
for selected female offenders, is at present
under construction at Brampton, and we
expect it will be ready for occupancy during
the late summer of this year.
Today I am very pleased indeed to be able
to announce the intention of this government
to sell the land where the Andrew Mercer
reformatory now stands, and to build a new
and modern institution away from a densely
built-up area. The Department of Public
Works is at present looking for a suitable
site, and it is my sincere intention to proceed
with this matter with all due dispatch.
I know this is no new or original plan; it
has been spoken of for years within The
Department of Reform Institutions, and was
recommendation No. 46 of the select com-
mittee of this House submitted in 1954— and
I have been tremendously impressed with the
need for this action.
I would further advise hon. members that,
if I have the honour to remain as Minister of
this department, I fully intend to consult— in
the matter of planning this new reformatory
—the many women's groups who have evinced
much interest in the care of women inmates.
I believe that only good can come from such
consultation, and I am confident that their
co-operation will be forthcoming.
A word on after-care might not be amiss
here. Our own parole board continues to
serve a useful function, and I believe a very
valuable one. During the year 1957, 7C6 men
and 47 women were granted parole. Of this
number, 563 men and 33 women successfully
completed their parole, while 188 men and
12 women violated parole. This figure, 24.6
per cent, failures, is in keeping with the
experience of other comparable jurisdictions.
The rehabilitation officers are conscientious
men, interested in their work and in those
with whom they work, constantly striving to
do whatever is possible in behalf of their
charges. Many private, outside agencies are
very active in this field too; to some of these
we give assistance by way of money grants;
with all of them, I believe there is a growing
awareness of the need to pool all of these
resources so that the most effective results
may accrue.
In the department, we have conferences
with them, and we hope to expand this idea,
since we believe such meetings can be a
fertile ground for the exchange of ideas and
the exploration of new methods and so on.
One of these agencies, a few months ago,
opened a house where post-release women
may stay for a time till they have been settled
in employment and homes. Such places were
also recommended by the select committee;
we believe they have definite value.
I want to make some comment on the
matter of staff. For the first time in many
years, I am advised, the staff of this depart-
ment is at full strength, with the exception
of a few professional personnel. This is an
excellent state of affairs, and as a result of
better salaries and the shorter work week
recently introduced in the service, we can
expect and demand higher standards in our
staff members.
I would be remiss in my duty if I neglected
to say to this House that I have the greatest
respect and admiration for the staff of this
department. Their loyalty and devotion to
duty is remarkable, to put it mildly, and
has on many occasions been a source of
amazement to me.
Returning to what my hon. friend for York
South said about "conflict of personalities and
presures, and confusion of purpose within
the department," I have only this to say. I
818
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
state with deep conviction that I have been
completely unable to find trace of any of
these things, no matter how hard I look for
them.
I say too, that if anything, I came into
the department with a little prejudice. Hav-
ing heard so much about this sort of thing
I felt, in spite of any will or desire to be
unbiased, "that where there is smoke, there
must be fire." In spite of this, I found a
staff dedicated to a task, devoting all their
energies to that task.
Of course, there are differences of opinion
amongst them, for this is a field in which
there are great contradictions and differences
of opinion, but there is also a unique single-
ness of purpose, and to that end all division
heads, superintendents of institutions, and
others under the leadership of my Deputy
Minister are ready and willing to sit down
around the table, to discuss their differences,
to give and take, and to compromise in order
that the work will prosper and go forward.
But "conflict of personalities and confusion
of purpose," I repeat, are just non-existent.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have
spoken too long already. Till about a year
ago, I had no interest in this field whatso-
ever. At the time of the third session of
this Parliament, I developed a faint stirring
of interest; about 8 months ago, when I was
called to assume the portfolio, I was almost
staggered by the immensity of the task and
tremendously stimulated by the challenge it
presented.
Today, I am more than ever challenged,
and I would say to every hon. member of this
House that he is engaged in a mighty task
through this department of the government.
I believe it is the duty of each hon member
to help us develop a growing awareness in
the minds of all of our people of this work,
because I believe they can help us.
I would urge all of them, as well as every
judge, magistrate, Crown attorney, and those
of the legal profession who are interested
in criminal work, to visit all of our institu-
tions, to see what is being tried and done,
and to learn something of the problems we
have to cope with.
I am convinced the latter would then be
in a much better position to deal more wisely
with those whom they have to sentence.
I am proud to mention the great interest
of some hon. members in our work; notably
the hon. members for Brantford ( Mr. Gor-
don) and Waterloo South (Mr. Myers), both
of whom take a very active part in the pro-
gramme of the institutions located within
their riding. This is a matter of great satis-
faction to all of my officials and is much
appreciated.
And I would like to add that I have been
very interested to see how many hon. mem-
bers of this House have taken the oppor-
tunity to visit some of the institutions during
the present session of the House.
At the outset I stated I would ask this
House to vote my department a substantially
increased budget. I do so, Mr. Chairman,
with no apology, for although I know this
is becoming a costly business, I am also
convinced that it is quite impossible to put
a dollars-and-cents price tag upon any one
whom we might be able to reclaim. That, sir,
is the greatest task this department has to
perform; that was the commission I was given
last July— to reform, to reclaim and salvage,
to fit again for a rightful place in society.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, in making some introductory re-
marks before we consider the individual
estimates, I want to begin by saying a word
with reference to the former hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Foote), who was
forced through ill health to relinquish that
post last summer.
While he was Minister, I had the occa-
sion to voice some very strong criticisms of
the department, and inevitably those criti-
cisms appeared to be directed at him because
that is the way British Parliamentary Legis-
latures operate, the Minister must assume
responsibility for what goes on in his depart-
ment.
But I do want to say, now that he has
been forced to relinquish the responsibilities
of this department, that on no occasion did
I ever doubt his sincerity and his purpose
within the department.
By the same token, Mr. Chairman, I think
that the new hon. Minister comes in with
not only a dynamic and aggressive person-
ality, but with a great deal of vigour, I would
acknowledge from the very outset the hon.
Minister has the same purpose and the same
sincerity.
Having said that, though, Mr. Chairman,
I want to reiterate— and I hope I can do
it unprovocatively because it remains with
me just as firm a conviction as anything that
the hon. Minister has said — that despite
the hon. Minister's inability to find any con-
flict of purpose, or conflict of personalities
within the department, many people who are
intensely interested in this field, and work
MARCH 13, 1958
819
in it day to day, emphasize the continued
existence of this condition within the depart-
ment.
And my fear— no, fear is really not the
word— my regret is that neither the former
hon. Minister, nor this hon. Minister, with
his dynamic aggressive approach, is able to
alter some of the basic policies of the depart-
ment.
The hon. Minister has given evidence this
afternoon that he accepts the policies that
have been emanating and controlling the
destinies of this department for some time.
Neither this hon. Minister, nor I suspect
any other hon. Minister, is going to be able
to alter seriously the kind of policies that
have been shaped by those who have guided
the destinies of this department down
through the years.
Now, to illustrate this, there is a sore
temptation, Mr. Chairman, to wander over
a great range of the work of this department.
I am going to discipline myself, Mr. Chair-
man, to avoid this and deal with only one
aspect this afternoon.
That is, obviously, the most important
aspect— the facilities and the capacity and
the record of this department in reforming
its inmates, since that is its stated objective.
Now, in any modern penal reform institu-
tion, there is inevitably a degree of conflict.
There was a day, if we go back a few genera-
tions, when nobody made any pretence of
doing anything within institutions, other than
to lock people up and leave them there until
the end of their sentence, and then to turn
them out into society no better fitted— in fact
in most instances more poorly fitted— to take
their place within society.
At least in terms of stated objective, that
has changed. Now, the conscious objective is
not just merely custodial, it is treatment, it
is reform. But I do not think we are achiev-
ing that.
The hon. Minister, for example, goes to
some lengths to say that he can find no evi-
dences of the so-called militarism within the
department. Well, I reiterate what I said a
moment ago, that the people who are guid-
ing the destinies of this department are the
same people as two years ago, and I would
remind the hon. Minister, if he needs any
reminding, that two years ago a very respon-
sible group of professional people, who work
in this field and certainly hold a watching
brief over it, made these comments.
I am quoting from a letter from the Cana-
dian association of social workers addressed
to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) on
February 16, 1956:
Both measures add increasing evidence
of the underlying confusion of purpose
within the department from the top admini-
stration downwards. There is a strong
conflict within the department between the
punitive and the reformative philosophies
and practices.
and their concluding paragraph:
Ontario has enough of the punitive mili-
tarism applied against offenders, it is
clearly revealed. It is high time to provide
humane and intelligent services for the
offenders.
Now, the department in the last year or
so has taken the greatest pride in two of its
new buildings. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman,
that it is somewhat significant that these two
new buildings are very high-security, old-
fashioned penitentiaries in structure— the one
for juveniles at Gait, the one that provoked
such heated discussion in this Legislature just
a year ago; and Millbrook, where within a
provincial institution we have built the equiv-
alent of a federal penitentiary, with all of
the securities of a penitentiary.
As I talk to people who are working in this
field, both within the institutions and in
related organizations, I have heard on a num-
ber of occasions and been struck by it, that
increasingly it is felt within the institutions
that Millbrook is a sort of Siberia to which
inmates, or on occasion— as I will deal with a
little bit later— even staff, are banished if
they do not conform with the rules which
are laid down by those who are guiding the
destinies of the department.
Just let me try to approach this, Mr. Chair-
man, basically for a moment. What is required
in the treatment programme? I want to sug-
gest there are 3 things required.
First, the professional staff.
Now I must confess, Mr. Chairman, I was
amazed at the statement of the hon. Minister
to the effect that he feels they have a full
staff with the exception of a few gaps at the
professional level. I may be wrong in this;
I do not profess to be an expert; for my infor-
mation I go to the people who are experts
in the field when I want to get an up-to-date
view of what is happening in the department.
The thing that I have heard reiterated, time
and time again, is the fantastic lack of profes-
sional staff. For example, the hon. Minister
said there are 3 full-time psychiatrists. Well,
I want to come to this question of psychiatrists
820
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in a moment or so, but I am curious to know
who the full-time psychiatrists are, out in the
institutions, apart from the head office.
The second group of professional staff
which is required, if we are going to imple-
ment a programme effectively, is social work-
ers. We may have professional people, psychi-
atrists and psychologists, who are in effect
doing the diagnostic work, analyzing each
case, but it is impossible for that one person,
a psychiatrist or psychologist, with hundreds
of people under his jurisdiction, to be able to
follow through in the day-to-day implementa-
tion of whatever diagnosis he makes.
It seems to me one must have what might
be described as a second group of profes-
sionals, who are going to carry that day-to-day
programme into effect, namely social workers.
A year or so ago, the department appeared
to be heading in the right direction when they
appointed a head for the department of social
work. I understand that they have sought to
find social workers in Canada, and quite
frankly— because of the reputation of the de-
partment—I am not surprised that they could
not find social workers in Canada who were
willing to come and work.
Therefore, they have applied in Great
Britain, and my information— the hon. Minis-
ter can correct me if I am wrong— is that
from quite a significant number of applica-
tions they have hired the very small number
of 6 or 8.
But with the top professional people and
this second range of professional people, the
social workers, I do not think we should for
one moment forget that, if we are going to
have an effective treatment programme, we
must have a competent, interested and dedi-
cated custodial staff. For every 5 minutes
that the professional psychiatrist or psycholo-
gist is going to be with the man, or for every
hour that the social workers may work with
him, the custodial staff is going to be with
him a day, or a week.
This custodial staff is still underpaid. I
submit that our staff is still underpaid, with
the result that they are coming and leaving
the institutions with far too great frequency.
It is therefore impossible to build up a body
of people who are experienced in the field,
because no one would deny that it is a field
that requires a great deal of experience
before they can make their best contribution.
I want to cite two examples as an illustration
of the failure of the treatment programme.
The first one— and I am interested to note
that the hon. Minister himself frankly con-
fessed the disappointment of the department
—is with regard to the drug clinic.
He indicated, for example, that they are
tightening up security measures. I will not
elaborate on the full significance of that, as
I do not think that there is any point in doing
it publicly. I know exactly what he means
when he refers to the problem of tightening
up on security measures.
But the significant thing, Mr. Chairman, is
this: If you want to measure the achieve-
ments of this institution in terms of what
was set as an objective two or three years
ago, when it was established, I draw your
attention to the fact that the population of
the drug clinic is now about 9 people.
Now, Mr. Chairman, obviously we need a
clinic to come to grips with as important a
problem as the drug evil, which is part and
parcel of the whole problem of inmates and
convicts. But with only 9 people in the clinic,
that in itself surely is proof of its failure,
because I cannot believe for one moment that
there are not far more people who could
benefit from the kind of programme and the
kind of treatment that the drug clinic was
established to provide.
Now, the second phase of the department's
programme I want to deal with at a little
length, because it seems to me that this illus-
trates, in a very dramatic way, the conflict
within the department, and its difficulty in
achieving an effective treatment programme.
I refer to the neuro-psychiatric centre at
Guelph. Now hon. members of the House,
may not be aware of the fact that, last
September, the man who had headed the
neuro-psychiatric centre, since its establish-
ment in 1955, Dr. Robert Buchner, was in
effect fired— or dismissed by the department—
and since then he has been carrying on a
private practice in the village of Acton.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may
I be permitted to interject something, on an
erroneous statement which my hon. friend
has just made. I would assure you, I am
going to speak further in this, but I would
like the House to get this in proper context.
I am saying this with a great deal of
hesitancy and with a great deal of distaste.
I have made it very clear to this House, that
I object very strenuously to the names of
people being bandied about in this House
who have no opportunity to defend them-
selves.
But I say that Dr. Robert Buchner, who
was on our staff, was not dismissed. I say
also that, instead of carrying on an active
practice now, Dr. Buchner, while he was a
full-time civil servant, contrary to all regu-
lations of the civil service commission, estab-
MARCH 13, 1958
821
lished a private practice and referred to our
appointment as something providing him
with peanuts.
Mr. MacDonald: Well Mr. Chairman, I
do not object to the hon. Minister's interven-
tion at this point, but most of what he has
said I was going to deal with anyway. I was
not going to withhold this. I want to deal
with this quite frankly because I think it is
a good illustration of how this department
operates, and the difficulty of conducting a
treatment programme.
Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton): May I interject
here?
Mr. MacDonald: No, he may not. Please
let me go ahead.
Mr. Hall: Dr. Bucjiner is a citizen in my
riding, and was not fired by The Department
of Reform Institutions. I know the gentleman,
it is a mistake.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, Dr.
Robert Buchner visited both the Liberal
party and myself prior to the estimates com-
ing down in this House. I am not saying
something—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: And I can tell the
hon. member that a great many more people
will be visited too.
Mr. MacDonald: Why is the hon. Minister
so terribly touchy?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not the least bit
touchy. The hon. member does not worry
me in the least.
Mr. MacDonald: Then just let me proceed,
just let me—
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): The
hon. Minister is trying to keep the hon. mem-
ber on the rails, that is all.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine, fine.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not so easy going
as my hon. predecessor.
Mr. MacDonald: That was rather an unkind
remark. We have heard all the great words of
praise heaped on the former hon. Minister
and now, unwittingly, this comes out.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: He was worthy of every
word of praise.
Mr. MacDonald: I would ask, Mr. Chair-
man, if I might continue now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Go ahead. The hon. Mini-
ster has been pulling the hon. member's leg,
concerning what he says of his hon. predeces-
sor.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
need not try to cover up for what his hon.
Minister said. He let it out.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. Minister said his
hon. predecessor was a very kindly gentleman,
but he feels-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister is
trying to pour oil—
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. Minister says
that he is tough.
Mr. MacDonald: Now that the part-time
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions has
spoken, in addition to all his other part-time
jobs and his 3 full-time portfolios—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right, we have a
tough man here.
Mr. MacDonald: It is obvious, Mr. Chair-
man, that they do not want this to get out.
Let me say, that if I have to stand here until
5.30 tonight, it will be said.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let the hon. member get
the facts.
Mr. MacDonald: I have the facts. All
right then, just let them calm down a little,
the touchiness which one encounters when a
little bit of the dirt swept under the carpet
is going to be revealed—
Mr. Chairman: Go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Dr. Buchner came and spoke to the official
Opposition, and he came and spoke to me,
so that we could be informed of the situation
that led to his departure from the department.
I repeat that I cite his case as an instance
because it reveals the basic problem of devel-
oping an effective treatment programme
within our institutions.
Dr. Buchner was sought out from private
practice at the Lakehead in the year 1955,
by Dr. Van Nostrand, who became head of
the department of neurology and psychiatry,
and he was asked to come down and head
this new centre at Guelph.
This centre, or clinic, was a new develop-
ment within reform institutions, a clinic
where they tried to find what contributions
psychiatry might make to the assistance of
inmates to fit them back into society.
Dr. Buchner says that in all the efforts
to establish this centre on no occasion was
822
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
there any attempt on the part of Dr. Van
Nostrand, or other people in the department,
to sit down and work out procedures as to
how this new centre would operate. He was
put in charge; it was a new field, and in
this new field he was to proceed experi-
mentally, to try to achieve what could be
achieved in this application of psychiatry to
the field of reform.
His work, as he points out, was patterned
on the Belmont rehabilitation centre in Sut-
ton, England, where there has been some
good work carried out for many years. He
attempted to duplicate that kind of work
within the Canadian pattern, or the pattern
of the Guelph reformatory.
Perhaps it should also be emphasized that,
at the very outset, it was clearly stated—
and this I think was understood by all— that
the neuro-psychiatric centre would be estab-
lished as a separate institution, working along
with the reformatory, but as a separate insti-
tution, because it was a treatment centre
rather than a reformatory.
Now in this treatment centre, Mr. Chair-
man, I am not going to go into details of
the kind of thing that Dr. Buchner attempted
to do, because some of it is technical. But I
think it is interesting for a moment to get
at least some sort of a glimpse of the work.
The inmates were brought in, having been
convicted for a great variety of crimes, and
Dr. Buchner from the very outset would
present the inmates with a statement of the
clinic's purposes. It is a very interesting
thing to read here.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have read it.
Mr MacDonald: I know the hon. Minister
will have read it. His approach was that
these people should be assisted in trying to
see the problems involved in their emotional
difficulties, in their warped approach to life,
and in seeing and understanding themselves
more clearly.
In conjunction with the others through
group therapy, they were helped to under-
stand themselves more fully, and therefore
be able to develop the degree of self-dis-
cipline that is required to live in society.
He did a good deal of experimental work
in connection with— and this is a word that
always floors me— electroencephalograph tests
on inmates, the kind of test that is applied
in many fields where there are mental de-
rangements or emotional disturbance.
He applied this within this field, and came
up with results that appear, in a highly
experimental field, to be extremely interest-
ing and important.
For example he developed group therapy
so that the men, instead of sitting around and
whiling away in idleness the hours of the
evening, would meet in one of the rooms as
a group. They would talk their problem
through, they would put it on a tape
recorder, and they would play it back, and
discuss each other's problems.
In a moment I will give a few indications
of the kind of help that this provided for
inmates, in giving themselves an insight to
their problems, and therefore taking the first
step towards being able to master those
problems.
Now, for a few other comments with
regard to the neuro-psychiatric clinic, and its
work during the time that Dr. Buchner was
there, I want to quote briefly from a couple
of documents that Dr. Buchner has given
me. He showed them to me, and I read
them through, and I asked if I could have
them for purposes of discussion in the House
and he agreed.
One of them is a report which apparently
he had prepared for the former hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions just before he resigned,
and in effect it is a report on the work
of the centre. The second one is a letter that
was addressed to the hon. Prime Minister
but I think this will give the House some
idea of this centre and how it operated.
I am quoting from Dr. Buchner's report:
The neuro-psychiatric centre, as you are
well aware, is a new venture, and there
are few if any guides to help us. Contrary
to what seems to be believed in some
quarters, it is not a mental hospital, and
the treatments generally used in institu-
tions are not suited in this setting, for our
patients are not certified. Indeed they
are not ill in the accepted meaning of the
term.
Consequently, I have had to improvise,
and to think out methods of treatments,
and in doing this it has been necessary to
examine even the psychological basis upon
which the work should be based.
In the reformatory, the inmates are con-
trolled and made to behave themselves,
but when they are discharged they do
not take their guards with them, and, not
having been taught to be responsible for
their own actions, they consequently are not
better equipped as a result of their stay
in the reformatory to behave themselves
once they are returned to society.
MARCH 13, 1958
823
Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence
to suggest that they are far from being
better equipped to adjust themselves to
society as a result of their stay in the
reformatory. The inmates are in fact less
capable of adjustment. This opinion is
supported by the published views of quite
a few eminent authorities.
In the neuro-psychiatric clinic, the em-
phasis is on teaching the fellows-
Mr. Chairman, in light of the objective
set out by the hon. Minister himself, I want
the House to note this.
—the emphasis is on teaching the fellows
that they are individually responsible for
their own conduct, and that if, in the
future, they wish to enjoy the advantages
and privileges of freedom, they will have
to learn to conduct themselves in a fit
and proper manner.
They are taught that they can become
responsible citizens only if they under-
stand the reasons for their conduct, and
they are given the opportunity of acquir-
ing such insight by being provided with
suitable literature, by being shown films
that illustrate how certain life experiences
determine certain forms of conduct, by
lectures, and by being allowed to hold
group meetings in the evenings, in which
they tell the stories of their lives and have
the chance of discussing with others the
reasons for their acting as they have done.
They undergo certain tests that reveal
their interests and their aptitudes, and the
results of these are communicated to the
inmates, so that they will know the line
of work in which they are most likely to
succeed.
The programme is founded basically on
the work being done at the Belmont re-
habilitation centre in Great Britain.
Dr. Buchner goes on:
Finally, the inmates are treated here as
responsible human beings, for it is evi-
dent that no one can be expected to act
as a responsible person unless he is treated
as one. Yet even this simple and easily
understood philosophy has not only been
much maligned and misrepresented, but
has even met considerable opposition from
quarters from which one might expect
support.
There are numerous instances. There
was the matter, for example, of the clos-
ing of the doors in which inmates were
meeting at night for discussions. These
meetings had been going on for 12 months,
and during the time the doors had been
closed.
I presume, Mr. Chairman, without any
untoward developments.
Yet once again without ever consulting
me, orders came from Toronto that the
doors must remain open. It was not a
question as to whether the group discus-
sions could continue with the door open,
but rather the fact that this decision was
made without even asking me what I
thought of the matter.
"ikfc "
In other words, here is another example
of an officer of the department, who was
carrying out a treatment programme and
found this treatment programme gradually
stifled within the custodial pattern that was
laid down by the policies of those who guide
the destinies of this department from Toronto.
Dr. Buchner continued:
Ever since I have been in Guelph, things
have been managed in this way. Orders
have been issued without my being in-
formed, inquiries have been started without
my knowledge, and investigations have
proceeded without my being consulted.
Yet, despite this constant interference, it
had been made clear time and time again,
that if anything went wrong in the centre,
I would be held responsible.
Now, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how could
any man operate a treatment programme, for
which he has been given full responsibility,
in that kind of an atmosphere?
I want to read a few more paragraphs that
add further to this report on the neuro-psychi-
atric centre. In the letter that Dr. Robert
Buchner wrote to the hon. Prime Minister on
October 30, 1957, and to which he has yet
to receive a reply, he said:
The neuro-psychiatric centre at Guelph,
the first of its kind in Canada, was opened
in June, 1955. The purpose of the centre
was to discover whether psychiatric treat-
ment could help prisoners to readjust
socially. From the very nature of the work,
the task of running the centre was not an
easy one, but it has all along been made
more difficult by the constant and repeated
interference from my superiors.
Major Foote was most helpful, and en-
couraged my efforts, but neither Colonel
Basher nor Dr. Van Nostrand have done
anything but obstruct the work. For ex-
824
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ample, difficult though it may be to believe,
Colonel Basher has, on more than one
instance, interfered with the working of the
centre without even discussing the matter
with me, and Dr. Van Nostrand, although
he has never had experience in the criminal
institution, has never inquired about the
principles upon which the neuro-psychiatric
centre was run.
Despite the difficulties, however, the
centre proved a great success, so that when
the meeting was held about a year ago to
discuss its future, it was unanimously de-
cided that it should continue, even after
the psychiatric unit at Millbrook had been
opened. Both Colonel Basher and Dr. Van
Nostrand were at that meeting.
Since that time, the centre has continued
to function, and has developed steadily in
its usefulness. The superintendents have
expressed their appreciation of the help
they have received. The press have written
about it enthusiastically on several occa-
sions, and recently a number of magistrates
have commenced to recommend prisoners
as possibly suitable for the psychiatric treat-
ment in Guelph.
However, this programme has failed to
impress either Colonel Basher or Dr. Van
Nostrand. Instead, they have made steady
and persistent efforts to impede the work
of the centre and reduce its importance.
At the time the department was being
attacked in the press for its reactionary
methods, Major Foote invited the press to
visit any of the institutions. Several report-
ers visited us and wrote very favourable
articles about the centre.
When, however, a lady visited the centre
for the purpose of preparing a broadcast
on it, Colonel Basher and Dr. Van Nostrand
would not allow her to proceed, even
though Major Foote, who had taken ill at
the time, had approved of the project.
Indeed, Colonel Basher's attitude was
quite dictatorial and most insulting, and
he quite forgot that, while respect is due
to his position as Deputy Minister, as a
professional man I can also be expected to
be treated as a responsible person.
But while Colonel Basher's attitude was
unsatisfactory, Dr. Van Nostrand's was
even worse. For although I had had the
approval of the Minister, Dr. Van Nostrand
treated the matter as though a serious
breach of discipline had taken place, and
instituted an inquiry conducted with the
show of a "star chamber."
It had been obvious all along that
neither from Colonel Basher or Dr. Van
Nostrand could I expect to obtain anything
but opposition, and it was not surprising,
therefore, that once Major Foote's influ-
ence was removed, they should set about
trying to obtain my dismissal, and as
might be expected of them, they employed
devious and underhanded methods to do
this.
Dr. Van Nostrand produced a report in
which he recommended that all serious sex
offenders be sent to Millbrook, and as that
would mean removing approximately one-
third of the patients from the neuro-
psychiatric centre, I should be transferred
to Millbrook. If I refused to go they had
only to refuse my entry to Guelph and I
would then be out of the way.
Dr. Van Nostrand did not say that sex
offenders varied, in degree, from the most
serious of criminals to the mildest, and
where some of them would be suitable
for treatment at Millbrook, the majority
undoubtedly would not. Neither did he
admit that the accommodation at the Mill-
brook psychiatric unit could not possibly
hold all prisoners in the department held
on charges of a sexual nature.
Most important of all, he did not men-
tion that at Millbrook the prisoners would
be in separate cells, and they would not
be given group therapy, a procedure which
—without having seen it— both Colonel
Basher and Dr. Van Nostrand thoroughly
disapproved, and which, even though it is
acknowledged through the world as the
most modern and the most successful form
of psychiatric treatment, they are deter-
mined to stop.
It was not mentioned in Dr. Van Nos-
trand's report that if I was transferred to
Millbrook, Guelph would be left without
a psychiatrist. Such a thing did not bother
either of these men. They were fully pre-
pared to sacrifice all the good work done,
and the goodwill established, in order to
achieve their ends.
The position now is that the neuro-
psychiatric centre, which less than two
months ago was a flourishing institution,
filled with 25 enthusiastic patients, all of
them anxious to co-operate in their own
rehabilitation, is a now forsaken building,
holding, when last I heard, about 4 in-
mates.
It seems that these two arch reaction-
aries have succeeded only too well with
their schemes, but I am not entirely un-
hopeful for the situation.
MARCH 13, 1958
825
These comments were made by Dr.
Buchner when he wrote to the hon. Prime
Minister last October.
Now, I want to turn for just one minute
Mr. Chairman, to quote a few examples of
letters and comments from inmates. I took
the trouble to discuss with a person who is
active in prisoner aid work— after I had heard
something of this development— to find out
what is the reaction to the kind of experi-
mental work that Dr. Buchner was doing.
The reaction was rather an interesting one.
They said, in the first instance, as the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips) observed
recently when he was talking about psy-
chiatry in the field of mental health, that a
good deal of this is experimental, and there-
fore its results must be treated as tentative.
But, they added, surely the most conclusive
proof that it was a good venture, heading in
the right direction, was the increasingly wide-
spread approval among inmates. Many of
them stated that of all the experience they
had had in the various institutions, this was
the one that had done the most to help
them.
Just to document that sort of general state-
ment, let me quote from two or three of the
reports of people who went through the
neuro-psychiatric centre in Guelph under Dr.
Buchner 's direction.
But first let me say that Dr. Buchner used
C02, or "laughing gas" as it is more familiarly
known, to relieve tensions and to assist men
to try to get a clear picture of themselves.
I quote the end of one report:
In closing my report, I wish to say that,
if it had not been for the marvellous man,
Dr. Buchner— his gas treatments are above
reproach, the clinic library, and last but
not least, the group therapy with its tape
recordings— I would never have made the
substantial progress which I know I
have.
My last comment is that, of all the
places that I have tried to get help, this
clinic has done the most good.
Here is a comment, for example, from a
couple of people who left the centre:
We have decided to write and express
our sympathy over the general mix-up at
the clinic.
This is after Dr. Buchner left:
You have helped so many of us over the
rough hurdles of our lives that it is only
natural that we feel a little bitter toward
those who have been instrumental in your
departure.
Here is another one:
The tape recorder is an excellent idea.
As a matter of fact, I have nothing but the
warmest praise for the clinic. It is a step
in the right direction, and shows positive
thinking on a subject that hitherto archaic
thinking and procedure had contributed
enormously to the problems confronting
society today.
And here is one which I would like to
read, because it obviously comes from a
person who had very little formal education
but faced this problem and recognized what
kind of assistance he had gotten from the
clinic.
In leaving here, in words I could not
explain because I ain't got much schooling
but for a long time I needed this treatment
and I guess I knew it. You were a wonder-
ful man, sir. Mr. Sunday also is included
as one-
Mr. Sunday, incidentally, is the psychologist
at the clinic.
—who is concerned with this wonderful
clinic. Some people say it is a rest home.
Maybe they should look a little deeper
and in a way it is so, because when a man
is run down to rock bottom, they certainly
need a rest, but they forget that it is peace
at mind before they can ever feel rested.
A rather interesting thought, despite its
rather laborious presentation:
In finishing, I would like to see more
people take an interest in the clinic here,
because sincerely I believe that there is
no man, woman or child who have given
the opportunity of learning more about
themselves, like I have been taught here
in this place, it would be a better and a
bigger world to live in.
In closing I would like to bless you
all very much on your kind and generous
people who have given the consideration
that I have received. God bless you sir,
and so on.
Now, here is obviously a spontaneous ex-
pression from a very thankful person, who
after years, got the kind of help from this
clinic that he had always sought.
And finally, may I read this one:
When I came to this clinic in June, it
was not with the idea of being helped as
I thought there was no help for a person
like me. I just felt like I wanted to kill
826
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
myself and end my life of misery. I think
my main idea there was just to get away
from the reformatory atmosphere.
Previous to coming up here, and for
about one month after, I was scared to
talk to anyone, and had violent nightmares
every second or third night. I was tense,
irritable and wanted no part of the treat-
ment as I thought it was nothing but a
lot of junk. I also had severe headaches
and could not eat because of an upset
stomach. All in all, I was in very bad
shape, both physically and mentally.
After a while, I began to look around,
and what I saw was really a surprise to
me. You could see the fellows really try-
ing to help each other solve their prob-
lems so that they would be able to cope
with them when they were released.
I know it will be no easy matter, but
due to the wonderful guidance of Dr.
Buchner and the group leaders, I know
I will make it. I will never find words
enough to express my thanks, so I can
only hope that I will find it in the way
of life I will lead from now on.
Now, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that
I have quoted a few of these because they
documented the general assertion I got from
people in the prisoners' aid field, that this
is the reaction from a growing number of
people who have gone through this centre.
It leaves me deeply puzzled, Mr. Chair-
man, not only puzzled, but confirmed, I
repeat, in my original conviction, that basic-
ally nothing has changed in this department,
in this conflict between the attempt to estab-
lish an effective treatment programme, within
a militaristic kind of custodial programme.
Instead of giving a degree of flexibility to
a man who was hired for the purpose, the
work of this neuro-psychiatric centre was
gradually stifled with these custodial rules
until it came to an end, and the person in
charge of it has left.
Now, the final comment I want to make,
particularly since the hon. Minister inter-
jected on this, is that I know there will be
many reasons advanced as to why Dr. Buch-
ner went. One of them was that he was
carrying on a private practice, part-time in
Acton, while he was in the clinic.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Prime
Minister and the hon. Minister think they can
get psychiatrists, who are going to do a job in
the department, for $6,000 when they can
go out and get $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000,
and deny them the right to other means of
earning a living— as thousands of civil serv-
ants do and the government knows it— if
they think they are going to deny them the
right to do other work, when it is not en-
croaching upon their official duties, then they
will never get the necessary number of pro-
fessional people to do a job within the
department.
At best, they are going to get the second-
rate people who will come in because it is
an easy and a comfortable and a cosy place
to be.
I just want to read, in conclusion, from a
letter of August 14, 1956, when some of the
first protests were made with regard to Dr.
Buchner carrying on an outside practice.
The then superintendent, G. Wright, wrote
a letter to the Deputy Minister, and this is
what he said:
The director of neurology and psychiatry
has drawn our attention to the fact that Dr.
R. D. Buchner is maintaining a small private
practice in the village of Acton, and re-
quested that this matter be clarified with
the doctor in the department.
Dr. Buchner has advised us that the
department has been aware of the private
practice for some time, and he has been
awaiting the Minister's pleasure in this
matter.
The director of neurology and psychia-
try has also mentioned that Dr. Buchner
does not report for duty until 10 o'clock in
the morning. This is quite true, but on the
other hand, the doctor works every Satur-
day afternoon, and visits the institution
virtually every Sunday for at least 3 or 4
hours.
Obviously he did not fit into the militaristic
pattern and so difficulties were arising.
I continue to read from Mr. Wright's letter:
He has never hesitated to return to the
institution in the evening, and he has done
so on many occasions. We must accept the
fact that Dr. Buchner is giving far more
time to his institutional work than he is
being paid for. We have received no com-
plaints from the medical profession in
Guelph, or anywhere else, pertaining to
Dr. Buchner's work in his off-duty hours.
He is forthright and, with rare exceptions,
extremely popular with both staff and in-
mates, and we feel that every effort should
be made to retain his services.
Well, something less than two years later,
Dr. Buchner has been dismissed from the
department, and I suggest to you, Mr. Chair-
MARCH 13, 1958
827
man, that his leaving is just one instance of
a very lengthy succession of evidence that
might be given of this continuing conflict
within the department, and therefore of the
limitations of an effective reform and treat-
ment programme.
For that reason, I repeat what I said last
year, that a great deal of money, which we
are going to vote on today on these estimates,
is going to be so much money down the drain,
because it is not going to be as effectively used
as it might be in a reform programme that
will return to society inmates who are fitted
to live as free citizens, instead of becoming
another addition to that sad line of graduates
from training schools through the reformatory
and eventually to the penitentiary.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have listened, as all
hon. members have, to the usual outburst of
my hon. friend. I am very, very disappointed
that this matter of Dr. Buchner came up at
all, but not for the reasons that my hon.
friend will very doubtless assume. Nothing has
gone on in my department within the last
8 months that I am the least bit afraid to
bring out on top of the carpet. There are no
dust particles swept under the carpets of this
department in the past 8 months, nor do I
believe there were in the previous 5 years.
When I said to my hon. friend that he
would find me a little less easy-going than
my predecessor, I should have added insofar
as he is concerned, or anyone who makes
these spectacular, fantastic and sensational
charges against what is being tried in this
department.
I would like to say at the outset, that
all of these people who take the attitude that
my hon. friend does, to the work we are doing
in my department, are doing the most dread-
ful harm to the work we are trying to do,
far more than all of the militarism that he
infers is going on in the department.
He pretends to shed his great crocodile
tears about these poor creatures. He mentions
5 letters, I believe. I received the letters too,
and I read all of them. He mentioned 5
letters. I find that nearly 700 patients went
through this clinic. Five out of 700; 5 dis-
satisfied out of 700.
I would say that, judging the type of
person and the quality of the disease, I think
that shows an excellent record.
May I, before I say anything further, say
something concerning my hon. predecessor, a
man for whom I have always had the very
greatest respect. This is rather difficult for
me because I am not built to flatter or to
say nice things about people. I like to call a
spade a spade, I like to say the things I
mean. I would rather tell him what I think
of him in private, where I believe my sin-
cerity would be appreciated and accepted.
But since the hon. member has mentioned
it, and since he has read something into my
remarks which was never intended, then I
want to say it before this House.
My hon. predecessor, despite the fact that
the hon. member for York South browbeat
him through two sessions, to my knowledge
is a man whose shoes he will never be worthy
to unloosen.
Mr. MacDonald: Why does not the hon.
Minister deal with the issues?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I interrupted the hon.
member only once, to put him straight in
his facts. If he will kindly extend to me the
same courtesy, he can rebut what I say after-
wards.
Mr. MacDonald: The "issue".
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Now we come to the
matter of Dr. Robert Buchner. Again I must
say that I am very dissatisfied that this ever
came up on the floor of the House. If my
hon. friend had come to the department, and
come to me, I would have been pleased in
confidence to show him all the correspond-
ence that has passed between Dr. Buchner
and my department. I have copies of all of
those letters.
The hon. member says he did not receive
an answer to a letter he sent to the hon.
Prime Minister. The hon. Prime Minister
sent a letter to my department for acknowl-
edgment—it was acknowledged— and I not
only wrote to Dr. Buchner, but I met him in
my office and discussed the matter fully with
him. He left my office quite satisfied, appar-
ently, although I knew perfectly well, when
he left my office, where he was going. In
fact, I almost gave him the hon. member's
address.
May I read this statement concerning Dr.
Buchner, Mr. Chairman?
First of all I would like to point out that
Dr. Buchner was not taken from private prac-
tice at the Lakehead. Dr. Buchner was a
medical officer with The Ontario Department
of Health at the Lakehead hospital. He was
seconded to us from them because we were
in need of someone with some psychiatric
training to take over this job. He was not a
specialist in psychiatry, either when he came
to us, while he was with us, or when he left
us, and to the best of my knowledge he is not
a specialist in psychiatry today.
828
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Why did The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions put him at the
head of the psychiatric clinic, then?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I had nothing to do
with putting him at the head of the psy-
chiatric clinic.
Mr. MacDonald: Well whoever did it.
Why malign a man for not being a specialist?
He did the work.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not maligning a
man. I am only telling my hon. friend, and
this House, the facts concerning Dr. Buchner.
Mr. MacDonald: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: My hon. friend
brought them out, and I am going to put
them on the table as they are.
Dr. Buchner tried his specialist examina-
tions twice and failed, and probably a third
time. That is nothing against the man. We
say to hon. members today that Dr. Buchner
was a very able man, he contributed greatly
to the Guelph psychiatric centre during its
first two years of operation.
On the other hand, he was not a good
administrator.
He could not be appointed professional
head of the centre, since he failed to achieve
specialist rating by the Royal Canadian col-
lege of physicians and surgeons. He tried
the examinations and failed.
Yet he has openly resented criticism and
direction by the consultant psychiatrist to the
centre, and by the director of neurology and
psychiatry of this department.
Now Dr. Glenn Burton, who is the con-
sultant in Guelph to our department, is an
outstanding psychiatrist whose opinion is
sought by courts across the length and
breadth of this entire nation. Our own direc-
tor of psychiatry is a man with tremendously
wide experience, who has been in the admin-
istrative and clinical end of psychiatry all of
his active professional life. His opinion is
highly regarded; it is sought not only in
Canada but on the other side of the border
as well.
Although repeatedly requested to organize
regular staff rounds, a thing that every well
organized hospital or clinic does, or staff con-
ferences, in order to weld the professional
staff into a therapeutic team, Dr. Buchner
resisted this throughout the whole of his
service with the department.
When the centre had been in operation for
two full years, he was requested to submit
to the director of neurology and psychiatry
a statistical report covering this period, and
the summary of results of treatment. When
no report was forthcoming, and a second
request was made, Dr. Buchner stated that
he had no time because of the pressure of
work, yet he was all the while conducting
a private practice.
During this period, he admitted building
up a private practice without consent of the
proper authority to engage in gainful employ-
ment outside the department. He permitted
certain inmate patients to wield authority
over other inmates, a thing that can never be
tolerated in a correctional institution.
Mr. MacDonald: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Let the hon. member
use his common sense. Some of these were
sex offenders serving sentence for serious
offences. This practice was discontinued only
after a direct order from head office. He
encouraged closed evening group sessions,
conducted by inmates from which staff mem-
bers were excluded, on his instructions. Since
these groups included some seasoned sex
offenders past middle age and some young
first offenders, these sessions should never
have been tolerated.
When the reformatory superintendent in-
sisted that the duty custodial officer must
have access to all parts of the institution, in
order to prevent irregularities and maintain
custodial precautions, Dr. Buchner told him
in effect that it was none of his business,
and that he was responsible only to the
Minister.
The closed sessions were discontinued only
following a direct order.
He permitted non-medical individuals, and
groups including representatives of the press,
radio broadcasters, and so on, to witness
therapeutic procedures which rendered the
patient temporarily irrational and not respon-
sible for lus words or actions.
Mr. MacDonald: What is wrong with that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If the hon. member
knew anything of the ethics of the medical
profession, he would know immediately—
Mr. MacDonald: They are even showing
the birth of babies today on television. Why
does the hon. Minister not get up to date?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: You know, Mr. Chair-
man, my hon. friend presents himself as an
expert in every field of endeavour.
Someone told me a little while ago that
expert was derived from two words, "ex" an
unknown quantity and "spurt," a drip under
pressure.
MARCH 13, 1958
829
Mr. MacDonald: Well, give the hon.
Minister a chance to work it out.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: He permitted non-
medical individuals to witness these thera-
peutic procedures, and in the opinion of the
director of neurology and psychiatry, these
contravened the code of ethics accepted by
the members of the Canadian medical asso-
ciation up to the present time.
This practice was stopped only by a direct
order from the reformatory superintendent,
which directed that all visitors to the neuro-
psychiatry centre were to be refused admis-
sion until they had been cleared by this office.
I would like to point out, in regards to
to the press, the radio and the TV people,
they have co-operated with us 100 per cent.
When they asked for reasonable privileges
they have been granted them, and they have
been very studious in carrying out our instruc-
tions, and the main instruction is that no
inmate should be identified or indentifiable.
If pictures are taken, and they have been
permitted— hon. members will find them in
this report which, besides being in this House,
will go out to the public if it so desires, but
no inmate can be identified from his picture.
To let the people go into the room where
a patient was lying on a table, having the
CO2 gas administered we do not believe is
ethical, insofar as the medical profession is
concerned. I for one, whether it be old
fashioned or modern, cannot tolerate it so
long as I am Minister of the department.
He tells us that Dr. Buchner has given
him all this documentary evidence. I would
just point out in passing that this is a fur-
ther direct breach of the oath of his office,
on which I saw Dr. Buchner 's own signature.
Where my hon. friend gets this militaristic
pattern, or where he gets this idea of a
militaristic pattern from the custodial staff,
I cannot understand.
I attended, as one of the first duties after
I came into this department, the American
congress of corrections in Chicago, and had
an opportunity there to speak to a great
many people on this matter of discipline.
I believe that it is a misguided conception
shared by a great many people all over the
world, that discipline and militarism are
almost synonymous terms. This is not so.
I want to say that, after I came home from
that congress, I had the privilege of also
going to two Canadian federal institutions.
In one there was no hint of discipline
whatsoever. In one of the workshops I never
saw such a mass of chaos in all my life.
Inmates were "slopping around" and loafing
about all over. Machines were running,
material was strewn all over the floor and
over the benches. If I had not known that
everything was peaceful and quiet, I would
have wondered if a riot had been in pro-
gress.
I went to another one a short time later,
where military discipline is enforced, where
the inmates come up to attention when they
meet the superintendent of the institution,
where every guard salutes the superinten-
dent of the institution, and I commented on
it. What was the reaction to it? I asked.
How much trouble did the superintendent
have? He assured me, and he was prepared
to show me records to prove, that they had
not any trouble of any serious nature what-
soever, that this apparent militarism was
neither resented nor was it complained of.
Now, we do not have that in our institu-
tions, Mr. Chairman, there is no suggestion
of militarism. Just because my Deputy Min-
ister was a soldier does not mean to say that
he is militarist now. I too, was a soldier,
although I never was a soldier like the
Deputy Minister and never could hope to be.
But, as I have already said, I believe in
military discipline.
However I am not going to take it into
the affairs of this department. If it is not
there now, I do not intend to introduce it
so long as I am the Minister, unless some-
thing happens to make me change my mind,
and then I will not hesitate to bring it in,
but that "something" has not happened yet,
and I do not anticipate it will.
Dr. Buchner's whole attitude in this, sir,
reminds me very much of an old Scotch
saying, "They are a' oot o' step but our
Jock," meaning "everybody is wrong but
me"; or, as the Quaker said to his wife:
"The whole world is odd but thee and me,
and sometimes thou art a little queer."
Mr. Chairman, Dr. Buchner is one mem-
ber of our professional staff. He speaks of
group therapy, he believes in group therapy,
but every physician and every psychiatrist
does not believe in it; we did give him a
chance to work it out. We gave him two
years in which to submit a report, and not
until Dr. Buchner had been out of our em-
ploy for nearly 4 months did I, as the Minis-
ter of the department, get one scratch on
paper of a report.
Dr. Buchner was told, when he was brought
down to do this job, that it was something
in the nature of an experiment. I do not
know then, whether the director of neurology
830
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sat down with him and tried to work out a
scheme, but— knowing the director as I do—
I would hazard a guess that they discussed
it fully. I do know that the centre was kept
very much under the watchful observation of
the director of neuro-psychiatry.
But suppose he had not. Dr. Buchner
admits himself, at the outset of his report, that
he was patterning his work, at Guelph, on
what he believed to be an established pattern,
at a hospital or an institution in Great Britain,
and told the director of neuro-psychiatry, in
whom we have every confidence: "What do
you know about this business? You do not
know anything about what you are talking
about."
Our director has been a psychiatrist all his
professional days, and was considered the
leading psychiatrist to the Canadian over-
seas forces during World War II. Yet this
gentleman whom we had, an untrained psychi-
atrist, had the audacity to tell the director in
my office that he did not know anything about
what he was talking about.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know that he
does.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is the hon. mem-
ber's opinion, too. I do not share it with him,
and I think I am in a little better position
to judge his ability than is the hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: On the basis of his letter
to me two years ago—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: May I say to the hon.
member that that letter was a beautiful diag-
nostic missile, and I believe if the hon.
member went to a high-priced psychiatrist,
he would not get any better. But I want
to tell him also—
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister is re-
flecting on himself that time, so let him just
be careful.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not a psychiatrist.
Mr. MacDonald: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I want to say to the
hon. member that I think there are 5 or 6
letters which he got from patients that do
testify to the value of the work, and about
that we are very happy. Dr. Buchner was
there to do a job of work, and if his methods
produced fruitful results, all right.
But Dr. Buchner was told, quite contrary
to what he told the hon. member, that a
conference was held after Millbrook was
opened, and that his work was to be moved
to Millbrook.
Millbrook was opened before I came into
the department. When I was looking over
this file, one of the first letters I read was one
stating that on June 5, 1957, Dr. Buchner
had been advised that his work was being
transferred to Millbrook as soon as it was
ready for occupancy, and apparently— I have
no documentary proof of this, but Dr. Buch-
ner did not deny it when I faced him with
this— apparently at that time he had verbally
agreed to go to Millbrook. Yet when, at the
end of August I believe it was, someone told
him in passing at Guelph that he would very
soon be going to Millbrook, he said he was
not going near Millbrook or some words to
that effect.
I want to tell the hon. member that I called
Dr. Buchner into my office in September or
late August, and discussed this whole matter
with him. I pointed out to him that I saw
no reason for changing the policy, that the
work would be transferred to Millbrook as
had already been planned, as indeed had ap-
parently been considered when Millbrook was
first planned.
Dr. Buchner told me then, of course, that
he did not want to go to Millbrook, that he
was not going to Millbrook.
I pointed out to him, after some further
discussion, that I presumed he would under-
stand that meant his usefulness to this depart-
ment had come to an end, but that if he
wanted to reconsider the matter he still was
at liberty to do so.
We gave him two weeks to reconsider it,
and then he told us that he had no intention
of going to Millbrook. I, therefore, issued an
order that Dr. Buchner was to be allowed
his holiday time, accumulated sick leave, and
so on and so forth, and would be refused
further admission to the neuro-psychiatric
centre at Guelph, except to gather up his
personal possessions. This was done on my
order, and I felt I was doing the right thing.
I would like to say that I did not take this
stand without discussing it with the senior
officials in my department, and without giving
it a good deal of thought and consideration.
But the responsibility rests on my shoulders
and I am prepared to take that responsibility.
When he wrote to the hon. Prime Minister,
his letter was sent to me, and in acknowledg-
ment I sent a memorandum to the hon. Prime
Minister, pointing out to the hon. Prime
Minister that Dr. Buchner could still recon-
sider his position, and still go to Millbrook
where the work was being conducted.
He tells the hon. member that the work
cannot be done at Millbrook, that it is a
closed institution. I want to tell him that
MARCH 13, 1958
831
that opinion is not shared by the majority of
those engaged in correctional psychiatry.
I discussed this matter very fully in Chicago
and the medical people there, and the
majority of psychiatrists and psychologists
there, agreed very firmly that this sort of
work could be carried on in a closed institu-
tion; that therapy can easily be carried on in
a closed institution.
If group therapy is not already being car-
ried on at Millbrook, they are about to start
the experiment once again— it was suspended
only because of the fact that we have not
had enough cases with whom to start. The
hon. member says there are only 5 or 6
patients in the neuro-psychiatric centre at
Guelph.
I cannot give the exact figure at the present
time. But I do know that the population was
reduced tremendously because we were con-
vinced, on investigation, that Dr. Buchner
was keeping those patients longer than was
necessary.
Hon. members have heard in this House,
time and time again, in the last 3 sessions,
the cry for extra hospital beds. And it is the
same with psychiatry. In fact, I think it is
poor psychiatry to keep a patient confined to
the hospital when the most effective term of
treatment has passed.
We spoke about it several times to Dr.
Buchner and urged that he cut down the stay
in hospital; many of these patients could be
treated on an out-patient basis and, were they
in private life, they would be treated on an
out-patient basis.
That is what we are doing today. We have
very few in-patients, but we have a greatly
enlarged out-patient clinic, and I believe the
psychiatrists and psychologists now in attend-
ance at the neuro-psychiatric centre at Guelph
are doing an excellent job of work, and we
believe that the results will be equally as
good if not better than those of Dr. Buchner.
I must admit that I still cannot decide
in my own mind what the hon. member
means by this conflict of personalities. I can-
not find it. I grant that he read an article
written by the social workers' society of two
years ago, and I am perfectly prepared to
accept their opinion, but that was their
opinion at that time. I wonder if they still
have the same opinion today.
Perhaps they have, but once again, as I
pointed out to the hon. member, this whole
business of human relations is a tremen-
dously vexing problem. Many of these people,
as far as their behaviour is concerned, have
shown that they have no intention, desire
or will to conform to what we accept as a
normal pattern of behaviour. We cannot
treat them exactly as normal people.
But I want to tell hon. members this is
the one basic thought motivating every action
of my staff; that every one of those people
—man, woman or child— is a human being
and must ever be treated as such.
The hon. member speaks about the mili-
taristic attitude as represented by my valued
and loyal Deputy Minister. I want to tell
you, Mr. Chairman, that I doubt if there
is one person in my department more deeply,
or more seriously, or more sincerely con-
cerned about the welfare of those people,
committed by the courts to our care, than
is my Deputy Minister, and I will not only
resent but I will withstand any accusation
made against him to that effect.
The hon. member says we lack the facili-
ties or the capacity to do the work. Only
yesterday I was called out of this House
to answer a call from a member of the
Manitoba Legislature; yesterday afternoon
they were discussing our system in the Mani-
toba Legislature, and it was being highly
praised, and when someone stood up to con-
demn it, this member came immediately to
the telephone and called to get first-hand
information about it.
I have not had a letter from him, but
from what he said on the phone, he was
staggered at the immensity of the perform-
ance that we have accomplished so far.
I said, when I presented my report con-
cerning the jails, reformatories and industrial
institutions, that we have not made the
progress that we would have made, that we
are still short of professional staff. The ones
we need most are the social workers and
they are coming to us.
I am not the least bit ashamed, Mr. Chair-
man, to tell you or any hon. member of this
House that we cannot get social workers in
Canada. It is a new science, and there is
such a scarcity of them that every agency
employing them is crying out for them today.
In fact, in the after-care agencies, there is
quite a lot of friendly rivalry even to the
point of the organizations to whom we are
providing money grants, who are paying
higher salaries to the social workers than we
ourselves can afford to pay, or higher than
has been laid down by the civil service
association.
But we are not the only agency short of
social workers. The children's aid societies,
hospitals, all of these agencies which use
social workers, find them almost impossible
832
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to obtain. Regarding psychiatric social
workers, the psychiatric hospitals find the
same problem. The Department of Health
cannot get nearly enough.
So bad has the situation become that we
have seriously considered asking the civil
service to review the classification and see
if they would not accept outstanding per-
sonnel, or personnel with outstanding capa-
bilities already within our staff, to whom
we could give specialized courses of training.
But I pointed out, and I thought I made
it very clear— I am not making any excuse
for it— I am not built to involve this province
or this government in costly expenditures
which within a few months may be of no
value to the province whatsoever. If hon.
members have read the Fauteaux commis-
sion report— and I am quite sure they have
—they know the commission has recommended
that the federal government take over the
care and custody of every prisoner sentenced
to a term greater than 6 months. That would
completely decimate our set-up at the
present time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this province has
somewhere in the order of, I believe, alto-
gether, $75 million invested in physical assets
and equipment. Do we want to add some-
thing to that that might be completely
washed out in a few months? We have
waited now two or three years for the final
decision on this report; surely to goodness
it is not unreasonable that I ask hon. mem-
bers to be patient just a few months longer.
I can assure them that if this recommenda-
tion is not implemented, I will call upon this
House, if I am the Minister next year, for
expenditures or for a vote of money that
will stagger even the imagination of the hon.
member for York South. I will spend the
money, I will build up the facilities; they
are badly needed and I am completely in
agreement with the hon. member in that.
But if hon. members will look at the report
of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Griesinger) they will see what we have
already asked for, and that is about only a
third of what we actually need. As soon as
I believe it is economically sound, practical,
and feasible to do that thing, I will ask this
House to vote me the money to do it.
I could go on further, but what is the
use? I do want to say one thing about these
maximum security places about which we
have been talking. My hon. friend says we
appear so proud of them.
Mr. Chairman, I say to you and to every
hon. member in this House that that is a
complete and total misconception. I am not
only not proud of those institutions, I am
extremely unhappy that they are necessary.
But necessary they are, and I am not asking
hon. members to take our word for that. Not
only we here in Ontario have found it so,
but every jurisdiction I believe in the civil-
ized world is finding the same thing today.
May I refer to Sweden? Dr. Johnson's
school there was widely advertised a few
months ago in one of our weekly tabloids. Yet
they had to put bars on windows. What
happened to the outstanding experiment at
Framingham— it blew up in their faces, and
they found they had to put bars on the
windows for some of them. Chino in Cali-
fornia is one of the most outstanding experi-
ments in this sort of work in the world, I
believe. But it has been made possible only
because there is a place somewhere in the
background with bars on the windows.
Mr. Chairman, I say to you that if, by
keeping a small security institution capable
of holding 32 girls, I can make it possible
for 170 girls to have the freedom that can
be afforded them in a wide-open institution,
then I have no apology to offer. If it is
possible for me to look after 4,000 adult
convicts at wide-open institutions, or insti-
tutions of minimum security, then I do not
apologize to this House, and I shall not
apologize to this House, sir, if I have to build
an institution to hold 300 or 400 in maxi-
mum security.
I believe what I already said, that Mill-
brook is not full today, and, if Millbrook is
never full then I think it was the best $3.5
million investment this House ever made, and
I believe my hon. predecessor had that in
mind, just as surely as it has become appar-
ent to me, before he ever planned the build-
ing of this institution.
We are not proud of these closed institu-
tions. We say with much conviction that we
feel in some manner guilty for the fact that
these closed institutions are necessary. But,
Mr. Chairman, when I see the reports of
some of the people under our care, and I
read them carefully, I try to study them,
and I try to think about what might have
caused this defect of behaviour, then I see
the things that have been done for them,
and I ask work to be done again, tests to
be made again, psychiatric examinations to
be repeated, psychological examinations to
be repeated, all with the same results.
We even call in outside consultants just
in case some of our people have built up a
MARCH 13, 1958
833
prejudice or bias against the inmate. If that
is what thne hon. member means by confusion
of purpose, personalities or doubts or frustra-
tion—or whatever he wants to call it— I am
glad that we have that kind of confusion.
I repeat again, I am glad that we have men
and women in our department who have the
courage to stand up on their feet and say,
"Of course, I do not agree with this, but I
am willing to sit down and discuss it, to look
at it from every possible angle in the hope
that we can come to a compromise." Again
I repeat, with a great singleness of purpose
we can do the best possible job for those
under our care.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I have heard of British bull-
dogs, but I did not know there were Scottish
bulldogs until today. The hon. Minister is
very energetic in the defence of his depart-
ment as he probably should be.
At the moment, I want to direct attention
just to one matter. There will be other matters
to be dealt with as we go through the estim-
ates. We have heard a lot of discussion about
Dr. Buchner. I do not know very much about
this gentleman, except that in the Tall of 1956,
my hon. colleagues and myself visited the
Guelph institution and, in the course of that
visitation, we were in contact with this gentle-
man who explained to us in detail the ideology
that he had and the course that he was pursu-
ing in relation to the prisoners at Guelph.
Now, last year in the House, the then hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions, for whom I
have the highest regard, painted a very glow-
ing picture of what was happening at Guelph
in respect to this particular centre. There was
no indication, from the hon. Minister's remarks
a year ago, that there was any fault to be
found with the administration of that depart-
ment under Dr. Buchner.
Now, today, we come to the House and we
find, and the hon. Minister has just finished—
and this is the point I want to make particu-
larly—reading a list of Dr. Buchner's defici-
encies. He catalogued them in detail.
Now, the sum total of those deficiencies as
set out by the hon. Minister would, in my
judgment— if they were accurately based and
if they were sound in every respect and if
they were justifiable accusations— have been
more than enough to have justified the hon.
Minister in asking for the resignation of Dr.
Buchner.
But now that is not what happened, and this
is the point I want to bring to the hon. Mini-
ster's attention.
Time after time, this afternoon, there has
been more than an intimation that they said
to Dr. Buchner: "We want you to go to
Millbrook." Now, if Dr. Buchner was pos-
sessed of all the deficiencies that have been
outlined to the House this afternoon, then
why did the hon. Minister ask him to go to
Millbrook? Why did not the hon. Minister
of the department, if he was aware of the
deficiencies as he outlined them, ask for Dr.
Buchner's resignation?
That is why I say this afternoon that I have
some doubt, and I think there are reasonable
grounds for that doubt, as to whether Dr.
Buchner could be reasonably charged, as he
has been charged this afternoon, because if
he could have been properly charged, then the
hon. Minister should have asked for his resig-
nation, and not asked him to accept a similar
post in a larger institution, where he would
have had an even greater responsibility.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I
believe my hon. friend, the leader of the
Opposition, is perfectly justified in what he
has just said. Then again, I take full respon-
sibility for my action. I had very grave
doubts of Dr. Buchner's fitness, sir, when I
first read his file, when I read these things
that were catalogued against him. This all
happened before I came into the department
on July 19— a department which has been
very much under criticism.
Now, I am not a very vindictive person
although it may appear this afternoon as
though I am. I am not really a vindictive
person, and I believe that every man should
be given a second chance.
I believed that most of the serious defects,
which I read this afternoon, could have been
resolved by the very simple procedure of
moving Dr. Buchner to another milieu. First
of all, we would get him away from his
private practice. Secondly, he would go down
under a new superintendent. He would go
into an entirely different setting, which
would be conducive to a strict tightening up
of procedures and administrative matters.
Those were the serious matters, Mr.
Chairman, and I was quite prepared to take
the risk of concurring in the recommendation
that Dr. Buchner go to Millbrook because, as
I said already, I believed that most of these
defects could be corrected, or at least that
he should be given the opportunity to show
that he was willing to co-operate with us.
We were not going to dictate to Dr.
Buchner by saying that he could not continue
his group therapy, or that he could not con-
tinue to test his ideas. Not at all. I do not
834
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
think that, at any time, did our director of
neuro-psychiatry say to him: "You cannot
continue these things."
We objected to certain things which we
know to be, insofar as physicians are con-
cerned, wholly unethical and most undesir-
able. One never displays his patient, in
private practice, to the morbid curiosity of
the throngs.
Of course, one may see a baby born on
television— those who want to watch it— but
one does not call somebody into the hospital
to see an acquaintance being delivered of a
baby, or having his appendix removed. At
least I will not. I never have done so, and I
never will, from the very standpoint of
sanitation alone.
But I still repeat, sir, that I believe the
most serious defects which we found in Dr.
Buchner's regime could have been cleared
up, or at least he should have had the oppor-
tunity to prove to us that he was willing to
co-operate, to the end that they would be
cleared up in a new centre.
I would like to say this, further, not in
justification of our action, because I still
maintain— and I maintain this in spite of the
civil service commission— I still maintain that
I did not dismiss Dr. Buchner, that Dr.
Buchner severed his connection with this
government by his own action. However, it
was interpreted differently by the civil
service commission. He appeared before an
appeal board, his whole case was reviewed,
and they concurred unanimously in our
action.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, on another
point, I want the hon. Minister to tell me
and the House what happens now to this
clinic at Guelph, about which we had such
glowing reports in the last couple of years?
Is it going to be allowed to die a natural
death? Is it going to be transferred in its
entirety to Millbrook, or just what is to be
the future of this centre?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I crave the indulgence
of my hon. friend. Would he mind that being
taken up under the vote? If we can get on
with the vote, we will come to that.
On vote 1,901:
Mr. Oliver: On the main vote, I want to
say this about the expenditure of the depart-
ment this year. Now, I am quite willing that
the department get money to spend for
laudable purposes, but the hon. Minister of
appreciate that, two years ago, the expendi-
ture was about $7 million, and now he is
asking the House to approve over $15 mil-
lion. That is an increase of over $8 million
in two years.
Now, I think the hon. Minister should tell
the House, as briefly and as clearly as he
can, just what are the extraordinary expendi-
tures that have gone into this year's estimate
that would reveal a picture of twice as large
an expenditure as we had two years ago.
So far as the new institutions are con-
cerned, he does not pay for them in his
department. That is accurate, The Depart-
ment of Public Works builds the buildings
and pays for them, so it must be within the
department, outside the physical building,
that this expenditure has gone up, and I
think it would be of interest to the House if
the hon. Minister could outline just where
these expenditures are.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: On vote 1,901, sir,
there is an increase for salaries. That of
course will be found throughout. All salaries
have been increased because of the new
classification, which I think was overdue, and
also because of the 5-day, 40-hour week. This
has added a considerable sum for that pur-
pose.
The largest single item of increase is
almost $1 million for district jails. As you
probably know, Mr. Chairman, up until the
present the payment of the staff of district
jails has been the responsibility of The
Department of the Attorney-General. We
have taken that over now, and that accounts
for practically $1 million.
Of course, we had no great appropriation
for Millbrook last year. It called for $610,000
last year. It is $1,305,000 this year. That
is the explanation for the main increases in
all of the estimates, and I think if the hon.
leader of the Opposition will add that up,
he will find that it explains it all.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, on vote 1,901, I would like to direct
a question to the Minister on item No. 9,
prisoners' rehabilitation society. That is one.
I would like to know the name of the society.
Then there are the training schools. Ac-
cording to the public accounts of last year,
the 3 training schools were St. Joseph's, St.
Mary's and St. John's. I wonder if there
are any other training schools that receive
a grant from that appropriation, and what is
the basis of the grant?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: First, the grants. The
Salvation Army gets $20,000. We gave them
an extra $5,000 this year because they do
a good deal of chaplaincy work, for which
they are not paid as our regular chaplains
MARCH 13, 1958
835
are. The John Howard society got a regular
grant of $10,000 and a further supplemen-
tary grant of $2,500. The Elizabeth Fry
society in Toronto got $8,000. The Eliza-
beth Fry society in Ottawa got $1,000, and
in Port Arthur they got $500.
The societies in Ottawa and Port Arthur
are actually doing— and I do not mean this
to be misunderstood— a rather unique work
because they are so far away from our head
office. The society in Toronto, too, is doing
a very great work in after-care, as I am
quite certain many hon. members know.
A good deal about their work has been
widely publicized, and this is a very worth-
while and useful effort in after-care.
The matter of training schools will show,
and I must apologize to my hon. friend,
the hon. leader of the Opposition, that I did
not note that. We now pay $2.10 per day
per pupil to the 3 schools mentioned, St.
Mary's, St. Joseph's, and St. John's. Up
until this time we were paying $1. That
increase started April 1 last year, and they,
too, are experiencing an increased popula-
tion just as we are, but the increase is
completely shown here, $2.10 per day per
pupil, and $3 per day per pupil for those
from the unorganized territories.
Vote 1,901 agreed to.
On vote 1,902:
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Would the
hon. Minister tell us something about the
board of parole, who the members are now
and the chairman? Do they receive any
honorarium? How is the work progressing?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The board of parole
is, we believe, a very valuable part of our
work. There is no full-time chairman at the
present time, but the Rev. Dr. D. P. Row-
land, of Weston, has been acting chairman,
at least for the past year. The other mem-
bers are the Rev. Dr. Robert Good of Ottawa,
Lieutenant-Colonel W. A. Bunton, retired
from the Salvation Army, Mr. E. J. Roche
of North Bay, Mrs. Gladys Colter, and Miss
Isabelle J. Ross.
About 4 months ago, Mr. W. R. McCon-
nell of Toronto, a very valued member of
the board, who had given outstanding service
in that capacity to the province of Ontario
and to our department, asked to be relieved of
his duties. We have not filled the 3 vacancies
existing at present. Mr. Horgan, because
of pressure of duty, has been unable to act,
so essentially his post is vacant. This board
has not been brought up to strength, and I
am disappointed about this, but again I
make no apologies, sir, since that also is
a recommendation of the Fateaux commis-
sion, that our parole board be disbanded
and all that work be done from a central
board in Ottawa.
I would like to set this board up in the
proper manner, and I again would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that if this recommendation
of the Fauteaux commission is not adopted, or
not implemented, it will be also one of the
first matters to get my attention.
Mr. Oliver: Will not the Rev. Dr. Rowland
accept the chairmanship of the parole board?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The whole thing is
being held in abeyance as the hon. Prime
Minister states, but I believe— and this belief
is shared by members of my department—
that the chairman should be a full-time posi-
tion. The Rev. Dr. Rowland is encumbent in
a very large Presbyterian church in Weston
and actually does not have the time to devote
to it.
Mr. MacDonald: He is in York South.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: He is in a good terri-
tory. It is a wonder that he has not had a
greater influence on the hon. member, but he
is doing splendid work there, although he still
has a good fertile field in which to work, but
I believe that Dr. Rowland would not be
particularly interested. As acting chairman, he
did get an honorarium of $1,500.
The method of paying the members is a
per diem allowance plus expenses of $15 at
all the institutions except Burwash, and there
the allowance is $25 per diem.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Minister, during the
course of his address this afternoon, mentioned
that the members of the board were entirely
voluntary, serving voluntarily—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The advisory board.
Mr. Thomas: Because in the public accounts
for 1957 there is an item of $ 15,000-odd
for salaries for that same board.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That item, I am assured,
is for the administrative expenses of the board,
the board has a staff in our head office, there
is a full-time secretary and certain other office
staffs, supplies and so on concerned wtfhr|j}0
work of the parole board. ({j narlw
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Could the. hon.
Minister tell us how often this parole board
meets? And if they go to all the institutions?
836
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dymond: They meet 4 to 5 times
a month. They go to all the institutions except
Millbrook; they do not go there because the
population is not large enough. We bring
those at Millbrook, who are to come before
the parole board, down to Mimico to be inter-
viewed. But they go to all the other institu-
tions.
Mr. Nixon: Do the two lady members of
the board sit with the board only when they
are at the female institutions?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh no.
Mr. Nixon: They accompany them to all
institutions?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Quite so.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister has two or three times mentioned
the Fauteaux commission report. I agree with
him in his earlier observations that if there is
going to be a basic change— a basic redivision
of responsibilities as between the federal and
provincial jurisdictions— obviously, it would be
wise to mark time until we know the exact
nature of that change.
If I have a criticism to make, it is that,
while we have been waiting for that change,
we have been building $3.5 million peniten-
tiaries in the provincial field, such as Mill-
brook.
However, my point is this: Is there no
indication as to when we might get some
action on the Fauteaux report? I remember
when the report came out, the hon. Prime
Minister, in conjunction with the hon. Reforms
Minister of the day, said they supported it,
and hoped that it would be implemented im-
mediately. Now, that is 18 months ago, I
believe. I think it was a year ago last sum-
mer. Is there no indication as to when we
can get out of this sort of purgatorial position
and know where we are moving to?
Hon. Mr. Frost: After March 31.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would like to point
out, Mr. Chairman, that there was one mis-
take. Millbrook was not built after the Fau-
teaux commission report, it was started before
that. Unfortunately Millbrook took a good
long time to build, but I have every hope
that the Fauteaux report will be considered
high priority very shortly after March 31
when the government is returned at Ottawa.
Mr. Nixon: Does the hon. Minister honestly
expect that the federal government will as-
sume all those responsibilities that the prov-
ince now carries, for all the prisoners over
6 months?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We sincerely hope so.
Mr. Nixon: If he does, he is a lot more
optimistic than I am, and, from long experi-
ence with trying to get the federal govern-
ment to take something off the hands of the
province, I think the hon. Minister had better
go ahead and solve his difficulties, and deal
with them on a long-term basis.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, I would very respectfully remind my
hon. friend that there has been a great new
change in Ottawa, and that a great deal was
done in 8 months, and that is going to be
continued after March 31. And I believe that,
a year from now, we will be able to tell a
much different story.
Vote 1,902 agreed to.
On vote 1,903:
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion under vote 1,903 in connection with item
No. 2. Rather than ask a question, I would
like to have some explanation of, for example,
gratuities to inmates, not only while they are
in prison, but I would like to have some word
on what happens to them, and what things
are given to them, when they are let out of
prison.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The gratuities paid
are $2 per month of the sentence, up to a
total of $20, and that is given to the prisoner
on discharge.
We do not pay our prisoners, we have
discussed that and still discuss it from time
to time. I personally have leanings to it,
but once again I have to go to those who
know more about this business than I do.
The consensus of opinion is that the method
we follow is essentially the better method.
If we start paying our prisoners, then we
have to introduce canteens, and involve this
province in a lot of big expenditures for
administration, and I think that in the end
the prisoner is as well, if not better, off
getting his toothpaste, toothbrush, hair-
brush and so on for free, and getting his
$2, or up to $20, when he leaves our institu-
tion.
Mr. Whicher: Do they get such things as
tobacco free?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh, yes, there is a
definite ration, 2 packages every week, and
papers to use the contents of the packages.
MARCH 13, 1958
837
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to refer to city and
county jails, and I would like to refer to
page 55 of the hon. Minister's report for
some clarification. On page 54, in the second
and third columns, regarding sheriffs and
jailors, I want to follow this across for fur-
ther understanding. As we come to jailor
and salary, take Hamilton for example, and
the amount of $2,389.73. Now immediately
under that there is a figure of $5,050.95.
What I want to get clear is this: is the first
salary shown that of the sheriff, the jailor or
the warden, and what is shown in the second
and third columns on page 54?
What I am trying to arrive at is whether,
in the second column on page 55, the hon.
Minister shows 36 as staff, which I would
imagine would be guards. Now I am con-
fused as to whether it should be guards or
jailors. Are they both the same?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We would like to call
them "guards." I think the city and county
jails refer to them as jailors, but we refer
to them as guards.
Mr. Gisborn: Are the 36 mentioned the
total staff of the Hamilton jail, from the
governor down? Does it include the ad-
ministrative staff? The office staff?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is the total staff
involved in the operation of the jail, without
the sheriff of course. The two figures
$2,389.73 and $5,050.95 were put that way
because there was a change of governors
during the past year, and that shows a salary
paid to two people each for part of the year.
I would point out that we do not pay these
salaries, of course, i directly. That is all
involved in the grant given for administration
of justice.
Mr. Gisborn: I understand that, but there
are some things that I would like to get
clarified. Now, the $2,389.73 would be the
yearly salary of the guards, or what we term
guards, in the Hamilton city jail.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No. That was the
amount paid to the governor who relin-
quished his office during the year. The
$5,050.95 is the amount paid to the present
governor for finishing out that year.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, take the range of those
salaries. Will the hon. Minister explain it to
a certain extent? Hamilton was the lowest,
and it goes from there to a high of $5,562.62
in Toronto. Now what does that column
mean? Let us leave Hamilton alone now.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well that means that
Barrie, for instance, pays their governor
$3,649.98 and that Toronto pays theirs
$5,562.62.
Mr. Gisborn: That is the governor. Now
that is what I want to get at. The hon.
Minister says "other officials." Who are they?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That would be the
guards, and all the other staff.
Mr. Nixon: What about turnkeys, or is that
term obsolete?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Some countries call
them turnkeys. They have a diversity of
names, and we like the individualism of the
various county officials. We think they should
be given the right to call them what they
will.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, Mr. Chairman, just to
go a little further on this. I understand that
there has been a change in the set-up.
Previously the sheriff had something to do
with the type of wages and conditions in the
city jails, and I believe that Bill No. 99 will
now change that to perhaps a large extent.
That it is now going to come under the
Deputy Minister or the hon. Minister of The
Department of Reforms. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The governor will be
immediately responsible for the operation of
jails to the county council, but as for the
method in which the jail is run, he will take
direction from this department.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, the point I want to get
clear is this. I was invited to meet some of
the guards in the Hamilton jail, and we went
through the jail and spoke to some of them
and the point that vexed most of them was
that they had no grievance procedure, they
had no way of getting a request for a wage
increase across.
All I could find out was that it had to be
left to the sheriff to make a recommendation
to The Dspartment of the Attorney-General.
If he approved it, they would send word
back, and then the city council would have
to pay it. It was mandatory on the city coun-
cil to pay a wage increase if the sheriff
recommended it.
What happens now that the sheriff is out
of the picture, how do those people get
access to grievance procedure?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well those people,
of course, we must understand, are paid by
the county or the city as the case may be.
Therefore, we do not feel that we have any
838
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
right to interfere with the matter of their
salaries. The guards can organize any way
they like, and if they go to their governor,
and up until the present time, the governor
would take their request or their demand or
their recommendations, to the sheriff, and the
sheriff in turn would go to the county council
or the city council. If it were passed, it came
to us for approval and that would be it.
We never tell them what they are going
to have to pay. We did say, in the case of
places with population in excess of 150,000,
a few months ago, that they should put their
staffs on the 40-hour week. We did this after
much consultation with those authorities,
because we were given to understand that
all other municipal employees were on that
basis, and we felt that it was only fair and
right that the jail staff should be on the same
working basis.
But we never tell them or recommend to
the county or city what they should pay. We
approve it when they tell us, or ask for our
approval, but we never tell them that they
are paying too much or too little. That, we
consider, is none of our concern.
Mr. Gisborn: The point that struck me as
very queer was that the sheriff of Wentworth
county had only made a visit twice in the
past year, and it seemed to leave them with-
out much access of getting their grievances
across.
Could they come under the municipal
police association if they so desired?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, that is a matter
really quite outside of my province, but I
find it very difficult to understand that sheriff
Caldwell visited the jail only twice in one
year. We believe that, insofar as jail matters
are concerned, sheriff Caldwell was a very
outstanding sheriff in the whole province of
Ontario.
However, I have no argument with that.
They still have access to the sheriff by going
to their governor, who is their immediate
superior, and then if that is not satisfactory,
if they could not get any action from the
sheriff, they still could come to our inspectors,
who would intercede with the sheriff on their
behalf.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, I would just like to
point out that the salary rates here are, in a
lot of cases, $20 to $22 below the average in
Ontario, and in some cases, very little above
the lowest range, and certainly there should
be some procedure to look them over to bring
them more in line with the average rates in
the province.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, I would point out,
Mr. Chairman, that this is none of our concern,
and I, for one, certainly do not feel inclined
to interfere with county council's will. We
shall approve every increase they send through
to us, but I am not going to tell them that
they must increase salaries. That is not my
concern.
Mr. Gisborn: That is what I am trying to
get across. Who recommends an increase for
them now? Not the county council?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is recommended to
the county council, and the county council
must pass it, or as Hamilton is a city jail-
Mr. Gisborn: It is recommended to the
county council by the sheriff?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is right.
Mr. Gisborn: In the past. Now that the
sheriff—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: When this bill is finally
law, they will go to the governor, and the
governor will go to the county council. In
the case of Hamilton, he will go to the jail
committee of the city council, who, in turn,
should bring their recommendation back to
city council. We have nothing to do with
it except to approve it once it has been passed
by them.
Mr. A. Jolley (Niagara Falls): Why does not
the hon. member for Wentworth East sit
down and pretend he knows what is going on?
Mr. Whicher: I would like to have the hon.
Minister give a few remarks under vote 1,903,
of item No. 4, the heading of which is indus-
tries. I have one specific question that I
would like to ask on that. How much does
the department charge The Department of
Highways for the car licence plates that are
made? Whatever the amount is, does this
cover the cost of the production?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am sorry. I did not
get the last half of the question .
Mr. Whicher: Whatever the amount is,
does this cover the cost of the production?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh yes. Last year
and again this year we have quoted them
a price of 15 cents per pair, the best bar-
gain in Ontario— and that gives us a little
profit. We do keep the business running
on that small profit. That is private enter-
prise.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Minister
say something else under that item on the
various industries?
MARCH 13, 1958
839
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This amount of money
goes almost completely for material. To pay
for the materials we use, steel in the case of
the car markers, lumber in the case of the
carpentry shops, sheet metal, paint, brushes,
machinery for the machine shops— all of the
things required— tins for the canning factory,
cloth and other textiles for the tailor shops,
and all the other multitude of things used in
our various industries.
It does not, of course, go for the great
bulk of the feed which we use at our farms,
because we grow most of it. But there are
certain things which we have to buy, but
most of our feed is grown on our own lands.
If there is any question on any specific in-
dustry, I would be glad to explain in detail.
Mr. MacDonald: They make good sausage.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: They certainly do.
Mr. Manley: On vote 1,903 I would like
to ask the hon. Minister, in regards to re-
pairs to buildings, if additions to existing
buildings enter into repairs, or is that taken
care of by The Department of Public Works.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh, we may put up
a very small shed, lean-to, or something of
that kind, but no major additions are under-
taken by us. That is done by The Depart-
ment of Public Works.
I would point out that there have been
occasions, and there may in the future be
occasions, when we will put up some struc-
ture, largely as a training project. We train
quite a number of our boys in bricklaying
and cement block laying, and if we can put
them to a useful job instead of making them
build up a wall and break it down again,
then we will not hesitate to do that. Those
would be minor matters, no major construc-
tion is undertaken by our own department.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Minister said that
a pair of licence plates cost approximately
15 cents. Does he not think that, when we
pay $24 for them, that is really excess profit-
eering?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would just remind
my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman, that nowhere
in the Dominion of Canada can he get such
a cheap pair of plates to run over such good
highways.
Mr. Manley: This government is paying
15 cents a pair to an institution for those
plates. Now, what would it cost The De-
partment of Highways if they were to go out
somewhere else and buy those plates? The
point I am getting at is this, The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions is producing
a product that is now showing a profit. What
would The Department of Highways have
to pay for those plates if they had to get
them from some other source?
Hon. Mr. Frost: We would have to pay
for them anyway, they all come out of the
same hole. What difference does it make?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would answer my
hon. friend this way, that in the first place
I do not believe there is anybody making
plates in the Dominion of Canada. I believe
—and I questioned this in the United States—
I believe automobile markers are made al-
most exclusively by penal institutions.
When we took it over, if I recall the
history of this business of car markers, we
took it over from a firm in Hamilton that was
making such a poor job of it that they
could not show a profit on the job. They
were unable to produce the plates and show
a decent profit, and for that reason they were
not the least bit interested in a contract.
Now, the hon. member says that we are
doing somebody out of a profit. That is quite
true. But I would like him to remember
that, if we stop this, we have to ask him for
more money to keep these fellows in idleness.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman— and I do not
care if we show a profit in our industries or
not— that work is a very important therapeutic
measure in the field of correction. I think
that even the hon. members across the House
will agree with me in that, as they have
agreed with me in many things today, but
if we take that big industry away from them,
we either have to find some other industry,
and it does not matter into what field we
are going, we will take work away from
somebody.
We either then have got to find another
industry or keep the men around in idleness,
and that I think would be the worst thing
that could ever happen to these reform insti-
tutions.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, may I say
that the transfer of the markers to the Guelph
institution, is not a matter of recent origin.
That was done, I think, very many years
ago.
Mr. MacDonald: How long?
Hon. Mr. Frost: How long? Yes, as a
matter of fact, the hon. Minister says they
were manufactured by a private concern, and
they were transferred to Guelph around 30
years ago, and they have been made there
840
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ever since. I think it must have been 30 years
ago, some place around there.
Mr. Manley: I did not want to leave the
impression I was asking the department to
get its licence plates somewhere else. I was
wanting to point out what a saving there is
to The Department of Highways in buying
them from the institution. Now I realize that
it is very important that this industry stays
within the institutions. But I was trying to
point out the saving. I do not want to leave
the impression that I was asking The De-
partment of Highways to go outside, or to
set up some other way. That was not my
intention at all.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We just spent about
$.5 million for machinery to make these
plates, we are not going to throw it out the
door.
Mr. Manley: I have been through the
institution, and I have seen these boys doing
it, and I think it is a wonderful occupation
for them.
Mr. H. A. Worton ( Wellington South ) :
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon.
Minister if he would give me the minimum
and maximum salaries of guards, plus the
hours, and also a little information on the
new boys' training school at Guelph?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The minimum now is
$3,120. The maximum is $3,600. The hours
are a 40-hour week, 8-hour day, 5-day week.
Mr. MacDonald: I understand that quite
a number of times, down through the years,
representations have been made by some of
the women's organizations in connection with
medical, dental and optometric services for
the inmates at Mercer. What is the situation
here? Is it the case, for example, they will
not give the inmate a set of dentures unless
all teeth are gone? And what of glasses?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Each case depends on
its own merits. I would like to point out,
Mr. Chairman, that if we got into this busi-
ness we could really lead the province into
something. I have on my desk for decision,
at the present time, a file where a very out-
standing dentist, who examined one of our
charges, has recommended an expenditure of
$800. Now, I have to think very carefully of
the wisdom of making such an expenditure.
I am spending this province's money, and I
am quite certain that many people would
think very long and carefully about spending
$800 on their own child's teeth.
If the lack of dentures is interfering with
the person's health, they will get dentures.
But after all, Mr. Chairman, a lot of these
people come into us who have probably been
drunk or something and lost their teeth. Is
it the responsibility of this government to buy
new teeth for them? I say not. If the lack of
teeth is interfering with their health, then
we will buy them teeth. If they really need
glasses again we will provide glasses for
them, provided their families are unable to
do so. But I received a letter from a man
yesterday saying that he needed glasses, that
he could not see— but he made the mistake of
telling me that his vision was 20-30 in each
eye. My own vision is not 20-30 in each
eye, and I can get along without my glasses.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps I have been seriously
out of touch, but I have not heard about this
new institution at Port Bolster, at the top of
page 101. Would the hon. Minister tell us
something about that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, as I
mentioned in my opening remarks, this was
a small unit which we bought believing that
it would be a further extension of our experi-
mental work in the matter of classification. It
was built originally as a small tourist hotel,
but never was used for that purpose.
The building is only 7 years old and is in
good condition. We bought it at a good price,
we believed, and we were going to set up this
unit to house 25 young girls, the youngest
that came to us.
We were going to put them here as a fur-
ther extension of our experiment in classi-
fication. We felt that if we could put them
by themselves, to begin with, before they
came into contact with the girls who have
been in the institution for any length of
time, or girls who have been in other institu-
tions before they came to us— in other words
before they had been contaminated so to
speak— that we would have a much better
chance of doing something for them. That is
the purpose of the place now located at Port
Bolster. It is not open yet; we expect it will
be open within a month.
Mr. MacDonald: Is this the one near Lake
Simcoe.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is right on the shores
of Lake Simcoe.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, on vote 1,903,
I was looking through the public accounts
for the fiscal year ended 1957 and there is
one item there under Mimico account in the
expenses, gratuities of $14,409, and also in an
item of $5,345 in Brantford, and $2,048 in
Fort William. What would these gratuities
be for?
MARCH 13, 1958
841
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The gratuities are the
money we give to the prisoners upon dis-
charge, up to $20 each. Gratuities all apply
to the same thing.
Vote 1,903 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the committee of supply do now rise and
report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report that it has come to certain
resolutions and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE EXPENSES ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. Ill, "An Act to amend The Ad-
ministration of Justice Expenses Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill 112, "An Act to amend The Sheriffs
Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 113, "An Act to amend The Fire
Departments Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT, 1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 114, "The Libel and Slander Act,
1958."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think I should
perhaps say something on the second reading
of this libel and slander bill. I think the House
perhaps would be interested in a few re-
marks in connection with the problem.
The spoken and written word is so familiar
to us that we often forget what a power for
good or evil it can be, and living as we do
in our world of words, the law of libel and
slander is of vital concern to all of us.
The last changes in our libel and slander
law were made in 1909. At this time, even
though Marconi had sent his famous trans-
oceanic radio message 8 years before, no one
had even thought of using the new invention,
radio, for the dissemination of information
and entertainment to scattered audiences.
It was not until September, 1918, that Can-
ada's first broadcasting station was set up in
Montreal. Since that time, radio has played
a great part in the dissemination of the spoken
word, as newspapers play in the dissemination
of the printed word.
Television, of course, is a relative newcomer
in this field. The first Canadian television
programme took place about 6 years ago.
At present The Libel and Slander Act gives
a limited protection to newspapers, and this
protection is now being extended to include
radio and television stations. This change is
reflected in sections 1 and 2 of the bill, and
various sections throughout the present Act
deal with newspapers, and these sections have
been extended to include broadcasts, as for
example, sections 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13 and 14.
Our present Act provides that newspaper
reports of proceedings of certain organiza-
tions are not actionable if there is no malice
in the report. This group of organizations,
inserted in the Act in 1906, has remained
unchanged up to the present time, but now
it is being widened. It includes proceedings
of the Parliament of England, proceedings of
the United Nations, a fair and accurate report
of the findings or decisions of certain art,
scientific, business, and sports associations.
Our present statute deals almost entirely
with procedural steps to take when one sues
or is being sued for libel and slander, and the
general principles of libel and slander are
covered by the common law. In 1939, a
committee was set up in Great Britain to study
the whole law of defamation, and sat for
some 12 years before it brought in its report
resulting in the English Defamation Act of
1952.
Now, in the survey which we have made
here, we have studied the English Act and in
some instances we have adopted some of the
procedures there.
Under the common law, there are certain
limitations in bringing an action which in-
volves a person's profession or calling. A
person must be able to show that the words
complained of were not words of general
842
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
abuse, but were spoken of him in relation
to his profession or calling.
To give an example, to say of a lawyer
or a clergyman that "he would get drunk"
or "I have seen him drunk" is not in com-
mon law at present actionable, because it is
not related directly to his work and his pro-
fession. But that does not seem to take into
account— and the amending Act now will—
the fact that if a person is doing that sort
of work, such as a minister being accused of
being drunk and disorderly, his profession or
the work he does could definitely suffer as
a result of such talk.
Section 19 of the bill also removes a com-
mon law burden in the case of slander of
title, slander of goods or other malicious
falsehoods. For instance, slander of title is the
making of a disparaging remark regarding a
man's property, as for instance referring to
a house, which a person wants to sell, as
being haunted or something of that sort, and
in that way affecting definitely the title and
value of the house. That is the sort of thing
that now comes under the Act. Damages can
be recovered in proper cases.
For example, by way of a practical joke:
a person falsely represents to Mrs. X, we will
say, that her husband has been seriously
injured in an automobile accident and is
dying. At the present time, the way the law
is, though she might suffer very violently
from such a statement, there would be no
recovery under the present Act, but with the
amendments that sort of a situation would
be covered.
Section 23 and 24 of the bill alleviates
burdens which the common law imposes on
a person who is being sued for libel and
slander. A person being sued for libel and
slander may say in his defence, "I was justi-
fied because it is the truth." However, under
the present law, if one is to win his case,
he must be able to prove the truth of every-
thing he said or wrote.
For example, a newspaper might publish
a report that "X" stole a Gruen watch from
Birks last Friday. If the newspaper is able
to prove that "X" did steal a watch from
Birks on Friday, but it turned out to be a
Bulova watch, well, under our present law,
the newspaper could not prove the case in
every detail and the question of damages
would be affected.
That is the sort of thing that this Act is
clearing up on the question of proof.
Section 23 of the bill provides that a
defence of justification will not fail simply
because the truth of every fact is not proved,
if the fact that is not proved does not materi-
ally injure the person that is suing him.
Similarly, if one comments on some matter
of public interest, and is sued for libel, he
may defend his comments by proving the
truth of the facts upon which he commented,
and by proving that his comments on these
facts were fair.
One of the leading English cases, concerns
a London newspaper which published serious
allegations with reference to the official con-
duct of the resident commissioner of Zulu-
land. The newspaper stated that he had not
only violently assaulted a Zulu chief, but
also that he had ordered his native policemen
to assault some other chiefs.
The newspaper, acting upon the assump-
tion that these statements of the assaults were
true, commented upon his conduct in terms
of great severity. At the trial, the newspaper
was able to prove only that the commissioner
had personally assaulted the chief, but was
not able to prove the other allegations. Even
though the comment was fair, considering
the gravity of the true charge, the newspaper
lost the case and the resident commissioner
of Zululand came out with about £500 extra
as a result of the action.
The change in section 24 makes it possible
for the person being sued to win his case
even if he cannot prove the truth of all the
allegations, as long as the comment is fair
on the allegations that he can prove.
Section 16 of the bill is also new, and
again is taken from the English Act. The
risk of libel is one of the incidents of the
normal carrying on of the business of a news-
paper, or radio or television station, and
the new section provides that libel insurance
policies are legal.
All the other sections of the bill are exactly
the same as contained in our present Libel
and Slander Act, but they are rearranged
in order to put together those that apply
specifically to libel, and those which apply
specifically to slander.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): May I ask the
hon. Attorney-General if there is any federal
legislation on this matter?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I do not think so. I
think this is a matter-
Mr. Nixon: Entirely provincial?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think it is entirely
provincial.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
MARCH 13, 1958
843
THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS ACT,
1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 115, "The Private Investigators
Act, 1958."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say that
the libel and slander bill and any other bill
that an hon. member wishes to go to the
committee on legal bills will go there, and
I think this bill should probably go to the
committee also, for consideration.
But this is a re-writing of the old Private
Detectives Act, and on introduction I made
some comments about it, and unless some
hon. member wants me to go into further
discussion on it at this point, I will leave
it that it will go before the committee on
legal bills.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 116, "An Act to amend The
Judicature Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE REGISTRY ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 135, "An Act to amend The
Registry Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will also
go to the committee on legal bills.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TIME ACT, 1958
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 136, "The Time Act, 1958."
Mr. Nixon: Would the hon. Attorney-
General tell us something more about this?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I do not think I have
more to tell than what I told the hon. mem-
ber for Brant when I introduced it. It is
simply a tidying up of the language to get
this Act into a little better wording when
it comes to a revision of the statutes, which
is pending now. It does not in any way
change the present Act, but it does clear
the wording somewhat, that is all.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORONERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 132, "An Act to amend The
Coroners Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAW STAMPS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 137, "An Act to repeal The Law
Stamps Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE POLICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 133, "An Act to amend The
Police Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS
BROKERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 134, "An Act to amend The Real
Estate and Business Brokers Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS TAX ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 138, "An Act to amend The
Corporations Tax Act, 1957."
He said: This bill is one that has some
30 sections, but the main purpose of the
bill is simply to keep the allocation of profit
basis for taxing of corporations, on the same
scale and level as the position under The
Federal Income Tax Act.
Now during 1957, there were quite a num-
ber of changes made in that Act, and under
the power of our Corporation Tax Act of 1957,
we have the right to follow along, month
by month, to keep that basis and then, when
the legislation is introduced the following
year, to put it into the statute. That is what
is being done here now.
844
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I mentioned, on the introduction of the
bill, that this would apply to all the prov-
inces in the Dominion except the province
of Quebec.
The bill also takes into account any differ-
ential between the province of Quebec and
this province, so that there is no disadvan-
tage to the corporations operating in the two
provinces.
It also makes it possible to assess, on the
spot, so to speak, a corporation that might
come into this province to take part, for
example, in some big exhibition where some
large amount of money might be made in a
very short time. The assessment can be made
right on the spot, and protection made in that
way for any profits that might be taxable
eventually.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Attorney-
General to explain exactly what arrangement
has been made with respect to the determina-
tion of taxes between Quebec and Ontario.
That, after all, is where the problem arose
and I think, to some real extent, the govern-
ment must be criticized for permitting a situa-
tion to arise that we complained of last year.
That is, last year, just as this year, the hon.
Attorney-General said that he was following
the federal governmental regulations and
laws.
Now, in practice, we know what has
happened. Many corporations have found
themselves in a very embarrassing position,
where they were required to pay, in both
Quebec and Ontario, on the same profits, or
other situations arose where a company was
not deemed to have earned money in either
of the two provinces and was completely
exempt.
Our situation arose—
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): This
corrects all that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well now, how is the
Quebec situation corrected? Suppose that
Quebec—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that the
Quebec government, as I understand it, de-
clined to change their Act, so that the federal
Act was changed, and we are changing ours
accordingly, and it will correct that situation.
Now as to how, I would not profess to
tell my hon. friend, but I would be very
glad to have Mr. Clark, the comptroller of
revenue, sit with him. Perhaps my friend,
the hon. Attorney-General, can explain it
better than I can.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think perhaps I have
the benefit of Mr. Clark's memorandum right
on that point. Ontario and Quebec are the
only two provinces of Canada that are impos-
ing and collecting their own corporation taxes.
Ontario's provisions for the allocation of
profits of corporations are identical with
those of Canada. On the other hand, the
provisions of The Quebec Corporation Tax
Act, for the allocation of income, are different
from those of Ontario and the rest of Canada.
I refer to subsection 24, subsection 28D.
It is section 3, subsection 3, of the bill. It pro-
vides that where a corporation is taxable on
income in both Quebec and Ontario, and the
Quebec law allocates a larger portion of the
corporation's income to Quebec, then the
general allocation provisions under the
Ontario Act would allow an additional deduc-
tion to be made from tax otherwise payable
to Ontario of 9 per cent, of that difference.
Nine per cent, is the rate of tax applicable
under the Quebec Act.
When the opposite takes place, that is
where the Quebec Act taxes a smaller propor-
tion of taxable income than the general rules
of Ontario would allocate to Quebec, this
subsection reduces the allowance, otherwise
granted under this Act, by 9 per cent, of that
amount.
This subsection has the effect of making
it impossible for any portion of Ontario's
income of an Ontario company or company
operating in Ontario, being taxed both by
Ontario and Quebec.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to clarify this. Suppose that Quebec
determines a certain profit is made in Quebec.
Now Quebec decides that it is going to tax,
and suppose that Ontario determines that the
profit has been made in Ontario. Will Ontario
automatically give in to Quebec?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I think that is a
matter for negotiation. I would say that
Ontario does not automatically give in to
anybody. It has to be justified on the situa-
tion.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I must tell the hon.
Attorney-General this, if he is not familiar
with it, that at the chartered accountants'
meeting in the tax foundation meetings, this
was a subject of great concern, and hundreds
of thousands of dollars are involved in this
very problem. During the past year, there
were several companies that were prejudiced
and other companies got away with, virtually,
avoiding paying any tax.
MARCH 13. 1958
845
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
member that the explanation of that is a
very difficult matter of allocation. Sitting
under the gallery is Mr. Phillip Clark. If
my hon. friend would like to talk to him,
he will give him all the particulars, and then
I would delegate my hon. friend to explain
it to the House for me, because I must
admit that I find it somewhat difficult to
understand.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am not suggesting
that. All I want is to be assured. Now, at
the meeting there was a difference of
opinion—
Hon. Mr. Frost: If the hon. member is
not satisfied, then let him ask Mr. Clark. I
am satisfied that it is all right now.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, Mr. Clark was
certainly not in agreement with the men
at the meeting, I can assure the hon. Prime
Minister of that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: He is right over there.
Let the hon. member just sit over there and
he-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, I will be glad to
do that afterwards.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate,
I wish to say that I agree wholeheartedly
with the very fine tributes that have been
paid to you. I sincerely agree with the other
hon. members, that you carry out your duties
with great dignity, and I offer those sincerely,
Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to say at this time that
in our hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver), we have a man who has proven
himself to be a sincere and a capable leader.
He is a man who commands respect because
of his integrity and sincerity; he is a man
who, through the past 30 years, has rendered
splendid service to this Legislature and to
the people of this province. We all look up
to him and respect him.
The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon),
is another honourable Canadian who has
made a great contribution of service to the
people of this province. Thirty-nine years is
quite a span in any man's life, especially in
the rough and tumble of politics, but I be-
lieve that he has enjoyed every one of those
39 years, and I sincerely hope— and believe
that we all sincerely hope—that his political
health will be good for many more years in
this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, to introduce what
I am going to say, I am going to read an
editorial. There were several editorials about
this situation in many of the metropolitan
newspapers, but I have chosen this one be-
cause it is a paper favourable to this govern-
ment, shall we say? I refer to the Toronto
Telegram. The title of this is:
Flouting Public Opinion
I will not read it all; I will read some
sections of it and will comment on it after-
wards.
Rejection by the Legislature's private
bills committee of Ottawa's application for
legislation, permitting it to fluoridate its
water supply, constitutes a challenge to
Health Minister, Mackinnon Phillips. His
position in this regard, considering that
Metropolitan Toronto also has a special
application, is untenable.
Dr. Phillips has not only declared that
fluoridation is beneficial and harmless, he
himself, last March, introduced a bill that
was adopted by the Legislature, which
authorized 8 municipalities that had been
fluoridating their water to continue to do so.
Ottawa now asks for permission. Metro-
politan Toronto is asking for it. Is Dr. Phil-
lips content to do nothing about these
applications when the private bills com-
mittee now, to all intents and purposes,
censures him for his previous endorsement
and advocacy of fluoridation?
The editorial goes on to mention about
what the pure water committee says in
Ottawa about aluminum and the terrible
things that were happening in Saguenay. The
Telegram said, to continue the editorial:
Saguenay 's experience, like that of other
cities, has been that a noisy, an irrespon-
sible group concentrated its efforts to create
a scare and to drown out the testimony
of authoritative medical and dental leaders.
Now, this is happening in Ontario as well,
and it is happening with the connivance
of Queen's Park. The express wishes of
elected representatives of Ontario munici-
palities have long been ignored by the
Ontario government.
All persons in the province who have
supported the Frost government, as the
Telegram has, will be concerned with this
political manifestation, and hope that it
is not a sign of growing arrogance to-
846
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
wards public opinion because of long years
in office, such as developed in the final
days of the former Liberal government in
Ottawa.
Such an attitude was keenly resented
by the public. It was a key factor in turn-
ing popular support against the St. Laurent
government, and it persists in the current
national election campaign. Strong as the
provincial government is, and fortunate as
it is in the leadership of Prime Minister
Frost, nevertheless, if it continues to flaunt
the considered requests of responsible
municipal bodies, who democratically rep-
resent public opinion, the voters of Ontario
will surely turn against it.
Now what happened with this bill from
Ottawa? Here we have a council in Ottawa,
representing the people of Ottawa, respon-
sible to the electors of Ottawa, voting 19 to
4 to do something that they believed was
right. There is not a doubt in the world that
their medical officer of health and their
leading medical profession (leaders in the
medical profession in Ottawa), were behind
them, and being an elected body, the people
can say whether the people want this or not
by turning them out at the next election,
but they voted 19 to 4 that they want to
fluoridate their water supply, and because
this government has no policy on this, they
have to come here to get permission. What
happens when they come here?
Fifteen hon. government members decide
that the city of Ottawa is not going to do this.
They virtually say: "We are going to take care
of you in Ottawa, you are not going to poison
yourselves down there, we are going to take
care of you and see that you do not do this."
Also, lo and behold, the hon. member for
Ottawa East (Mr. Morin) opposed it. He
was one of the quartette in Ottawa who op-
posed it. I do not know whether he led the
opposition to it or not, but he came here to
try to kill it, too, by voting against it. At
least, he could have been neutral.
Now, that is what happened with this bill.
Mr. R. Robson (Hastings East): Did they all
vote against it?
Mr. Gordon: No, all the hon. members did
not vote against it. There were two opposed
to it, but there were 15 hon. government
members, and that was all that was there.
Mr. Robson: How did the hon. Opposition
members vote?
Mr. Gordon: They voted for Ottawa, that
the officials there could democratically do
what they were elected to do.
They virtually said: "We are going to
take care of you down there at Ottawa, you
are not going to have your people poison
themselves and get into the hospitals and all
kinds of things happen."
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): None of those
in the committee said anything of the sort.
Mr. Gordon: By their attitude they did.
Mr. Boyer: Oh, excuse me, by their attitude.
Mr. Gordon: By their attitude they did, and
by what some of them said, too. The hon.
member knows what was said.
Mr. Whicher: It was good for the minority.
Mr. Gordon: Now, this government has no
policy on this whatever, and until they do
something about it, fluoridation— as far as
cities are concerned— is gone forever in On-
tario, but I think there will be a change.
An hon. member: A change in government.
Mr. Gordon: Now, one medical officer of
health says here, in writing to me:
It would be a real contribution to the
public health if the provincial Department
of Health would proclaim its willingness to
arrange for the free hospitalization and
detailed clinical study of any individual in
the above named municipalities—
and I mean the 8 municipalities that are
legally allowed to fluoridate their water
supply; Brantford is on its thirteenth year:
—who might allege that his health was
being adversely affected by the consump-
tion of fluoridated water.
The medical officer of health in Brant-
ford has so stated, and I might say that Dr.
E. R. Krumbiegel, the Milwaukee commis-
sioner of health, publicly proclaimed an offer
of free hospitalization and clinical study of
such cases more than two years ago, and
that no individual has in any way sought to
take advantage of the offer.
Now why does not the government do
something to take the scare away from this?
We have these individuals going around
scaring the life out of people and the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips) said it is a
good thing, it is the right thing. Why not let
the municipalities have the democratic right
to do what they believe is the right thing
to do, in their opinion, instead of having
to come here and have a group here to say:
"You are not going to do this, it is wrong."
MARCH 13, 1958
847
An hon. member: Let the hon. member
be careful of that water.
Mr. Gordon: An hon. member says I
should be careful of that water. Well, I am
going to speak about something else that is
not water, although it has water in it.
When one speaks on this subject, he is
immediately placed in one of two categories.
He is either a wet or he is a dry. And if
he is a dry, he is a prohibitionist or, as they
used to picture him in the cartoons in days
gone by, he would be a thin individual with
a long nose and a top hat on, and a pretty
miserable looking individual because he was
a dry. ,
But, anyway, I am neither one of those.
I am a pretty decent individual, I think, and
I am not a prohibitionist.
But we all know— and this is serious now
—we all know that the sale of alcoholic
beverages is at an all-time high. Now that
is recognized, is it not? And so is drunk
driving at an all-time high, and so is im-
paired driving at an all-time high.
There is an increase in new alcoholic cases
every year, and this is a very serious illness
indeed. The sixth annual report of the alco-
holic research foundation states that the
number of citizens of Ontario who have
developed this illness is very large. The
number is increasing year by year at an
alarming rate. The special clinics operated
by the foundation, the mental institutions
of our province, Alcoholics Anonymous and
other treatment organizations, are handling
only a fraction of the new cases which
develop each year.
Now I do not think we can be too com-
placent with this situation. I believe some-
thing can be done. We are trying to take
care of the finished product of the booze
business, and even at its best what we are
endeavouring to do, as a Legislature, is
rather a poor try.
The amount received by the government
from the liquor business this year is a very
large sum— I understand in excess of $550
million. A lot of money, is it not? $550
million. And out of this huge amount, what
we give for education on alcoholism educa-
tion and what we appropriate for the alco-
holic research foundation, which endeavours
to take care of the finished product of the
liquor business, is very small indeed. I
believe that it should be substantially
increased and I believe it would pay divi-
dends in many ways, because we find that
with increased education on alcoholism in the
schools in the United States, there has been
a marked decrease in consumption. This can
be shown by statistics.
In the United States, consumers of alco-
holic beverages have decreased from 57 per
cent, in 1945 to 50 per cent, in 1956. In
Canada, the percentage of consumers of
alcoholic beverages has climbed to 76 per
cent., and 46 per cent, are women. I feel
we should take a serious look at this prob-
lem, and I believe the hon. members will
agree that there is a problem here, and I
strongly suggest to the government that some
increase in temperance education should be
prepared for our schools. That is where it
could start, in our schools. I believe it will
pay dividends in many, many ways.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: A little earlier in his
address, the hon. member gave a figure of
$525 million, but I am sure he made a mis-
take, he was not thinking of that being-
Mr. Gordon: Oh no, I am thinking of $55
million. I am sorry.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken several times
of another matter, before and it has already
been discussed in the House, and the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) has replied to
it. But I am not satisfied that something
more cannot be done for widows of workers
who were killed prior to 1953. I believe
something can be done, and the reason I
am going to say a few words about it now is
because we had a brief submitted to us—
and I believe to all the hon. members of the
Legislature— from the United Electric Radio
and Machine Workers of America, and they
have quite a lot to say about certain sections
of The Workmen's Compensation Act.
Another reason I speak about this is be-
cause we have several of these ladies in
Brantford, and in fact, we have one or two
in the building here, who every year speak to
me about it, and they feel very much con-
cerned about it, and no doubt they should
feel concerned about it.
As I said before, I have spoken on this
matter on two occasions, but I am going to
again appeal on behalf of these widows of
the workers who were killed prior to 1953
when the increase in widows' benefits was
increased to $75 a month. Now $50 a month,
prior to 1953, was a miserable amount. It
was not enough, and when we think of those
widows, who are today still getting $50 a
month, when the old age pension is even $55
a month, we must agree that something
should be done.
Now, here is what the union says about it.
The amendment provided that the new pen-
848
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sion level would apply only to cases on or
after April 2, 1953, whereby establishing two
distinct categories, two kinds of widows, and
maintaining for a large number of families a
standard of existence which can only be
described as a scandal.
The argument has been advanced, in sup-
port of this unsupportable arrangement, that
employers cannot be taxed to cover the
additional cost of raising all widows' and
dependents' pensions to a new and higher
level. And we ask a simple question? Why
not? Why, the amount would be very small,
spread over the whole of Ontario. That is
the reason we ask: "Why not?"
In our view, there is no sound reason why
there cannot be an additional tax on the
employers in the amount required for this
purpose. In the event, however, that the
government refuses to levy such a tax, then
in our view the government must provide
the necessary funds to The Workmen's Com-
pensation Board, out of the general revenue
of the province, to remove the gross injustice
created by the Act as amended in 1953.
In this budget that will soon be discussed
here, we are giving $1 million to the
teachers' superannuation fund, and in the
committee on education recently, a number
of hon. members favoured increase in pen-
sions to aged school teachers, and the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop)
promised to give every possible consideration
to the appeal.
Now, I appeal to the hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Daley), because I believe it
will be done eventually, to give every pos-
sible consideration to these widows of de-
ceased workmen who receive this miserable
pittance of $50 a month.
Just let us look at these women. I know
one of them especially in Brantford, whose
husband was a qualified engineer earning a
very fine salary. They were living in a nice
home and were able to live just a little above
the average. The husband, through no fault
of his own, was taken away from her, and
today she is struggling along and working
to augment that miserable $50 a month. I
feel so strongly about it that I feel some
consideration should be given to these
people.
When we think that the old age pen-
sioner gets $55 a month, how can we say to
these people: "All right, you just go ahead
and do the best you can on $50 a month, it
is all you are going to get, it is all we are
going to do for you"?
I say it is not all we can do for them. I
believe that pension can be increased to $75
a month. Each year it would get less, be-
cause these people would pass on as the days
went by, and so I appeal again to the House
to give this matter careful consideration. I
thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West): I move the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of the whole; Mr.
H. M. Allan in the chair.
WINDSOR JEWISH COMMUNAL
PROJECTS
House in committee on Bill No. 1, An Act
respecting Windsor Jewish communal pro-
jects.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 1 reported.
CITY OF WINDSOR
House in committee on Bill No. 22, An Act
respecting the city of Windsor.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 22 reported.
CITY OF TORONTO
House in committee on Bill No. 26, An Act
respecting the city of Toronto.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 26 reported.
CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION
ASSOCIATION
House in committee on Bill No. 27, An Act
respecting the Canadian National Exhibition
Association.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 27 reported.
MARCH 13, 1958
849
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF
SECRETARIES OF JOINT STOCK
ACTIVITIES
House in committee on Bill No. 28, An Act
to incorporate the Chartered Institute of Sec-
retaries of Joint Stock Activities and Other
Public Bodies in Ontario.
Sections 1 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 28 reported.
SYNOD OF TORONTO AND KINGSTON
OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
House in committee on Bill No. 33, An Act
respecting the Corporation of the Synod of
Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian
Church of Canada.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 33 reported.
TOWNSHIP OF SUNNIDALE
House in committee on Bill No. 36, An Act
respecting the township of Sunnidale.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 36 reported.
CITY OF OTTAWA
House in committee on Bill No. 39, An Act
respecting the city of Ottawa.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 39 reported
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
House in committee on Bill No. 43, An Act
respecting the city of Niagara Falls.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 43 reported.
CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE
House in committee on Bill No. 44, An Act
respecting the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 44 reported.
UNITED COMMUNITY FUND OF
GREATER TORONTO
House in committee on Bill No. 88, An Act
respecting United Community Fund of
Greater Toronto.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 88 reported.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Chairman, I move that the committee do
now rise and report certain bills without
amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex South): The
committee of the whole House begs to report
several bills without amendment and begs
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. Prime Minister yesterday announced the
business to follow.
I move the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 34
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, March 14, 1958
Morning Session
Speaker: The Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, March 14, 1958
Estimates, Department of Planning and Development, Mr. Nickle 855
Recess, 12.45 p.m 875
853
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, March 14, 1958
10.30 o'clock a.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before the orders of the day on a point
of privilege as a result of an editorial in a
periodical appearing in the city of Toronto
known as the Sentinel published by the
Orange Lodge. I refer to the March, 1958,
issue of this periodical, page 21, wherein the
headline says:
Kenora MP and MPP Unfriendly to
Public Schools and Orange Order
The article goes on to say that,
In the Ontario Legislature last year, Mr.
Albert Wren, Liberal Labour Member for
Kenora, championed the cause of separate
schools. He was reported in the Toronto
Daily Star, March 13, 1957, as follows:
"Separate school supporters found a
champion yesterday in a Protestant MPP,
who told the Legislature they are simply
not getting an even break in the province's
educational system. During a discussion of
education departments' estimates, Mr.
Albert Wren of Kenora, an Anglican said:
'We are seriously neglecting education to-
day at the separate school level'."
There is a complete lack of logic in the
remarks attributed to Mr. Wren. He did
not demand that Anglican schools and
Jewish schools also enjoy the same special
and peculiar privileges that are given to
Roman Catholic schools, so why should
separate schools be put on a footing of
equality with public schools?
Now, the Kenora MPP has a motion
before the Legislature, the purpose of
which is to implement the 1957 demand
placing Roman Catholic separate schools
on a parity with the province's public
school. Protestant and public school sup-
porters should remember that non-Roman
schools in Roman Catholic Spain are not
allowed to exist, much less be granted
state aid. In Canada, we grant Roman
Catholics perfect freedom to teach what
they will without lack or hindrance. If
they want to have their schools they are
free to do so.
But it is absurd and unjust to demand
that we pay for them, it is still greater
ingratitude and folly to criticize us be-
cause we do not endow them as richly as
we do our own public schools.
The next section deals with a discussion
which took place in the House of Commons
of which I have no knowledge, but the con-
cluding remarks in this editorial said:
Do Mr. Wren and Mr. Benidickson cor-
rectly represent the public schools support-
ers and Protestant electors of Kenora and
Rainy River, the population of which in
both ridings is predominately Protestant?
Mr. Speaker, I do not care to comment on
the remarks about the federal member, or
the issue which took place in the House of
Commons, but for the record I want to read
a copy of a letter I dispatched yesterday. It
is dated Toronto, March 13, 1958, and written
to the editor of the Sentinel, Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
In observation of the article appearing on page 21
of your issue of March 21, 1958, may I say that
I have carefully reread my remarks in the Ontario
Legislature of March 12, 1957. At no point did I deal
with Roman Catholic separate schools, I dealt with
the separate school problem which is, no doubt,
of greatest interest to the Roman Catholic religion.
But I did not exclude any other faiths. Neither did
I mention the Orange Lodge in any particular, al-
though your headline by innuendo makes that
suggestion.
You have not heard the debate on my resolution
of this year, and you are taking very unfair presump-
tion of what I might say. It has not yet been
debated.
On March 12, 1957, Prime Minister Frost (who is
an Orangeman) agreed with me in principle that hav-
ing regard to constitutional problems, he proposed
to relieve the separate school problem in some degree
in grants distribution and in assessment equalization.
At no juncture in my remarks did I propose who
should pay for separate schools. I rather brought to
the attention of the House the very real problem
of guaranteeing that all Ontario children of elemen-
tary school level, without interfering with constitution-
al, legal or civil rights, be accorded the same oppor-
tunity in education at the elementary level.
I am an Anglican and a member of the Masonic
Order, but as a member of the Legislature, I am
not bound to represent only Anglicans and /or Masons.
Once elected, I represent all the people regardless
854
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of their racial, political or religious affiliations. They
are all subjects of our beloved Queen, and deserve
equal treatment by our Ministers. This year, Prime
Minister Frost has advanced legislation which will
prove more beneficial to separate schools in Ontario.
I hope he will continue to do so, and if he does it
will be with my firm support.
I am surprised that your periodical would risk
dignity to gain what is obviously intended to be a
political slap. I assure you, sir, that I have no fear
of your intolerance, for I have circulated 5,000
photostatic copies of your editorial in my riding.
My people are all tolerant Canadians, serving God,
the Queen and their fellow citizens. I trust you
will provide my reply the same display you gave
your comments.
Yours truly,
Albert Wren.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, may I
say, that on Monday, I think perhaps the
House should deal with the estimates of The
Department of Health. Now I have agreed
that on Monday there should be no night
session. That has come to me partly from
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver)
who, I understand, wants to celebrate St.
Patrick's Day. As I think that is the case,
there will be no night session on that occasion.
Now I think I am right about that, I might
be wrong, but if not, we could have a late
session.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): We had our cele-
bration last night.
Hon. Mr. Frost: On Tuesday night, there
will be no night session either. That is be-
cause the Irishmen celebrate on March 17 and
the press celebrates on March 18, so there
will be no night session on March 18. I
cannot give the departmental estimate that
we will have on the Tuesday, but very prob-
ably it might be the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Another matter I should like to mention
to the House is that I had intended to be
able to table, at this moment, the report of
the committee, as a matter of fact I see the
commission that looked at the Metropolitan
Toronto problem. I have been most anxious
that the report of this committee should be
available for the members of the House to
consider, and I propose to table it today. I
had hoped to have it at the present moment,
but apparently 10.30 in the morning is too
early for my people to have arranged to
have it in my hands. But I shall arrange to
table it in the course of the morning. I may
say that I am tabling it as it is, as, I have
not had the opportunity of even looking it
over. As a matter of fact, I have what pur-
ports to be a copy here, but I have not had
the opportunity to even look at it, and I
have not the copy to be tabled, but I will
see that is done before we rise at noon today.
May I say this, and I am speaking from
memory, but I think the letter of transmittal
from Mr. Cummings will cover the point.
I think I referred to last session, or there
were references a year ago to the committee
that was set up. My recollection is that, last
session, we passed— or there was an addition
made to— the Toronto Metropolitan bill pro-
viding for the appointment of a commission,
and my recollection is that this committee
was given the powers of a commission under
that particular section.
Now I doubt that the commission, which
was then constituted, really ever used those
powers, they were powers that permitted the
commission to call witnesses under oath and
that sort of thing, but I do not think that
was ever used.
The report of the commission, because I
think it is so styled that way, will be avail-
able to the hon. members of the House, I
want the hon. members of the House to
understand this, that the report is not bind-
ing on this House, as a matter of fact it is
a report which the hon. members of this
House can use in their discretion. It is not
binding on the government, I can assure hon.
members of that. This is a report that has
been made by the chairman and by certain
people who happen to be hon. members of
this House, but whose qualifications by way
of experience to deal with this matter, is of
course very great, but in no way is it binding
on the hon. members of the House nor on the
committee nor on the government.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
None of these reports are binding, are they?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, of course not. I am
anxious that this matter go to the legal bills
committee at an early time next week, as early
as is practicable. Tuesday might be a good
time, if they are or they may be meeting on
Wednesday. Let the matter be considered
then, and the views of all the hon. members
of the House on it can be advanced.
Certain legislation arising out of this may
or may not be introduced, but if it is intro-
duced, then that legislation again can go,
and we can have the combined wisdom of
everybody in relation to what we might or
might not do in relation to Metropolitan
Toronto.
I can assure my hon. friends opposite that
I am conscious of this fact, that here we
have in this assembly a very great deal of
municipal experience, obtained from various
sections of this province. All that can be
applied to the problems of this municipality
MARCH 14, 1958
855
here, whose population encompasses about
one-fifth of the population of our province.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
would the Prime Minister permit a question?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes sir.
Mr. Thomas: He mentioned that some hon.
members of the Legislature have a great deal
of municipal experience. Does he not think
it would have been very, very good if some
of them had been on this committee to give
that experience and knowledge at that time?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that I did
take two— as a matter of fact, I took two
from Toronto and I took two from the out-
side. Now I can say this, that my judgment
can be wrong. Now if it is, then the com-
mittee of the House is free to correct me,
and I will be delighted to see what the
committee of the House proposes in this.
I have been very interested in the govern-
ment of Metropolitan Toronto. I had some-
thing to do with it 5 years ago, and I would
say that I hope to attend that committee
meeting myself, because I would like to hear
the proposals that are made by the hon.
member for Oshawa, and others, because
they are men with great knowledge in this
problem, and I would be very interested to
hear what is said.
I see that the municipal bills committee
meets on Monday. Now I do not know
whether the committee would consider any
feature of this report on Monday. I would
think myself, it would be a little bit soon.
Well, in any event, I think that perhaps spe-
cial meetings of the municipal bills committee
can be arranged to consider this matter, and
I can assure hon. members that I would like
the objective thinking of any hon. member
of the assembly, and particularly the hon.
members opposite, who have very good ideas
sometimes. I would like to hear what they
have to say about it.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, it is never very
clear, after the hon. Prime Minister finishes
speaking, just what he has been saying to
the House. But one thing is quite clear
this morning, and that is that if he had to
do today what he did a year ago, he would
not do today what he did a year ago. That
is very clear.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I still think I am right.
Mr. Oliver: Now he is at great pains
to say to the House that this whole matter
is going to come before the committee, and
he proposes to call in counsel after the event.
Now if my friend has made political blunders
in the past, this is the biggest one, perhaps,
that he has made. He has no rhyme, excuse
or reason to have this committee formed,
and not to have on it hon. members of the
Opposition parties in the House. It does not
help any, at this late date, for the hon.
Prime Minister to say that if we have any-
thing to say, we can say it now, after the
deliberations of the committee have been
completed.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, may I say I
agree entirely with the hon. leader of the
Opposition. I think it is most unfair that
a committee should sit throughout the sum-
mer, and here we are in the middle of a
busy session, expected to go along in the
matter of an hour, to give some ideas about
the report.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I regret that I cannot
please the Opposition, but in my years in
office, I have never been successful in doing
that. I just Jiave to do the best I can to try
and make it so—
Mr. MacDonald: We gave the hon. Prime
Minister a chance a year ago to please us
and he refused.
Orders of the day.
Hon Mr. Frost: I move the Speaker does
now leave the chair, and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development ) : Mr. Chairman, before
presenting my estimates for what I hope will
be the favourable consideration, and indeed
the comment of the hon. members of this
House, I would like to bring to your atten-
tion, if I may, that my hon. colleagues, who
until now have passed their estimates, have
all had with them as a financial advisor, a
gentleman, and when any questions are
raised— I do not assume there will be any,
but should there be— in connection with my
estimates, I am anxious that the House
should observe that my accountant and finan-
cial advisor will be none other than the
accountant of my department, Mrs. Anne
Cameron.
I have been asked by Mr. Challis, the
856
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
chairman of the Ontario development com-
mission, and also by Dr. Speakman, of the
Ontario research foundation, as well as my
directors, to indicate to this House that the
very able and efficient form, concerning the
way hon. members will find my estimates,
are due in a very great measure, to the
efficiency and the tolerance of this very fine
advisor of mine.
In other words, let me summarize and put
it this way. Women in the civil service are
fast coming to top positions.
My department was formed by Act of
Parliament in 1946. The task of promoting
planning, at the local municipal level, can-
not be carried on simply through routine
administration, correspondence and office
consultations. The policy of my department
is to send experienced staff into the field, to
assist all municipal and civic organizations
whose activities parallel those of the depart-
ment, in regard to planning and development.
At the last session of the Legislature, I
said we would send our people out to assist
the municipalities with their planning prob-
lems. We have had a tremendous number of
requests for such assistance, and the House
may be interested to see some of the many
letters received, through planning boards and
councils, which represent the appreciation of
those with whom we had visits.
I should point out to my hon. colleagues
of the House, Mr. Chairman, that my depart-
ment is more or less what one would call a
co-ordinating department, and we do our
best with the municipal people and the plan-
ning boards to suggest to them what we think
is a sound procedure, having regard to their
challenges and their undertakings.
We received a letter, for instance from the
town of Hearst. It is signed by the town
clerk-treasurer, in which he says:
I wish to commend you on the efficiency
of your staff, and also let you know how
we appreciate the co-operation and assist-
ance of your department in dealing with
our local problems.
It is my sincere opinion, the policy you
have adopted will help make, of Ontario,
a better province to work and live in. We
only hope you will continue to make avail-
able to us this competent experience.
And then here is a letter from the city of
Oshawa, signed by Mr. Wandless, in which
he says:
The representatives of your department
are to be complimented on the thorough
manner in which they explained, to the
satisfaction of all present, the different
methods of setting up a committee of
adjustment and the advantages, or other-
wise, of each method.
And from Waterloo, a letter signed by
Mr. Prest says:
There is no doubt that, having seen the
area, you will be in a better position to
advise us how section 20 of The Planning
Act might be applied towards the rede-
velopment of this area. I know Alderman
James Barr and the chairman of our plan-
ning board, Mr. Everett Snyder, were
pleased to be able to ask you questions
while actually viewing the various build-
ings.
From the city of Ottawa:
It is the concensus of opinion that the
workshop is a very profitable one in that
so many planning matters were handled
and discussed.
From the town of Picton:
I have been asked by the central Prince
Edward planning board to express their
very sincere appreciation of the attendance
of Messrs. Pierson and Adams at their
meeting held on Wednesday. The board
feels it has received the initial guidance
it has been seeking in regard to the dif-
ficult task assigned to it, and is very thank-
ful for the information you took so much
trouble to give.
From Hagersville:
At this time, the Hagersville council mem-
bers wish to thank your department for
assisting in the organization of the plan-
ning board and for sending Mr. Pierson,
who so ably organized our planning area
in his visit to the Hagersville area.
From Sandwich West:
I wish to express my appreciation for
receiving copies of the Ontario Planning,
and wish to continue receiving these as
they appear. I was particularly impressed
with the panel, with Mr. D. F. Taylor as
chairman. I feel that this type of con-
ference is definitely worth while and if
in the future, another such conference is
to be held, that all secretary-treasurers be
requested to attend.
MARCH 14, 1958
857
From the University of Toronto, we got
a letter to this effect:
Thank you most sincerely for the respon-
sibility you took, first in plan 4 and then
preparing and presenting material from the
sessions for the housing and living arrange-
ment section of the first Ontario conference
on aging. I enjoyed working with you and
profitted by your many suggestions.
And then from Mr. Breithaupt, from Kit-
chener ( he is an alderman ) , in which he says :
May I express my personal thanks and
appreciation, also in my various official
capacities, for the excellent work and re-
sults of the workshops so capably handled
by representatives of your department.
As you will note, from a quick review
of the questions discussed, the problems
were at a level to be of interest to most
of those present. Your team handled them-
selves well and showed a thorough fam-
iliarity with the problems and suggested
helpful solutions to our guidance.
This forming of public opinion and meet-
ing of rural and urban representatives, as
a common discussion group, should do
much to simplify our local problems and
our relationships with your department.
From the University of Toronto:
I just wanted to tell you how very much
I enjoyed your presentation before the
Toronto regional group of the Institute of
Public Administration of Canada and from
North York Central community council.
We wish to express our gratitude to you
for appearing in our forum discussion of
last April.
And from Sault Ste. Marie:
On behalf of the city of Sault Ste. Marie,
the Sault Ste. Marie and suburban plan-
ning board we wish to express our gratitude
to you and your department for its imme-
diate consideration to this city's planning
problems. With all sincerity, our apprecia-
tion is herewith extended to you for your
assistance.
And from the township of Markham:
On behalf of myself, and with the unani-
mous and enthusiastic concurrence of all
members of our planning board, we wish
to thank you and your department for the
wonderful co-operation you have extended
to us.
Now, these letters give hon. members
some idea of the satisfaction that the people
on the municipal and planning level-
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
May I ask the hon. Minister is that all the
letters he received during the last year?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No, but I will tell the hon.
leader of the Opposition what I will do. I
have a great bundle, and if he is interested,
the surprising thing about them all is they
are complimentary. They express complete
and absolute satisfaction, and at the end of
my remarks today, if he can spare the time,
I will take him down to my office.
I will make available a chair and a desk
and a nice table, and I know that he will
have a very happy couple of hours reading
the letters of appreciation that good govern-
ment is represented by these, the Minister
of Planning and Development.
Mr. Oliver: Just a selected few.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, I just took the worst
of them, my hon. friend.
Mr. Oliver: At random.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I just took the worst, my
hon. friend. Surely he would not expect me
to take the cream of the crop?
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): He did not
expect the hon. Minister to take the other
kind, either.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Now we also think and
we feel that, in rendering assistance to the
municipalities and the planning boards, it is
considered a part of wisdom in having pre-
pared, printed and distributed, a complete
brochure, indicating what we think are the
initial and the main step to be taken when
plans of subdivision are submitted by solicit-
ors, and/or by private individuals for plans to
be approved of, by my department.
Now, during 1957, staff members of the
community planning branch visited more than
80 municipalities in the province, in response
to requests for information and guidance
concerning official plans, redevelopment, zon-
ing, subdivision and other planning matters.
During the past two years, the community
planning branch has taken an active part in
the series of one-day and two-day area work-
shop type meetings throughout the province.
These conferences drew participants from 5
to 10 adjacent planning areas, and they have
given the councils and planning boards of
858
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
each area an opportunity to meet and discuss
planning matters of concern, both to their
individual municipalities and to the larger
areas.
The director is the first to hear all of the
questions of the local people, and to make
available any information that we have as
to the basic aims and practices of planning
in Ontario, and to encourage municipalities
to make the best possible use of the various
provisions of The Planning Act for planning
an adjoined area, as well as on an individual
municipal basis for the preparation of official
plans on zoning by-laws.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that during
1956 and 1957, the community planning
branch had these workshops in 13 different
localities, attended in all by over 600 persons,
representing more than 160 municipalities.
In 1957, workshops were held in 9 centres
of the province: Sudbury, Leamington, Corn-
wall, London, Windsor, Kitchener, Waterloo,
Ottawa, Kingston and Welland.
In addition to area workshops, the com-
munity planning branch took an active part
in a number of other conferences during the
year concerning planning matters.
Among these were the provincial planning
officials conference held at the University of
Toronto, and the town planning conference
held in September at the Queen's University
at Kingston. Conferences of provincial plan-
ning officials have been held annually for
several years.
The community planning branch acted as
hosts for the 1957 meeting, which was at-
tended by representatives from 8 of the prov-
inces including Alberta, British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward
Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
The department was invited to take part in
the one week summer course conference in
planning for municipal officials.
We in The Department of Planning and
Development are coming to the conclusion
that, having regard to the unprecedented
development of the province of Ontario, it
is most difficult for either an urban or a
rural area to plan within its own boundaries
having regard to what is best for future
development with a long range view.
And with that object in mind, the plan-
ning people have made a study (they are in
the course of the study at the moment), of
the St. Lawrence seaway area, the Toronto-
Hamilton-Oshawa area, and the Lakehead.
And out of all this planning and confer-
ences, there has come to me the thinking
that, in the best interests of my department,
for the years that lie ahead, as far as I am
concerned, and as long as I am Minister of
this department, and indeed for my successor,
that we should have what you might call
"in service" training.
Such training would bring along the junior
people of the different branches, to school
them as best we can, so that when there are
any vacancies, that the positions should be
given to those who have been with us, and
that we should not go outside the department
to pick new men to take the top positions,
but to encourage the people we have had on
our payroll and bring them along and then
bring the juniors in at the lower levels.
Now, in dealing with plans of subdivisions
and problems such as this, we always con-
sult with the other departments of govern-
ment because, after all, we just do not
approve of a plan of a subdivision per se, on
the meets and bounds as submitted by the
surveyor who may have drawn the specifica-
tions. We make enquiries with the Depart-
ments of Highways, Health, Municipal
Affairs, Education, Lands and Forests, The
Hydro Electric Power Commission and the
Water Resources Commission. And we feel,
by the time that we give our approval to
the plan, that by and large, generally speak-
ing, it is sound.
During 1957, a number of new planning
areas were defined. At the end of the year,
there were 372 municipalities included,
wholly or in part, within planning areas and
more than 80 per cent, of the population of
the province was in one or the other 277
planning areas then in existence.
Now, in dealing with the question of plan-
ning, I do not want my hon. colleagues in
the House to think that the department is
wholly and solely concerned simply with
plans of subdivision. We are a little bit
wider than that, it is fair to say that, during
the past several years, the branch has par-
ticipated in several projects involving com-
munity development, which are sufficiently
different from their normal operations to de-
mand some mention.
For hon. members' information, these pro-
jects are the new mining town sites developed,
under the guiding hand of the government
through my hon. colleagues on the cabinet,
through the committee on town sites. The
members of the town sites committee are the
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. War-
render), the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Mapledoram), the hon. Minis-
ter of Mines (Mr. Spooner), and myself.
MARCH 14. 1958
859
Several years ago, the government de-
cided that for good reasons they must par-
ticipate in a more active fashion, in the
establishment of mining communities, than
they had done previously. With that in
mind, as I say, the cabinet committee was
set up, there was also an administrative com-
mittee.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, it is not a
habit of mine to pick out of my department
this or that one who I may think does a
good job, and pay special attention or com-
pliments, to this or that individual. But
today I want to say that, in relation to the
development of the mining areas in the north
country, through the cabinet townsite com-
mittee and the administrative townsite com-
mittee, that no group of Ministers of the
Crown could have had, could have asked
for, indeed could have received more sin-
cere, loyal, and friendly co-operation than
we received from a very personal friend of
mine, who, since I have been in The Depart-
ment of Planning and Development, has
given me consistently good and sound advice,
I refer to Mr. Arthur Bunnel.
Now, very often, when new mining acti-
vity normally occurs in areas of the province
without municipal organization, the prov-
ince must step in and finance the project.
Another obvious reason for participation
is the land areas involved in the greater
number of cases is Crown land, and as such
the government has a direct responsibility to
see that the land is used correctly. Our
experience to date has been that industry
is most pleased with action of the govern-
ment on this score.
The committees have studied and taken
action during the past several years in those
situations which appeared to demand their
attention: Temagami, Copper Mine Point,
Cardiff, Elliot Lake and Manitouwadge.
Now, the development of the north country
means that we are going to be able to get the
resources out of that area and bring them
into the heart of the province, where the
industries are, to develop the raw product
into the finished article. This programme,
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is a sound pro-
gramme making employment available for
our people.
Even the best location for a town site can
be spoiled if adequate consideration is not
given to the design of the community, pro-
viding for the necessary recreation facilities
in the right places, locating schools where
they will conveniently and safely serve the
children of the community, providing sites
for churches and community social services,
and arranging the physical elements of the
community so they can be provided in an
efficient, economic and satisfactory manner
from the standpoint of the family, the muni-
cipal government, and the business of the
enterprises that are there.
Irrespective of how well conceived plans
are, they are just plans until they are imple-
mented in the forms of brick and mortar.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough the
fact that our deliberations, regarding town
sites in Ontario, go much further than the
building of one or two communities. The
experience gained, the lessons learned, will,
I hope, serve as sign posts and examples of
good community development to guide the
tremendous urban expansion, that in my
opinion, is bound to take place in northern
Ontario.
Now, a word, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
about the St. Lawrence area. After all, the
St. Lawrence valley is the part of the province
I know best. It is the area from whence I
come; it is the place I call home, and naturally
I suppose it is fair to say that this spot is a
little closer to my heartstrings than some
other places in the province of Ontario.
However, my department has been priv-
ileged to take some part, a very active part,
in the re-establishing of 6,500 persons who
had to be moved in the St. Lawrence valley
as a result of the St. Lawrence seaway and
the St. Lawrence power project.
The people who lived in that area for a
generation, a century I suppose it is better
to say, thought that the rapids, which were the
obstacles in the pathway of Frontenac— who
first pitched his tents on the banks of the St.
Lawrence river, where Kingston now stands-
would be an obstacle for all times.
Instead, the rapids were a God-given gift
to make available to my people in Eastern
Ontario, as my colleague, the hon. Provincial
Secretary (Mr. Dunbar), will agree, the devel-
opment of the St. Lawrence river has meant
a great deal to the people who live in eastern
Ontario.
Now, sound policies were clearly an-
nounced by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) when, of his own accord and initiative,
he met with the municipal councils, planning
boards, boards of trade and citizens generally
in July, 1954. At that time there were sharp
differences of opinion between the municipal
councils in the area that was to be flooded,
as to whether or not the people in that area
were going to get fair, decent, honest consid-
860
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
eration from this government, if they had to
be moved lock, stock and barrel into a new
housing centre.
Mr. Oliver: I can understand their concern.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I am very glad my hon.
friend said that— he can understand then-
concern. It was a concern, but as a result,
may I say, of very sound policies of this
government, that concern disappeared and
satisfaction has now taken its place.
My hon. leader indicated at that time that
he expected that the elected representatives
of the people, in both Queen's Park and their
council, would bring whatever problems arose
to the attention of the government, and that
the government would supply leadership to
the municipalities. They did so, after a
period of rehabilitation and rebuilding was
over. He stated that the government would
establish a Parks Commission, which has
been done.
As a result of the apprehension, as ex-
pressed by the hon. leader of the Opposition,
the Iroquois Post's comment on the Prime
Minister's visit to this area, in an editorial,
was headed: A Neighbourly Visit.
This, may I say to the hon. leader of the
Opposition, I am sure, will give him comfort,
if no comfort comes to him from my words.
This is what the newspaper said:
Though he brought no direct word of
what we could expect in the near future,
his visit was scheduled at a most opportune
time, quelling to a large extent the anxiety
which has surged over the countryside dur-
ing the weeks following the green light on
the power phase.
His firm promise of government assistance
in our problems will tide us over the com-
ing weeks until information, especially on
the compensation and rehabilitation, can
be worked out. His was not a trip of neces-
sity, but truly one made in neighbourly
spirit— dropping in to offer, help and bolster
spirits at a time when we were in need of
some direct assurance to allay our fears.
No finer way could have been chosen
to that than by a personal visit. We thank
Mr. Frost for his friendly visit and wish
to say that our doors are always open.
Now that I think will satisfy hon. members
that Old Man Ontario did the right thing,
as he usually does at the right time.
Now, finally after all the flooding took
place, after all the people were moved, then
the question came up about the compensation,
and a board of review was set up. On this
board were representatives from the municipal
councils, the local boards of trade, the plan-
ning boards and from the different depart-
ments of government.
There were some 40 applications sub-
mitted for consideration, and after the pros
and cons were considered, conferred on and
passed upon, I think it is fair to say that as
far as I know, generally speaking, the people
in that area were satisfied with what they
received by way of compensation.
They were content with the way they had
been moved to new areas, and when the
time came to celebrate the one-hundredth
anniversary of the town of Iroquois last sum-
mer, the hon. Prime Minister was there, and
received an affectionate and warm welcome,
which would indicate, I think, that the
people were satisfied with what had been
donq for them.
Another matter in reference to my depart-
ment of government, that I would like to
speak about, is the conservation branch.
Since The Conservation Authorities Act
was passed in 1946, 19 authorities have been
established in southern Ontario. This includes
4 former authorities in the Toronto region,
which now constitute the Metropolitan
Toronto and region conservation authority,
embracing Metropolitan Toronto and the
large area of urban municipalities in this
region.
With a population of approximately 1.5
million people, these 19 authorities cover an
area of 13,000 square miles, and have a
membership of 300 municipalities.
Authorities are composed of public-spirited
men, who are appointed by the people, and
are working together to resolve those prob-
lems concerning the wide use of our renew-
able natural resources, which must be
resolved if we are to maintain our present
high standards of living. These men-
farmers, foresters and businessmen— thor-
oughly familiar with their own localities, are
coming to grips with problems at the local
level on a watershed basis.
My conservation branch has made 41 sur-
veys for the authorities to date, covering the
fields of flood control, forestries, land use,
wildlife, and recreation. The reports of these
surveys contain the data and recommenda-
tions on which the authorities base their pro-
gramme and conservation works.
During the past year it was my pleasure
to present 3 conservation reports. The first
was Otter Creek, the second was Napanee,
and the third was on the occasion of Neebing
authority up at Fort William.
MARCH 14, 1958
861
On that occasion, I would like to say to
my friend, the hon. member for Brant (Mr.
Nixon), that I, like him, at that time was
made an honorary chieftain of the great
Indian tribe that lives in that area, and if
the hon. member for Brant and I have nothing
more in common, may I say that, as honorary
members of that corporation, we can look
our paleface friends, in the future, square
in the eye and look out for those who have
indicated by their actions, in making us their
honorary members, that we will look after
their interest.
So, the hon. member is not alone in rela-
tion to the Indian problem. I am not unmind-
ful that the federal Indian affairs branch looks
after the welfare of the Indians, and if I had
to be made an honorary chieftain— and I am
not saying this critically but in a kind and
friendy way— I was awfully glad it happened
after June 10, 1957.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask my hon. friend what
his name is?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Just to indicate that I
am friendly with the Indians, I will tell my
hon. friend what it is, it is High Sky, to plant
from the earth to the heavens and some day
I hope to get to the latter place.
Mr. MacDonald: He is well named. At
least the Indians have a sense of humour.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I should also point out
that up to date approximately $16 million
has been spent on flood control measures,
and we have many more projects planned,
some of which I hope will be processed
this year.
Flood control work, however, is not the
only field in which the conservation branch
has been actively engaged, although this field
is undoubtedly the most costly and most
spectacular.
The conservation branch has 30,000 acres
of land under reforestation. The conserva-
tion branch also takes interest in farm plan-
ning and irrigation has been materially
assisted by the authority in co-operation with
The Department of Agriculture.
If any of the hon. members of this House
had attended the Canadian National Exhibi-
tion last year, the London Exhibition, the
Sportsmen's Show, the Plowing Match,
they will have seen our exhibit, and we think
that is a very worthwhile form of advertising,
that the people of this province may through
an exhibit get some idea of what we are
trying to do.
As the result of recent developments by
the Russian scientists, of satellites 1 and 2,
my thinking has been changed for me in
relation to how to approach the safety of
our people in the event of a third world war
which, I say God forbid. But if that chal-
lenge comes, the rocket that might formerly
have been fired from the aeroplane, I do
not think will be used very much, and I think
fire and fire hazard is going to be one of
the main challenges together with evacuation.
On this point I would like to say this, that
the atomic bomb that burst in 1945 was the
starting point in the change of thinking for
people in connection with civil defence.
No wishful thinking, or head in the sand
point of view, will put nuclear energy with
all its possibilities for good and evil to one
side, and what we have to do, as I see it,
is to develop the fire departments of this
province into a co-ordinating organization, to
get here and there in the event of an
emergency in the least possible time.
The hon. members will remember the result
of the standardization of the hose thread
connection. We are now going to have
available in our department, thanks to the
kindness of my colleague the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts), a man of international
reputation, Fire Marshal Mr. W. J. Scott,
and I hope that with his vision that we
will be able to get up-to-date thinking as
to what we should do in relation to this
challenge and all the problems that go with
it.
It is true that we have developed a number
of volunteer police officers, and great numbers
of registered nurses have taken the civil
defence course, and a number of municipali-
ties have organized for civil defence. But
the question of evacuation is going to be
something that has to be faced up to in
relation to some sort of road sign that will
have the approval of The Department of
Health and Welfare in Ottawa, and which
also will have to have the blessing of The
Ontario Department of Highways.
In relation to trade and industry, I would
like to say this, that it is timely to review
the past, and look to the prospects of the
future, in terms of the industrialization of
our province.
Our provincial manufacturing industry
today employs 36 per cent, of our total labour
force of some 658,000 persons. The manu-
facturing industry is indeed today the hub
around which our total economy revolves.
In 12 short years, 1,200 new industries
have been established in this province, to
862
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
manufacture new products for our growing
population. During this same 12 years, there
was added to the investment of our manu-
facturing, industry some $4.7 billion, spent
to construct new buildings, to buy new
capital equipment, and to purchase the many
other requisites of modern industry.
In the same interval, some 160,000 addi-
tional industrial workers were employed in
our manufacturing industries. In these 12
short years over 3,500 Ontario manufacturing
industries undertook major expansions to their
facilities, thereby creating new productive
capacities.
Ontario has been the manufacturing works
capital of Canada, producing the value of
goods, in 1946, approximately 47 per cent,
of the Canadian total. This figure has
increased in the intervening years until today
our industry accounts for 50 per cent.
In terms of our balance of trade, and the
value of the Canadian dollar, our further
diversification is essential. In 1956, our
trade deficit was in excess of $800 million
and I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is
my hope that, as the result of the visit to
the United Kingdom of the trade commission
headed by hon. Mr. Churchill, associated
with Mr. James Duncan, there will be
developed in the minds of the industrialists
of Great Britain and Scotland— United King-
dom, call it what you will— the wisdom of
investing their capital, their pounds, in this
country, in subsidiary companies.
In the long term, we hope that the results
of that commission will mean new industries
for this province, which will mean more
work for our people.
I want to say here that Ontario House
in London did a magnificent job in arranging
for the Canadian delegation to visit the
United Kingdom industrialists during the time
that they were in the old land. I think that,
if I may so, Mr. Chairman, it was a first-class
commission.
The more we have of those sort of visits,
the better it will be for this province, because
T want to say this, speaking for myself only.
Some people will say that England is a lost
cause, that she has lost her status and all the
rest of it. But every time there has been a
challenge, John Bull came to the rescue, and
if I had a philosophy it would be this, that
I am quite prepared to nail my political
colours to the mast and make this statement,
There shall always be an England and
England shall be free, if England means as
much to you as England means to me.
We have aggressively followed a policy of
encouraging the establishment of new
industries across the province, and with pride
I suggest this has been with some measure
of success.
It seems to me that it is fair to say that
a long term development programme is sound,
as opposed to a here-today-gone-tomorrow
development. With that in view, we have
established the development association across
the length and breadth of this province, and
we hope that through the co-operation of
these development associations, which are
non-political, that we will be able to get
from them sound and sensible suggestions to
be of assistance to us in formulating our
trade in industry policy.
Our immigration comes under my depart-
ment. Last year, we had the challenge of the
Hungarian people. We took these people
without any medical tests, they were leaving
their country and all that home meant to
them, to come to the new world because they
wanted to get away from the tyranny that
was being imposed upon them.
And at that time, a number of outstanding
institutions worked with us, and for all time
I want to put on the record today, on behalf
of the government of Ontario, our thanks to
the following: The Anglican Church of
Canada, Business and Professional Women's
Club, the Canadian Council of Churches, the
Canadian Hungarian Federation, the Canadian
Red Cross Society, the Catholic Immigration
Bureau, the Catholic Women's League, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Jewish
Women, Goodwill Committee of Canada,
Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire,
International Institute of Metropolitan To-
ronto, Jewish Immigrant Aid Services, Ontario
Council of Women, The Ontario Department
of Welfare, Ontario Welfare Council, Presby-
terian Church of Canada, the Salvation Army,
the Travellers' Aid Society, The United
Church of Canada, The Department of Health
and The Department of Education.
And I want to single out, in particular, two
of my hon. colleagues who extended to me,
to these organizations and my departmental
advisors, top-level and enthusiastic co-opera-
tion. I refer to the hon. member for Bell-
woods (Mr. Yaremko) and the hon. member
for St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman).
Now, another matter I want to discuss is the
Ontario Research Foundation. This organiza-
tion performs, in my opinion, a splendid
service. Dr. Speakman, who is, so to speak,
the general manager of the research founda-
tion, is an outstanding scientist in his own
right, most enthusiastic and capable.
MARCH 14, 1958
863
Today, in the Speaker's Gallery, the presi-
dent of the board of governors of the Ontario
Research Foundation is here, Mr. Harold
Turner. He and his colleagues have given
to the Ontario Research Foundation, and in-
deed to this government, outstanding, enthu-
siastic, and sincere co-operation.
Now, during the last several months, there
has been a very great deal in the newspapers,
Mr. Chairman, about scientists. I think the
House might be interested today to know that
the Ontario Research Foundation started from
scratch some 30 years ago, and it was estab-
lished by an Act of this Legislature.
From the studies I have been able to make,
the original bill was introduced by hon. G.
Howard Ferguson, and seconded by our very
great and beloved friend, the hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon).
I say to the hon. member for Brant today
that he has had a long and distinguished
political career, and when his place is evalu-
ated by the historian of tomorrow, there will
be no finer or brighter page to his credit than
the step he took, in co-operation with the late
Mr. Ferguson, in making the Ontario Research
Foundation an entity that has made a great
contribution to the industry of this province.
On behalf of the manufacturing people of
this province, I thank the hon. member for
Brant for a job well done, for broad vision
then. We thank him very much for starting
this fine organization on its way.
The hon. member for Brant well knows
that, in the first place, the foundation was
asked to assist in the investigation and devel-
opment of the natural resources of this prov-
ince. In the second place, the foundation
would provide laboratory facilities, which
would enable the smaller industries of the
province to engage in scientific research.
Last year, it was my privilege to open in
the Rexdale area, a new building provided
for the government to house equipment de-
signed for the staff of the foundation, to pro-
duce, from our medium and low-grade ores,
high-grade concentrates which are acceptable
to the steel manufacturers.
It is some 10 years since the Ontario Re-
search Foundation inquired from the Ontario
division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Asso-
ciation as to the best and most effective
manner that help could be given to the grow-
ing numbers of small industries in the prov-
ince. The answer given was that owing to
the need for up-to-date library facilities, which
cannot be sustained by small industries, the
great need was for some central body to sup-
ply current scientific and technical informa-
tion.
In response to this request, the department
of research services was established with the
foundation, and the cost is borne by the gov-
ernment of the province of Ontario.
Perhaps its most important duty is that of
being a centre of basic research. May I
explain what I mean by basic research by re-
ferring to what has happened in the last few
years.
One of the challenges which confronts our
industries today is to reduce or eliminate so-
called waste products and convert them into
valuable materials. For 10 years, the province
has contributed approximately $150,000 per
year to support this foundation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a
statement about what I think is important:
That during the past year, a senior member
of the staff of this foundation, Mr. P. E.
Cavanagh, was invited to spend several weeks
in Russia.
The main object of the visit was to learn
as much as possible regarding the science,
technology and education in the scientific
world. I have listened myself to Mr. Cava-
nagh's account of what he saw and heard, and
I am sure than hon. members of this House
would have reached the same conclusion when
I say we have no justification for complacency
in any of these fields.
I was particularly interested in his account
of methods by which Russia is producing
large numbers of well-qualified engineers.
This brings me to a point about which I
should like to say a few words concerning
what the government is doing, within our
province, to support a post-graduate educa-
tion in the sciences and university research.
Here again we rely on the Ontario Research
Foundation to administer a scholarship fund
of $50,000 and a grant of $150,000 for
research by staff and students in the universi-
ties of the province.
During the past year, the foundation has
made an important survey regarding the
ultimate destination of our post-graduate
students who have completed their scholar-
ship studies and have obtained higher degrees.
From time to time, justifiable anxiety is
expressed regarding the loss of these able
young people to Canada. I am very happy
to be able, Mr. Chairman, today to report
to you that, out of 285 young scientists, 80
per cent, are now employed in government
services, in universities, or in Ontario
industries.
Hon. members will recall that chis House,
by recent legislation, has assumed control of
864
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
natural gas distribution in the province, and
in addition the standards and qualities of all
appliances sold within the province and which
use natural or manufactured gas. It was
necessary for the government to name a test-
ing agency to comply with this legislation,
and the foundation has now assumed this
responsibility.
With our financial support, a suitable
laboratory has been equipped for this purpose,
and is now in operation.
In addition to the testing of appliances, it
is our hope that this will gradually lead to
the preparation of a new set of standards and
specifications based on Canadian conditions
and requirements which will replace the
present American codes.
I am confident also that this work, based
on close association with the manufacturer
and the laboratory, will place the manufac-
turer in a better competitive position and to
the development of improved appliances.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to
say this: Having regard to the tests and the
trials and the challenge the government has
to face up to, that by and large, we can look
forward to a prosperous Ontario, without any
reservation whatsoever if we just adopt a
philosophy of confidence in the province and
confidence in ourselves.
On vote 1,301:
Mr. J. J Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Before we get into vote 1,301, may I make
a few general observations, and the first, Mr.
Chairman, is to congratulate the hon. Minister
on an excellent public relations job this morn-
ing. I do not think there is any doubt in
the world that he has adequately extolled the
personnel, and that is a good thing in itself,
of his department, and has shown that if we
need a public relations officer for this entire
province, we certainly will know exactly
where to go.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
direct the attention of the hon. Minister to
one or two real issues in his department.
For example, I did not hear the hon.
Minister say anything this morning about
how he is going to bring about the decentrali-
zation and direction of industry in this
province. I did not hear him say anything
about whether or not he is going to stop the
encroachment of industrialization in the
Niagara district, or permit it to continue; if
it does continue, where is he going to develop
other agricultural and fruit growing facilities.
I did not hear him say anything about
whether he thinks it advisable that his depart-
ment act in an advisory capacity only, or
whether they exercise authority and direction
in regard to planning.
I did not hear him say anything as to
whether or not he feels that the initiative
should come entirely from the municipal
authorities, or whether it should come from
his department.
Now, in all of these problems, I do not
think there is an absolute answer, but I do
think these are the problems of his depart-
ment in which the public is interested. The
problem of annexation, whether it should be
controlled by his department or by the
municipal authorities, is a burning problem,
and I think these are the problems that are
required to be debated at this time.
I would ask the hon. Minister to elaborate
on these specific issues and to give us at
least his personal opinion, so that we will
know what his thoughts are in respect to
these several problems.
Particularly, as I say, I am interested in
his thoughts and plans and intentions with
respect to the decentralization of industry in
this area, and the implementation of plans
to develop industry in other parts of Ontario,
and where and what parts will be reserved
for agricultural purposes only.
Now, these several problems I think are
the real challenging problems of his depart-
ment, and I would expect that he will have
some concrete proposals to demonstrate, and
to explain these things to this House at this
time, because it is in the leadership that he
can give, it is in his person and in his
personal plans, that we can either judge his
department to be doing a good job or a bad
job, and therefore Mr. Chairman, I suggest
that we hear the hon. Minister in respect
to these several questions.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I would say to the hon.
member that, from a point of view of
decentralization of industry, I think it is fair
to point out that, having regard to the very
excellent system of highways which we have
in this province today, the opening of the
St. Lawrence River which will now take
ocean-going freighters, and that when he
asks about the decentralization of industry,
he can see these things for himself if he
owns a car.
I will do my best to give the hon. member
a civil answer, and an enlightening one at
that.
MARCH 14, 1958
865
I think that as far down as Port Hope and
Cobourg, all that area is an indication of
the decentralization of industry, and when
the potential industrialist comes to us for
information, he is interested in railways, high-
ways, schools, vocational schools and universi-
ties. He may be interested in a clay belt
as opposed to limestone, and we do our
best to give the would-be new manufacturer
all the information he desires.
But I do not think it is fair for us to
say to him, "You will locate here," or "you
will locate there". But whatever he asks
for in information is given.
Perhaps a manufacturer will go to our
office in London, England, New York, or
Chicago. There may be 20 or 30 places
where all the information is exactly the same.
But we have never yet said: "We suggest
you go here" or "we suggest you go there."
I think that when that attitude is adopted,
it is the first step in the wrong direction.
Now perhaps I have not answered the hon.
member's question with as much detail as he
would wish, but I do say this, that the best
way to decentralize is to say that there are
localities the length and breadth of this
province that meet up to the demands of the
man who wants to invest his money and build
his factory. Now I cannot do any better than
that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry but I realize that one alternative is to
treat this department as a simple clearing
house of information. I realize too that when
an industrialist comes, the hon. Minister can-
not, in a dictatorial fashion say, "you shall
go there."
But the fact of the matter is, that the hon.
Minister knows what certain industrialists and
what certain persons interested in establishing
plants in Ontario will require, as he has said,
highway facilities, schools and the like.
All right, now what is he doing about
providing those facilities in certain parts of
Ontario where he wants to attract industry?
Now if we are forever going to follow
industry. . .
Hon. Mr. Frost: These facilities are being
provided across the board.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, but this question
may be irrelevant to an extent, but I think one
of the unfortunate things that are happening
in Ontario today is the tendency to concen-
trate all activities in the metropolitan Toronto
area. I personally am quite satisfied that it
is a real problem.
I have no criticism of this area. I think the
people, however, realize that it is desirable
that our population begin to decentralize
itself. Now if forever, we follow the attitude
of the hon. Minister, we are just going to
make Toronto a bigger and bigger place,
because here the facilities are.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let me ask my hon. friend
a question: Was not he the mayor of
Kitchener?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, Mr. Prime Minister,
but I was on that council.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right, he was on the
council of Kitchener. Supposing The Depart-
ment of Planning and Development said that
Kitchener was big enough, and there could
be no more industry go there, what would
the hon. member say about that?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, I was not . . .
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, that is just his
question. What would he do?
Mr. Wintermeyer: No. The hon. Prime
Minister is just abusing the real challenge
that we have. Nobody would want that. I
suppose if I was on that council I would say:
"Well, that is not the way to treat people."
But I would say too, that those people
would—
Hon. Mr. Frost: He would demand a pro-
vincial election if that happened, would he
not?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, there is
constant tendency to avoid the issue by simply
trying to reduce it to absurdity. Of course
we do not want that, but I would like to ask
the hon. Prime Minister what he is doing at
the present time to bring more industry into
that specific area where it is sorely needed.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am doing a very great
deal. I would say that of course, the decen-
tralization of industry is much to be desired,
but I say that, first of all, he must remember
that there are certain things which industry
demands. There are attractions to large
centres of population. There are attractions
for instance, to the fine city of Kitchener,
and the fine city of Windsor, and other places,
because there is a market at the door of those
industries.
The hon. member must face facts and he
must be reasonable about that. I would say
that among the things that have been done
to provide decentralization of industry in this
province are these: Fine highways; the snow-
866
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
plowing of those highways; equality of oppor-
tunity in education; a host of other things of
that sort.
I mean, one can enumerate but that would
be simply a repetition of the fine policies, if
I may put it that way, of this government,
and the aspirations and views of the people
of Ontario.
Another thing that this province has done
to decentralize industry is the immense power
grid in this province, that makes it possible
for industry to go with equal facility, almost,
to any part of the province. That perhaps is
too encompassing a statement but it is true.
When we talk about Metropolitan Toronto,
we start to talk about the Golden Horseshoe
that stretches from Oshawa around to the
Niagara River. It is the greatest industrialized
section of Canada. A very great portion of
Canada's industry is located there, and a
very large portion of Ontario's population is
located there.
That great area is going to attract other
industry, and that is something that cannot
be overcome.
Now the question I asked my hon. friend,
as to what he thought of saying, to say the
city of Kitchener, if he were the mayor, or
on the council there, and what his reaction
would be, if we said now: "Here is a very
beautiful city in Kitchener. You are big
enough. You ought to be satisfied and no
further industry can go there." What in the
world would be said?
What would one say, in the town of
Lindsay, which I can assure my friend is a
very attractive community of about 11,000
people? It is a well-balanced community
between agriculture and industry, and it is a
nice place to live and is a good place for
industry.
Now, what if we were to say: "Here is a
perfect community," and I can say to my
hon. friend that perhaps I can say that about
that community. "Here is a perfect com-
munity. Now, you just stay perfect for the
rest of your days." If a government said that,
that might be sufficient to have the town
change its allegiance.
I would say that one must face these things
practically, and that when one gets down to
it, it has got to be a question for the muni-
cipalities themselves. The city of Kitchener
has, of course, attractions, fine highways, snow
plowed roads which they did not formerly
have, and a whole lot of things.
Mr. Whicher: Good representatives.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not say anything about
that, but-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why
is the population dropping in Victoria county?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well it is not in the town
of Lindsay. I would say that the hon. member
is referring to the drop in agricultural popu-
lation, which has been indicated in the reports
to this government which of course, come
about by increased mechanization and so on.
Things of that sort.
We are living in a different world in a
different day which my hon. friend from York
South has not yet really come to appreciate.
I would say that these opportunities for
industry, the opportunities of decentralization
of industry, of course, primarily depend upon
where industry wants to go. I mean we must
recognize that. That is the first thing.
The second thing is, I think it depends after
all, upon the opportunities for industry from
a standpoint of these facilities that I men-
tioned, which are pretty equal in the province
of Ontario now.
Hon. members are seeing very wide devel-
opments in this province industrially. They
talk about decentralization of industry. Let
hon. members go to the city of Chatham, for
instance, where my good friend, the member
for Kent East (Mr. Spence) comes from. See
the fabulous development of that community.
Go to the town of Barrie which I used to
know very, very well. The town of Barrie
was a community for very many years of
about 5,000 population, and look at that town
today; it is really a city.
As a matter of fact, one can take across
the board in Ontario those things. Take the
city of Kingston, for instance. Take the fine
city of Kitchener, where there is, in that in-
dustrial area of Kitchener, Waterloo, Preston
and those places, I think a community which
is attractive and which is growing.
Mr. Reaume (Essex North): Take Windsor.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, let them take the fine
city of Windsor. Now there is a great com-
munity. I may say that I was a bit critical
of some of the automobile industries. I think,
as a matter of fact, I wrote a letter to one
of the hon. member's industrialists the other
day, that I may or may not make public
but . . .
An hon. member: Who to?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am not saying who it
was, but it was somebody down in the hon.
MARCH 14, 1958
867
member's town. May I say to my hon. friend
that I think Windsor is one of the great, nat-
ural possibilities in this province. It is going
to be on the seaway, and while Windsor is
undergoing some difficulties, it has a great
future. The difficulties are due to faulty plan-
ning on the part of industry itself. I think
that the automobile industry— I am not com-
plaining about what they are doing today but
I am complaining about what they did 2 or
3 years ago. I would say that I think the city
of Windsor is going to have a great future
and a great possibility. I think it is a natural
place for people to go to. Now that is my
judgment.
I would say to my hon. friend, that no
government department can ever regiment
those fine places, of course. They are going
to develop because the facilities are there to
cause their development. That is going to
be it.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I want to
say also that I agree with the words of the
hon. Prime Minister about the future of
Windsor. But the fact is this, that I do not
know of one instance of where the govern-
ment of the province has ever done one thing
to help the exit of industry from that area.
Now there are many people—
Hon. Mr. Frost: My friends say that it was
pretty much of an exaggeration, that state-
ment.
Mr. Reaume: I do not think it was at all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But I think it was.
Mr. Reaume: I noticed that the hon.
Prime Minister had something to say, whether
it was kind, unkind or otherwise, about the
automobile industry and the poor planning
that they had made in the years past.
I want to say this emphatically, that it was
not any planning on the part of the city of
Windsor. Some 50 years back, the Ford
Company moved there. It was not because
of any planning on the part of Windsor that
the city actually became the automotive
capital of the empire. It just so happened,
but in the removal, or with the exit of indus-
try, out of the area of Windsor, there was
always one set pattern. There is always one
set explanation that the president of this com-
pany or that makes, and this is what they all
say: "The reason we are moving out of Wind-
sor"—there may have been other reasons, one
of the reasons may have been me, I do not
know, but I do not think that is quite true—
"is that we are desirous of getting into the
heart of the consuming public." Of course,
the heart of the consuming public is here in
the Toronto area, and if we—
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): My hon.
friend looks every morning as though he just
came out of a steam bath, out of one of these
slenderellas.
Mr. Reaume: Why does not the hon.
member go back and have another bath? His
hair is out of place.
Now the point I am trying to make is this,
that the larger that the metropolitan area
grows in population, then the more industries
that will be attracted to it. I have never heard
of the federal government or the provincial
government— and I am not playing any sides
at this point— I have never heard of one in-
stance of The Department of Planning and
Development ever taking a hand in this busi-
ness of freight rates, in order that it might
help certain areas, one of which is the city
of Windsor.
There is certainly lots of precedent, that
back in the days when the Lord was upon
earth and he lost one of his little sheep, he
left the other 99 and he went out after the
one that was lost. Now the—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Reaume: I am only asking this. I
think if the Department of Planning and De-
velopment were really so interested in their
work, all these long speeches that the hon.
Minister of Planning and Development makes
about Sputnik No. 1, and Sputnik No. 2 is not
going to cure the problem that we have now.
In all his wisdom— and he apparently has
all of it— if he will sit down with all of his
advisors, and he apparently has a great num-
ber of them too, and get right down to the
need of the thing, he will help immensely,
because if this condition goes on and on, it
just means that industry from other parts of
the province are going to keep on coming to
the area here.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am very interested in
what the hon. member says.
Mr. Reaume: I know he is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to reciprocate by
acknowledging that he has a very great corner
on the mental capacity of this Legislature, he
is a very able fellow himself, and so on. I
think that the hon. member for North Essex
rates himself pretty highly, and I am prepared
to accept that.
868
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I tell him that what I would like to hear
is this, I would like to hear him and his hon.
seatmate there, rise and give us some real
practical illustrations, cases in point, as to
really what could be done.
I do not like to hear them complain in the
abstract so much, I would like to see them
get right down to business and let us have
the advantage of their great capacities, and
we will discuss them right here and now
and see what they can do.
Mr. Reaume: I thank the hon. Prime
Minister very much. What makes him so kind
so early in the morning? Well, one of the
things I want to speak about— and he seems
to be an expert on it— because he forever has
previews of his budget speech behind closed
doors, at which time he makes certain state-
ments that he does not make in the House.
Of course, I suppose he is making many
statements behind the iron curtain that he
would not make out here.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What statements does my
hon. friend refer to?
Mr. Reaume: If he will keep quiet for a
moment, he will hear it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let us hear it, let us hear
it.
Mr. Reaume: One of the things that the
hon. Prime Minister had to say was that he
found fault with the automobile industry. As
to that, I could have years ago, and still do,
probably up to a certain point, agree with
what he said behind the iron curtain.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well might I say-
Mr. MacDonald: Why does the hon. Prime
Minister not give somebody else a chance to
talk?
Mr. Reaume: Just a minute, if the hon.
Prime Minister wants to solve the problem,
if he really means what he says— and more
than half of the time I am certain that he
does not mean what he says at all— he was
talking at that time of the unemployed, and
he was laying the blame upon the automobile
industry. I have already said that up to a
point I agree. Why does he not have a meet-
ing of the heads of the automobile plants,
and the heads of the unions, and the heads of
the cities, which are involved. Probably in
that way he might be of a real service to the
people of the province, instead of going about
his way merrily taking a poke at whoever he
thinks is the opportune person to poke at, at
the time.
I am speaking about this thing in a very
serious vein, because at this moment there
are some 21,000 unemployed in the city from
which I come. I say to him that he has not
raised a finger, he or any hon. member of
government, have not raised a finger in order
to help those people.
His broad smile in his suave, smooth way
is no way indeed to solve their problem, and
until such time as he will take into office the
people that know as much about it as he does,
and indeed I think know more, he will not
in any way solve this great problem.
I am asking him to do only one thing, and
I think that he should now agree to do it,
I think he ought to agree to call in the heads
of the automobile industry and the heads of
the unions and the mayors involved in those
various places, and talk this problem over.
In that way, he might be able to bring out
some answer to this great problem that they
are facing.
The hon. Prime Minister says he cannot
tell industry where they have to go, and I
quite agree. But there is a difference in
wages being paid in the various sections of
the province, and we have been up against
that problem in Windsor. However, as to
whether our wages are high and others are
low, I want to make this broad statement, and
I think a statement of fact. I do not think
that the wages being paid in the city of
Windsor are at all high. I do not see
the wives of the workers, at Ford or Chrysler
and other plants, wearing mink coats; there
are very few, if any.
With the centre of population and industry
coming to the Toronto area because of freight
rates, because this is in the heart of the
consuming public, there is one other important
point why industries are moving out of
Windsor. They can come up here and get
labour much cheaper than they can up there,
and so I say that some day— and I hope that
some day will be soon— there will be a law
passed in this province that a workman who
has a certain specialized type of work will
be paid the same hourly basic rate in one
area of the province that he will be paid in
the other.
I do not think that the hon. Ministers can
sit idly by and watch one part of the province
going down while indeed other parts are
going up. I think that it is important that
some planning on the part of the government
ought to be done, and up until now I cannot
see nor find out one thing that this govern-
ment has ever done for the area from which
I come, except talk, and spend a little extra
MARCH 14, 1958
869
funds at the time of elections to make certain
that there are not any opposition members
elected. But of course that does not worry
anybody much.
I just want to conclude by asking the hon.
Prime Minister one very simple question. Will
he agree to call a meeting of the heads of
the automobile industry, along with the heads
of the union and the heads of the cities
involved, at a very early date?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I say to my hon. friend
that he made a very good speech, but it was
about as empty as shouting down into a
barrel and about as noisy.
Mr. Reaume: Why does he— not—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, the gist of
the hon member's complaint, a very loud
objection or a very loud assertion, was that
I have talked behind closed doors, and that
I talk behind an iron curtain, and he says I
cannot see what has been done, I cannot
find out, and so on.
Now I would say to my hon. friend that
what I said about the planning and the
automobile industry I still say, and I did
not say it behind closed doors at all. I said
3 years ago, in this House, I want to explain
that-
Mr. Reaume: I want to hear it, too.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Three years ago or more,
in this House, I explained the fact that the
automobile industry in Windsor and in other
places (Mr. Thomas, my hon. friend from
Oshawa, will bear me out in this); I have
one witness from over there.
What I said was this, that it seemed to me
to be poor planning, and this was 3 years ago,
to be poor planning to bring hundreds and
thousands of people into the city of Windsor
and into the city of Oshawa and the other
places, knowing for certain that this war and
this competition between these big companies
could not last, and that they were attracting
people there and they were going to leave
them stranded. My hon. friend's seatmate
there, my hon. friend from Waterloo North,
agrees with that, and so does my hon. friend
from Oshawa.
I am addressing myself to my hon. friend
from Essex North.
Mr. Reaume: I want to hear him, too.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I cannot see and I cannot
hear and I cannot find out, because he was
not in his seat. He misses session after
session of this House for—
Mr. Reaume: How such a big man can get
so small so quickly I made the assertion
and I still make it that the hon. Prime Minister
has not taken any interest in the affairs of
Windsor or the area around it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to complete what
I say. I want to answer my hon. friend
because he asked me a question. His
question was this, why have I not heard,
why can I not see, other things. I will tell
him why again.
At the time I was making those statements,
my hon. friend was not in his seat in this
House, he missed a whole session.
Interjections.
Mr. Reaume: Oh now, just a minute—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would tell my hon. friend
this, to introduce a little bit more humour
into it, not long ago I went down to open a
building and they had the commissioners
there, you know that they usually have them
open a building, and I drove up in my
Chevrolet that I have in the department.
The commissioner said: "Hey there, get
out of there!" I said: "What's wrong?" "Oh,"
he said, "there is a big shot coming in here."
Mr. MacDonald: I think the hon. Prime
Minister, in his capacity as part time Minister
of Planning and Development, has posed the
dilemma very clearly. The hon. Minister, in
his presentation of his estimates this morning,
gave us "thank you" letters, theme songs and
everything else. But he did not get down to
the basic issues. Now the hon. Prime Minister
has raised them.
Is his government willing to plan, or is it
just willing to talk about planning?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Certainly we are.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now. The
hon. Prime Minister complains about the
automobile industry. He thinks it was poor
planning. What is the use of having a Depart-
ment of Planning and Development when the
hon. Prime Minister knows that it is poor
planning, and the department does nothing
about it? It is frustrating the desirable objec-
tive of adequate and effective planning in
this country if they simply ignore poor
planning.
It is idle for the hon. Minister to rise and
say "we provide information," because he
does not do anything about it beyond that.
The hon. Prime Minister might as well close
this department up. As a matter of fact, after
listening to the hon. Minister this morning,
870
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that might be a good idea, for a good
many parts of his department to close up.
Just let me take another aspect of this
question. On this whole basic proposition of
planning, the development of official plans in
communities, we have had an example in the
past year in Trafalgar township. The experi-
ence there raises sharply whether we had
better not take a look at our whole Act and
decide whether it is worse than nothing.
At the present time our Act misleads the
people into believing that when an official
plan has been adopted in a certain area, they
have certain protection; that, for example, it
is going to be a residential area. Then some
big corporations come along and they can
bulldoze that plan right into the ground, and
the government and its agencies go along
with it.
Let me take a specific case, that of the
refineries out in Trafalgar township. Out in
that township, they worked for the establish-
ment of an official plan, starting in 1953. That
meant that they spent money locally to
develop their plan. Provincially, we spent
money through the department to establish
their official plan. It was on a temporary basis
until 1956, and finally in 1956 the plan was
finally accepted by this department.
One year later, in 1957, a group of refin-
eries wanted to establish themselves in an
area designated as residential, which in effect,
drives a coach-and-six through the plan and
reduces it to nought. And because of the
fact that these people are powerful enough,
and they are able to influence the individuals
in the community, the plan which has been
adopted by the government is wrecked.
Now are we going to have teeth in these
plans or are we not? Is the government going
to mislead people into believing this is the
pattern that the government has okayed, along
with local people, and then the whole plan
is scuttled a year or so afterwards?
This is the essential problem. This is the
reason why the Toronto Globe and Mail, a
week or so ago, editorially — and I do not
often agree with the Globe and Mail editorials
—but here was one case where I do:
It said this is a Department of Planning
and Development, but it is doing little
planning and it is doing little development.
Now what is the government's answer to
this? Is it just going to talk about planning,
or is it going to put teeth in its planning Acts
so that they are of some substance, and will
give the people some assurance of the pattern
of development in the years to come?
Or, related back to the problem that we
have been discussing, at the industrial level,
is the hon. Prime Minister going to let what
is a desirable re-arrangement and planning
of the economic life of this province be frus-
trated by those who want to come in and act
in accordance with their own wishes, in
violation of what is the over-all welfare and
the over-all needs of the province? What is
the answer of the hon. Prime Minister to that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will say to the hon.
member that I know the problem of Trafalgar
township very well. As a matter of fact, with
the hon. Minister of Planning and Develop-
ment, I went into that with the greatest of
care. I went down to see it, I had discussions
with persons interested, mainly those who
were opposed.
Now here is the problem, and I want to
give it clearly and concisely to the hon.
member. I would be very interested if he
would give me an answer and a solution to
it, because I can say that I have hunted with
great care for it.
The situation is this: Here is a community
which adopts an official plan. That could
happen in any one of the thousand muni-
cipalities in Ontario. They adopt an official
plan. But we must remember this, that
Solomon in all his wisdom, if he were sitting
on a municipal council, or a planning board,
could not determine the course of things that
are to happen in the country, and therefore
we must have powers of amendment. If we
were to adopt an official plan, and make that
plan absolutely unchangeable, then, of course,
we would stifle the development of the
province. I think this is the principle, that
official plans and planning are altogether
desirable and necessary in the province, but
we must have reasonable ways to alter those
plans, because no one can forecast the future
of this province.
I will give one example, in this province,
starting back about a dozen years ago. There
were very many plans which were adopted
or began to be adopted at that time. At the
time those were adopted, nobody ever
considered, for instance, the possibility of
natural gas coming into the province. Now
that is bound to have its effects, and if the
people of say 10 years ago who adopted the
plans knew that there was going to be a
gas line run through so-and-so, they would
have made their planning for that. But they
did not, and they obviously could not know
it, and therefore we have to have powers
of amendment.
Now it is on that point that I think the
question hangs and there is the problem to
MARCH 14, 1958
871
be dealt with. I went into the Trafalgar
problem and I found this — I am speaking
offhand, I have the records in my office and
I could get them, but my recollection is
this — that the planning board years ago
adopted a certain plan, and the municipality
did what was necessary to confirm that plan.
Now I am not sure whether the municipal
board at that time had confirmed the plan,
but let us assume they did. In any event,
it went through that process.
Now what happened was this. Along
comes a big oil refinery, and it wants a
location some place in the general horseshoe
area, if I can put it that way, between
Toronto and Hamilton. Here is the place
that would suit, but the plan does not fit the
situation, so what happens is this, the whole
matter is then again considered.
My recollection is this, that the planning
board there looked it all over and made a
recommendation for a change. The municipal
council, after due consideration, and having
heard the appeals of people— because I am
sympathetic of the argument against changes
in these things— confirmed the change, and
then the matter came to the municipal board,
and then public hearings were held and the
board made its findings.
Now, may I ask the hon. member this, and
I think this is the question and this is the
thing I have pondered over, and I have
discussed it with the hon. Minister of Plan-
ning and Development, I have discussed it
with the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs,
I have discussed it with their officials. Is
there another and additional safeguard that
could be taken in that?
Now here is a community; we assume that
the planning board is doing the best it can
for the community in both adopting a plan
and recommending a change. We must
assume that the people's representatives who
govern that community are doing the same
thing.
At a municipal council, everything is heard
and argued out, and the council in its wisdom
by a majority of — I am not sure what the
vote was— recommends the change, and then
it goes to the municipal board, and the
municipal board makes a change.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am looking for
better methods of doing things. Is there a
better method of doing that? I pondered
these many things. Take for instance, if you
went to the highest court in this province,
to the court of appeal, to take an example—
and perhaps it is a ridiculous example— but
you go to the court of appeal and submit the
question to them. They are bound to say,
"Well, now, we are not the people who live
there, why don't you let the people who live
there do it?" You go to the Department of
Planning and Development, or you come
to the Executive Council, and you ask the
Executive Council what to do. And is not
anybody pretty well going to say, "Well, here,
let the people of that community determine
that thing in the ordinary processes, and let
them determine what they want to do."
I do not want to take these plans, nor do
I want to be a party to taking plans in any
part of the province, and just simply throw
them overboard at the instance of anybody
who comes along. On the other hand, I do
not want to cast this province into a cast-
iron pattern that nobody can change. If
we do that, then we are making it impossible
for this province to develop in the way that
it should. |
This is the present method, that if there
is a change in the plan, then it comes up
from the planning board to the council, to
the municipal board and there the decision
is made. Now there is an ultimate appeal
under the Act to the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council. But I am
bound to say this, when the appeal comes to
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council, what do we do? Do we say this
is a fair process all along?
It is our job to see the thing has been
fairly done. But surely it is not the duty of
some autocracy— if you want to say city and
Queen's Park— that consists of people who
come from all over the province, as any
government would, to impose its will, then,
on the people of that community.
If my hon. friends opposite can give me
any better way, or any additional way to
meet that situation, I certainly would be glad
to hear it, because I have certainly spent
a lot of time on it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
take a stab at commenting on this request
the hon. Prime Minister has put. Obviously
there is unquestioned merit in the suggestion
that we cannot fasten on any area, or any
part of this province, an iron-clad plan that
is going to be there forever and a day, which
would be so inflexible as to frustrate natural
development, some phases of which cannot
be anticipated when the plan was established.
But the hon. Prime Minister is evading the
real point of my question.
872
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: I wish the hon. member
would not use that word, I am so tired of
listening to it I would like to take it out of
the dictionary.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
has missed the real point.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I may have missed it, but
I did not evade it.
Mr. MacDonald: This official plan was first
discussed in the year 1953, and it was okayed
in a temporary fashion by the authorities of
The Department of Planning and Develop-
ment till 1956. In 1956, it officially was
adopted, so that it became the accepted
official plan.
Now surely, if we are going to have official
plans and they are going to be of any value
at all, a plan is going to be of some value
for something more than 12 months. Other-
wise, why go through the expense at the
local level, and the provincial level, of
drafting a plan that 12 months later is going
to be scrapped?
Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton): May I ask the hon.
member a question?
Mr. MacDonald: After I am finished.
Mr. Hall: I live in the township of Trafal-
gar, and I would like to tell the truth about
this matter.
Mr. MacDonald: Now, if the hon. member
thinks that I am giving a view that is not
shared by people locally, just let me— Here
for example is a comment that was made
over radio station CHWO by the news editor
Cy Young, in which he said— this is on April
2, 1957:
In its editorial last Saturday, which calls
into question the whole principle of plan-
ning in Ontario at this time, the Globe and
Mail made the very correct observation
that official plans had been mapped in
Ontario originally to give security to the
homeowner, and to determine in a general
way the division of any given area into
residential, commercial and industrial cate-
gories.
The Globe and Mail went on to point
out, however, that far from maintaining
the security of the homeowner, the official
plans in many municipalities have so been
booted around between pillar and post that
it might be better if the entire Ontario
Planning Act were scrapped, and that
everybody would know from the beginning
that no investment he made in a house
was safe.
This is pretty much the way it stands in
the area of Toronto township, Trafalgar
township and Nelson township.
Then this further comment later in the
broadcast:
It just ought not be possible for wealthy
individuals or corporations to buy into
residential lands because it is relatively
cheap, and destroy the interest of home-
owners in the same and neighbouring
municipalities, but it is possible because
municipalities are planned individually and
it is still not too late for the kind of
co-ordination of plans
which he goes on to elaborate, and which
I think is another problem which has to be
looked at.
But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that
the hon. Prime Minister is missing, in his
explanation the key point in as far as Trafal-
gar provides an example. That is, if we
map out an official plan of any area, the plan
is not worth the paper it is written on if we
cannot count on this being the sort of pattern
for the future, say 5 to 10 years, if one year
later, the local people who have accepted
this plan in good faith have to raise money
privately to be able to buck big oil refineries
who come in, and use the machinery of local
government and the municipal board and
The Department of Planning Development,
in effect, to destroy the plan that the local
people had accepted.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Might I ask my hon. friend
a question? Does he think that it would
be a good thing? Now supposing we adopted
here an amendment to The Planning Act
to say that, once a plan was adopted, that it
could not be changed for say, 10 years. Now
I would say to my hon. friend that, if he
did that, there would be few municipalities
that would do it.
Now I think the municipalities feel this,
that they are planning their communities,
that if it is necessary to alter them because
of the growth of business or the change of
business, that they can do it, but that they
can still substantially protect their community.
I think they will do it.
Now I would say this, I think, that if we
were to say that they could not change it
for— and I may say I have given consideration
to that— for 2 years or 3 years or 5 years
or some other period of time, what we would
MARCH 14, 1958
873
do is this. They would say: "Well here, we
had better keep our hands free, we do not
want to do that. If we are wrong in our
planning, and they could be wrong, then
we would be frozen in that position by
statute."
Now, I think my hon. friend, again I say,
I think we must have the power to change
this. Now is there anything that is different?
Mr. MacDonald: Change it yes, but not
scuttle it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well I would not say
scuttle. I would not say that is a proper
expression. As a matter of fact, I do not
think that is a proper expression.
Mr. MacDonald: There are an awful lot of
people in Trafalgar—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now remember this, that
the township of Trafalgar and the municipali-
ties did this themselves.
Mr. MacDonald: In some instances, the
local authorities had a tie vote on the issue.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well that was a debatable
question, I will admit that, but nevertheless
it was carried. Now what would the hon.
member do? What is the solution? Will he
give me a workable solution? If he will do
that, I will give him full credit for it.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
give some of the facts on this argument which
I know this hon. member for York South
knows nothing about, only what he gathers,
and what he gathers is quite often wrong.
I will admit that the planning boards and
the joint planning boards are not perfect
people like he is. They are people who can
make a mistake, and when that official plan
was drawn up, that piece of land west of the
12-mile creek was sold for farm and resi-
dential properties. At that time, the St.
Lawrence seaway was not even started, and
so they knew nothing of the development of
it. Bronte has the best protected harbour on
Lake Ontario.
These oil refineries were looking for a
place, and they soon picked out that harbour.
They came on to try and buy, and did buy,
that property lying west of the Twelve Mile
Creek.
Now, here is the mistake that the first plan-
ning board made which never comes to light.
The ravine is very deep on the Twelve Mile
Creek that separates that portion of the town-
ship from the main portion of the township,
and it is impossible to put water and sewage
disposal through, and the municipality could
not see the wisdom of building sewage
disposal and a water pumping station and
everything for that strip of land.
The oil refineries came in, and they fought
to put in their own sewage disposal, their own
pumping, and they do not ask the municipality
to supply one public necessity for them. They
handled the whole thing, and it is benefiting
the municipality a good many millions of
dollars for the oil refineries to be settled there.
Now there is the thing that turned the plan-
ning from what it was to the oil refineries-
it was the cost of supplying services to that
part which was forgotten in the first official
plan.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon. mem-
ber a question? Am I not correct that this
official plan was finally adopted in the year
1956?
Mr. Hall: It could be. I could not say. But
one could make a mistake in 1956 and one
can make a mistake right now, like the hon.
member is making, too.
Mr. MacDonald: Look, Mr. Chairman, this
is all very nice and high-schoolish, if we want
to have this kind of thing. But—
Mr. Hall: The facts are true.
Mr. MacDonald: —the significant point is
that this plan was officially adopted in 1956,
with the okay of this department. Now I
submit to you that it is passing strange, that
if these oil companies were going to come in
here, that nobody knew about it at that time.
Mr. Hall: They did not know about it at
that time.
Mr. MacDonald: Well there are some
people out in the hon. member's area who
think otherwise-
Mr. Hall: They are not very good citizens,
though.
Mr. MacDonald: —and the net effect of it
was that a plan that was worked through to
1953 to 1956, on a temporary basis, which
was finally accepted in 1956 and okayed by
this department, was in effect— for the most
part or in a significant degree— destroyed by
this decision of the oil companies, one year
later.
Now I say to the hon. Minister, and I am
not going to argue the point any further, and
874
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I say it to the hon. Prime Minister, that while
I agree that we cannot have inflexible sort of
plans that cannot be altered forever, if our
plans are such that they are going to be
altered, in this fundamental way, within one
year, by powerful corporations that come in
and use the machinery to meet their own
purposes, then we might just as well quit
making plans, because we are misleading
people.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What is the solution? Give
us the solution.
Mr. MacDonald: The solution as suggested
by Mr. Young is to not let big corporations
come in and push everybody around.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think that is completely
unfair.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): May I say a word on that point?
Now once again the hon. member from York
South (Mr. MacDonald) leaves the impression
that these big corporations have come in, and
in some underhanded way have deliberately
upset the planning in that area. Now such
is not the case.
The case is as the hon. member for Halton
has said. It was thoroughly reviewed by these
boards. They decided to make a change, even
though there might have been only one year's
lapse of time, but the fact is that public hear-
ings were held before the Ontario municipal
board, and when I hear him say, even by
innuendo, that somebody got to the municipal
board, that these corporations had something
to do with changing their minds as to the
zoning there, I do not like it, because that
is what the inference is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Or to the municipal council
or planning board. These are honest people.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Certainly. These men
who sat on the municipal board-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. members of this
government are past masters at it. Let them
go and read their innuendoes. You are past
masters at it.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, we can only
come to one conclusion from what the hon.
member has said, and that is that somebody
got to the councils and to the municipal
board, and I say that is a false statement
to make, and it is incorrect to leave that
innuendo with this House, and I want to have
that corrected.
These men who sat on the municipal
board, sat I think, for about three days-
Mr. MacDonald: Seven days.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, seven days.
That is even better. In other words, they had
a full hearing. Everyone had his fair day in
court.
Mr. MacDonald: And brought down a
written report at 11 o'clock the next morn-
ing before they had even time to read the
evidence that had been submitted.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Now that just goes
to show us, once again, as I say, that the hon.
member has made up his mind that in some
way, he is going to smear, not only the council
but also the municipal board.
I say to him that those people, all sides,
had a fair chance to be heard, and even
though it might have appeared that the
municipal board came to a conclusion very,
very quickly, nevertheless, I have had a
chance to read their reasons for judgment,
and those reasons have not been seriously
challenged by any thinking person in that
area.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to reply to the hon. Minister
when he is talking about corporations. I
remember last year, when the hon. Minister
introduced a new assessment for the gas pipe
lines, he admitted himself, in the committee,
that he and the department officials had
discussed with the gas companies for over
two years what that would be, and yet the
local municipalities were never consulted at
all.
Now then, he should be the last one to talk
about corporations.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: When the hon.
member says that, does he suggest that my
predecessor and I were swayed by these big
corporations? I say to him, such is not the
case, for the fact is that when we saw a
change had to be made, we made it on two
different occasions in order to fit in with the
wishes of the local people.
Mr. Thomas: But the hon. Minister admitted
that he had discussed that with the corpora-
tions, or the gas companies, for over two
years and the local municipalities had never
been consulted.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: So what?
Mr. MacDonald: What does he mean, so
what?
MARCH 14, 1958
875
Mr. Thomas: So what? I say of course they
should.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Does that mean that
my predecessor and I were swayed by these
corporations? Certainly not.
Mr. Thomas: So what, and then he is talk-
ing about corporations, so what.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is another smear.
Mr. Thomas: It is true, is it not? Of course
it is.
Mr. Chairman: Being 12:45 of the clock,
I do now . . .
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would just like to say
one thing before the termination of this. I
am perfectly prepared to do this. I have
given, I can assure the House, a long time
on the question of the procedure to be
followed at the time of an alteration of a
plan, if a plan is to be altered.
Now I am perfectly prepared to do this.
I have talked to people, I have corresponded
with them, I have asked them their view-
points in connection with it. I am prepared
to take the sections that provide for the
change or alteration of a plan, and submit
it at once to the municipal committee of this
House, and see if the hon. members of this
House— including the hon. member for York
South— can come up with a better system or
systems that will work in connection with it.
I am perfectly prepared to do that. I
would like to find it, if there is a better way.
If we find one, I will carry it through, I can
assure hon. members.
It being 12:45 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 35
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
©etmtes
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Friday, March 14, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, March 14, 1958
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne,
Mr. Monaghan, Mr. Manley, Mr. Parry 879
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Edwards, agreed to 894
Windsor Jewish communal projects, bill respecting, third reading 894
City of Windsor, bill respecting, third reading 894
City of Toronto, bill respecting, third reading 894
Canadian National Exhibition Association, bill respecting, third reading 894
Chartered Institute of Secretaries of Joint Stock Companies and other Public Bodies in
Ontario, bill to incorporate, third reading 894
Corporation of the synod of Toronto and Kingston of the Presbyterian Church in Canada,
bill respecting, third reading 894
Township of Sunnidale, bill respecting, third reading 895
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, third reading 895
City of Niagara Falls, bill respecting, third reading 895
City of Sault Ste. Marie, bill respecting, third reading 895
United Community Fund of Greater Toronto, bill respecting, third reading 895
Resolution re Tile Drainage Act, concurred in 895
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, bill to amend, reported 895
Public Schools Act, bill to amend, reported ..„.. 895
Separate Schools Act, bill to amend, reported 895
Ontario-St. Lawrence Development Commission Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 895
Town Sites Act, bill to repeal, reported 895
Public Lands Act, bill to amend, reported 895
Investigation of Titles Act, bill to amend, reported 895
Child Welfare Act, 1954, bill to amend, held 895
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, reported 895
Labour Relations Act, bill to amend, reported 896
Mining Act, bill to amend, reported 896
Surveys Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 896
Telephone Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 896
Stallions Act, bill to amend, reported 896
Jails Act, bill to amend, reported 896
Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 896
Blind Persons' Allowances Act, 1951, bill to amend, reported 896
Old Age Assistance Act, 1951, bill to amend, reported 896
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Allan, agreed to 897
879
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, March 14, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
An hon. member: Is the vote carried?
Mr. Chairman: No.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I had made a previous arrangement
to have some of the hon. members speak on
the Throne debate this afternoon, and I move
that the committee rise and report progress.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
We never know from hour to hour what the
hon. Prime Minister is going to do—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to my
hon. friend that I distinctly told him that I
would have the resumption of debate on the
speech from the Throne in the afternoon,
and estimates in the morning, and I always
carry that out.
An hon. member: Is the hon. Prime Minister
tired ?
Another hon. member: Does he have to go
home?
Hon. Mr. Frost: My hon. friend was com-
plaining before, so that is what we are going
to do.
Mr. Oliver: Well, calmly, can I get from my
hon. friend whether he intends to go on the
Throne debate all afternoon?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: There will be no more estimates
today?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report progress and begs leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, if you will
revert to the orders of the day, I might say
that I have made tentative arrangements to
unveil the portrait of hon. Mr. Hepburn here
at 2 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon. Mrs.
Hepburn has very kindly consented to be
present with some of her relatives. Now, if
there is any change, I will let the hon. mem-
bers of the House know.
Sir, we will proceed with Throne debate.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. G. J. Monaghan (Sudbury): It is my
pleasure and honour to be able to add my
voice to those of hon. members who have
preceded me in this debate, and who have
commended you for the immeasurable con-
tribution you have brought to the direction
of the business of this assembly.
I would also like to congratulate the hon.
member for Middlesex South (Mr. Allen)
for his appointment as Deputy Speaker, and
wish him all the success he deserves in the
exercise of his duties.
I am particularly happy to avail myself of
this opportunity to congratulate the hon.
member for Cochrane South (Mr. Spooner)
on his elevation to the cabinet as hon. Minis-
ter of Mines. His vast experience in the field
of municipal affairs, and his knowledge of
mining and its relationship to the develop-
ment of the north, will be of great value to
this province.
The appointment of the new hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Dymond) was
well received throughout the province, and
I am indeed very happy to be able to con-
gratulate him on the floor of this House.
The new hon. Minister's department has
adopted a most realistic approach to the
question of reform, and from what I have
seen and been told, its policies are going a
long way in an effort to rehabilitate the men
in its care.
To the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
( Mr. Mapledoram ) I would like to say thanks
for the marvellous northern tour he organ-
ized and carried out for the hon. members
of this House last year.
It is unfortunate that more hon. members
from the southern ridings were not able to
avail themselves of this opportunity.
880
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These tours are by no means "pleasure
jaunts." They are highly educational, and
last year's trip I would call a "crash" pro-
gramme of education to the hon. members of
southern constituencies, on the problems
inherent to the northern regions of our
province.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests is planning further
trips to the north, so that in time all hon.
members from southern Ontario will have
had an opportunity to make themselves
familiar with the need for a better under-
standing of the special requirements of the
north.
And now, I would like to express to the
hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesin-
ger) the thanks of the people of my riding,
as well as my own, for his having fulfilled a
promise made a few years ago relative to the
expansion of courthouse facilities in Sudbury.
Notwithstanding a heavy backlog of works
commitments, the hon. Minister saw to it that
this most reasonable request was given a
priority rating.
And, in speaking of reasonable requests,
Mr. Speaker, there is one item on which I
would like to elaborate at this time. I refer
to the pressing need for the establishment, in
Sudbury, of a branch of the workmen's com-
pensation board to take care of the rapidly
increasing number of claims arising from the
vast industrial expansion of the Sudbury-
Algoma area.
This area now comprises a population of
well over 100,000 people, for the most part
employed in mining operations.
It is not possible to expect the very large
number of claims, arising from this extra-
ordinary industrial expansion, to be processed
with sufficient diligence, because of the dis-
tance separating us from board headquarters
in Toronto, or for that matter from the branch
office in North Bay.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that statistics on
the number of compensation cases emanating
from Sudbury-Algoma will more than con-
firm what I have just said.
But I am not only asking for the estab-
lishment of an assessment branch, I believe
the board should also establish a rehabilita-
tion centre in Sudbury— the number of cases
warrants this— and so do away with the long
trip to Malton, where the board's rehabilita-
tion centre is located.
This request, Mr. Speaker, is not out of
line because there are several precedents,
cases where either the provincial or the
federal governments have established branches
of their services at Sudbury. They chose
Sudbury because of its ideal geographical
location.
For example, The Department of Munici-
pal Affairs has just opened an assessment
office in Sudbury. A few years ago, the
federal Department of Revenue moved its
income tax inspectorate from Parry Sound to
Sudbury.
So, I say that, with hundreds of active
compensation cases in Sudbury alone, and
with the advent of the Blind River uranium
industry to the west, the number of active
cases is bound to increase sharply, and the
situation, I suggest, should be met as soon
as possible.
And just as it was found sensible to de-
centralize the provincial institutions and build
new units in locations where they would do
the most good by minimizing the inconveni-
ences to the patients, I say that the same
policy should apply to compensation cases,
especially those calling for rehabilitation
treatment.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
fully underline these remarks with words
of greater wisdom than it is my privilege
to command. These words were written
by one of Canada's most quoted editorial
writers. He is a former member of our great
press gallery, and he writes for one of
Canada's most authoritative dailies, the Sud-
bury Daily Star.
Here is what the editorial writer had to
say about the question of our needs in the
Sudbury area: I quote from an editorial
which appeared in the Sudbury Daily Star
quite recently:
One Of Our Needs
There is a great concentration of workers
in the Sudbury-Elliot Lake districts run-
ning into several thousand people. But
the Ontario government seems to be un-
aware of the fact, judging by the lack of
workmen's compensation board facilities in
this area.
A news story in the Sudbury Star on
Saturday told of the board's hospital and
rehabilitation centre at Malton. In 1946,
a total of 3,722 persons were admitted.
They stayed on an average of 42 days.
The news story told of the construction of
a new $6 million hospital on the northern
outskirts of Toronto. It will take care of
500 men at one time. The board also
owns a $4 million administration building
on Toronto's waterfront.
MARCH 14, 1958
881
This concentration of effort in the Toronto
area is all very well, but it by no means
meets the needs of northern Ontario and
the Sudbury and Elliot Lake areas in
particular.
There should be an administrative office
of the workmen's compensation board,
plus a medical and rehabilitation centre
in Sudbury. As the largest city in northern
Ontario, with the greatest concentration of
workers in the north, Sudbury has most
certainly been overlooked in this respect.
The Ontario government can remedy the
situation by seeing to it that this area has
better service in workmen's compensation
cases from the administrative side and a
treatment centre for the temporary care, at
least, of ill and injured workmen.
Mr. Speaker, these are not unreasonable
words. The ideas are constructive. The need
for an office and treatment facilities of the
workmen's compensation board in Sudbury
cannot be denied.
So I emphasize that it is essential that
such facilities be not denied my constituency.
I will go further and suggest that the need
is imperative, and I cannot see any reason
why positive action should not be taken im-
mediately to correct a situation which should
never have been permitted to develop.
Mr. Speaker, the contributions of this gov-
ernment to the enhancement of all phases of
education have been phenomenal. In the
field of higher education, we have seen, since
1943, a great forward stride being made by
our colleges and universities. We have con-
siderably increased these facilities for higher
learning, because the government realized that
the time had come for us in Ontario to en-
courage the development and expansion of
institutions of higher learning to take care
of our own pupils in an atmosphere they
liked and understood.
We have witnessed a gigantic forward step
being recorded year after year by the older
established universities. We have seen col-
leges become universities. We have seen the
birth of new colleges. We have been amazed
by the burgeoning and flowering of all of our
institutions of higher learning to the point
where today our facilities are not only attract-
ing attention from all coiners of the globe,
but we ourselves have started to develop a
sense of pride in their accomplishments.
I do not have to underline the necessity
for more university graduates in the free
world. I say that we, in Ontario, a long
time ago, realized that such a necessity
existed. And I believe it only right that our
government should be congratulated for its
efforts in this direction.
We all realize it is a beginning, just as we
all realize that our programme of loans to
needy students is just a beginning.
And, Mr. Speaker, I know it is safe to say
that this government's help to our univer-
sities, in the form of grants— regular or special
—is just a beginning; and that our first and
only university in northern Ontario, the
University of Sudbury, will in the course of
the coming fiscal year, receive the much
needed financial assistance from the govern-
ment to help it consolidate its efforts at dif-
fusing higher education among the eager
student population of northern Ontario.
I predict, Mr. Speaker, that in the course
of a very few years, this new university will
be turning out geologists, engineers, physicists
and technicians who will take on the respon-
sibilities associated with the management of
the mammoth mineral empire of the north.
I will even be bolder and predict that, in
the next 20 years, a large proportion of our
scientific staff in the spreading mining and
pulp and paper industries of our north shall
be the products of our universities of
northern Ontario; that of Sudbury and the
coming Lakehead university in the bailiwick
of our fellow hon. members from Fort Wil-
liam and Port Arthur.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I only hope that
my enthusiasm shall be shared by the hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop) and the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Frost), and
that they will get their handsome heads
together, before the start of the coming fiscal
year, and decide that the "University of Sud-
bury" should receive a whopping big launch-
ing, financially speaking, in its exciting
voyage into the field of enlightenment.
Mr. Speaker, the biggest item in the minds
of the largest possible number of people resid-
ing in northern Ontario is roads.
Up north, we do not call them highways,
or trunk roads, or turnpikes or Queen's high-
ways. Any kind of a roadbed that will
guarantee the safe passage of a motor vehicle
from point "A" to point "B" is a road. And
the completion of one of these safe passages
between any two points is cause for great
celebration in an area that has suffered,
since time immemorial, from a bad case of
claustrophobia, a feeling of being hemmed-in,
that was brought about by a singular lack of
road communications. However, this govern-
ment has been doing something about it.
884
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
municipalities outside the property of the
employing industry.
It was recognized by the government that
the municipalities which provided the muni-
cipal services to these employees such as
education, health, welfare, roads, protection
to persons and property, utilities, etc., should
receive some form of taxation benefit from
the industry. While no change was made to
this outmoded form of taxation which
exempted mining industries from municipal
asesssment, the government realized that
additional revenue must be received by the
mining municipalities and recognized that it
should relate in some measure to the
employees of the industry. Pursuant to this,
regulations were passed in 1952 and were
put into effect.
It was found by the mining municipalities
that while the regulations of 1952 were a
big improvement the amount derived was still
not adequate and the government saw lit in
1956 to amend these regulations to provide
additional revenue. The new provisions pro-
vided that a grant for a miner residing in a
municipality and working at outside mines
would be increased from $25 to $40; the
assessment of a mining employee residing in
a mining municipality and working in a mine
within that municipality would be increased
from $1,100 to $1,600, and the mining
employee residing outside of the mining
municipality but employed in a mine within
the municipality would be increased from
$550 to $800.
While this was a most acceptable change,
the government, however, added section 1(1)
which stated that a mining employee in a
mine or mineral work did not include smelter
workers. This amendment did not define
smelter workers so that it was impossible to
determine the number of non-smelter workers
upon which the mining revenue payment
should be based.
As the only smelter workers in the province
that came under this amendment were in
the Sudbury district, the mining municipali-
ties of this area considered this a bit unfair
in that the regulations were passed without
having a representative from this district
present at any of the discussions prior to its
passing. In addition, this deletion of smelter
workers meant a substantial financial loss to
the mining municipalities of this area.
We were led to believe that the elimina-
tion of smelter workers was based on the
fact that smelters were assessable and there-
fore if the plant, buildings, certain machinery
and a manufacturing business tax of 60 per
cent, were levied, then the municipality con-
cerned should not be also entitled to a grant
in lieu thereof. These principals we recog-
nize; however, it must be pointed out that:
(a) There is no definition of a smelter.
Where, for instance, at the Copper Cliff plants
does smelting begin and end?
(b) These smelters are entirely within the
confines of company towns such as Copper
Cliff, Coniston, and Falconbridge, where the
major policies of the municipality including
its assessment roll are dictated by the mining
company.
(c) There is no specific wording in The
Assessment Act which states that smelters
are or are not assessable, and decisions al-
ready received from the courts would not
appear to be helpful in the determination of
the question.
(d) If they are held to be assessable, they
will not even then assist those municipalities
which are acting as dormitories for the em-
ployees of the mining industry, unless there
is amalgamation.
(e) The Sudbury area mining companies
own practically all the land within the min-
ing company towns and will not open it up
for general subdivision purposes, so that these
mining company towns are not housing their
fair share of employees. Because of this
controlled and restricted housing policy the
non-mining company municipalities such as
Sudbury, McKim, Neelon and Garson, are
forced to provide the costly municipal serv-
ices required for these employees. We doubt
if there is such a parallel in the province.
As ore is a wasting asset, the life of the
mines, and therefore its municipalities, is of
a shorter duration than most industrial cities.
Consequently, the ratio of industrial taxation
in mining municipalities should be higher.
There is no logic or fairness in the city of
Sudbury having only a 9.1 per cent, indus-
trial assessment. It should at least be on
a par with the following 17 municipalities
whose ratios of industrial assessment are:
Industrial
Municipality Population Percentage
Sudbury 47,701 9.10
Leaside 16,590 41.97
Fort William 39,438 39.50
Port Arthur 37,426 38.70
Sault Ste. Marie... 38,426 35.00
Oshawa 49,709 32.16
Windsor 119,330 32.11
Cornwall 40,511 31.00
Hamilton 234,234 28.12
Waterloo 17,362 26.52
Welland 16,736 26.18
MARCH 14, 1958
885
Industrial
Municipality Population Percentage
Gait 23,702 25.85
Sarnia 45,000 23.73
Peterborough 41,908 23.67
Guelph 33,526 20.01
Niagara Falls 23,818 18.64
Kitchener 59,354 17.37
London 101,866 16.83
Mr. Speaker, we have yet to be faced with
additional schools, sewage works, waterworks,
roads and walks, etc., and the present deben-
ture debt of McKim, Neelon and Garson
townships is already over 23 per cent, of their
equalized assessment.
Now, I believe that all of this is so compli-
cated that there are few of the hon. members
who could make head or tail out of this laby-
rinth of formulas. And it should be remem-
bered that all of the foregoing is but a
palliative imposed by the province in lieu
of permitting the affected municipalities from
imposing their own taxation on the industries
responsible for the problems that exist in these
municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, the bugbear is subsection 4
of section 33 of The Assessment Act which
exempts mining plants from municipal taxa-
tion. This is how it reads:
(4) The buildings, plant and machinery
in, on, or under mineral land, and used
mainly for obtaining minerals from the
ground, or storing the same, and concen-
trators and sampling plant, and, subject to
subsection 7, the minerals in, on, or under
such land shall not be assessable.
In the course of my speech last year, I
asked that corrective legislation be intro-
duced at the session, but I realize that my
request seemingly came in a little too late
to enable the government to act. However,
a whole year has passed and we are again
discussing the business of the province. I
feel sure that the question will be settled
at this meeting of the Legislature.
The city of Sudbury has a population of
48,000. It is completely surrounded by an-
other municipality, the township of McKim.
With the growth of the nickel-copper industry,
new municipalities were born to take care of
the increasing number of people flocking
to the area.
Now the growth of these municipalities has
brought about problems that cannot be solved
on the basis of individual effort insofar as
these municipalities are concerned.
Such important matters as water, sewage
disposal, education, roads, fire and police
protection would be better handled on an
an area basis than on the haphazard system
that has obtained up to now.
The question of amalgamation has been the
result of hearings by the municipal board.
These hearings have been adjourned until
April 14. When these hearings resume, this
fourth session of the twenty-fifth Legislature
will be over.
The reason why it was requested that the
hearing not go on, was because the people
concerned in the area I represent, wanted to
see what action the government was taking
with regard to educational and highway grants
and the changing of this outmoded section of
The Assessment Act.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no matter what
the decision of the board is, no matter what is
eventually to happen with regard to the local
government set-up in the Sudbury basin, the
fact still remains that no satisfactory assess-
ment arrangement can be arrived at unless
sub-section 4 of section 33 of The Assessment
Act is completely deleted. That is the only
way our municipalities can properly manage
their affairs, because only then can they
make long-range plans.
And to this end, I ask the government to
so act at this session of the Legislature that
the way will be open to the municipalities to
assess, for municipal purposes, the surface
facilities of the mining and refining industries
of the Sudbury basin, a thing they cannot do
now on account of subsection 4, section 33,
of The Assessment Act.
Mr. Speaker, we should be permitted to
assess for municipal purposes our industry
just as municipalities in southern Ontario
assess theirs. Do not forget that the legisla-
tion exempting the mining industry from
taxation was passed in 1910—48 years ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it per-
fectly clear that my remarks are not directed
as an attack on the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) or the govern-
ment. Since I delivered my speech in the
House last year, on different occasions, I sat
with the hon. Ministers concerned and dis-
cussed these problems and I feel that they
have given me wonderful co-operation and I
am confident, that when this House rises, this
amendment will have become law.
I want to thank the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs and the hon. Minister of Mines
for the co-operation that they have given me
during the past year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have, in the course
of my remarks, refrained from commenting
on questions of a wider application. I thought
886
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that I should, as the member for Sudbury,
explain the problems that are particular to
my riding. They are big problems to us, just
as I know that those mentioned here by other
hon. members, insofar as their ridings are
concerned, are major problems to them.
I would haver elaborated in my speech to
this House on the great need for the con-
struction of the Sudbury-Timmins highway,
but I understand that this proposed highway
is being given more favourable consideration
at the present time than ever before, and so
I am going to leave this matter in the capable
hands of the hon. Prime Minister and the
hon. Minister of Highways, with the hope
that this long-awaited dream will soon become
a reality.
In conclusion, may I say, that it was a
great pleasure for me to listen to our hon.
Prime Minister, bring down at this session of
1958, the finest budget this province has ever
known. Having a great deal of confidence in
our great leader, I am sure that the needs
of northern Ontario will not be forgotten and
that a sizeable portion of the finances required
for our end of the province will be directed
our way.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the points I
have brought before this House today will
not have fallen on deaf ears, but will receive
the attention, now, that they have so long
deserved.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Speaker,
it is indeed an honour and a privilege for me
to have the opportunity at this time to take
part in this Throne speech debate.
First of all, let me say that all of us, and
I in particular, want to thank you and con-
gratulate you for the manner in which you
preside and conduct the proceedings of this
House.
I would also like, at this time, to con-
gratulate the hon. member for Middlesex
South (Mr. Allen) in the high position he
occupies as Deputy Speaker, and the impartial
way in which he discharges his duty. My
warmest feelings and good fellowship are
extended to the new hon. members who
have taken their seats for the first time this
session. The hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy) in moving the address in reply to
the speech from the Throne, touched the
hearts of all the hon. members of this House
in the elegant manner in which he reviewed
his long experience as a public servant of this
province. We all express the hope that he
will enjoy many more years of good health.
To the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon), I say that it was an honour to him,
and to the people of Glengarry, that he be
chosen to second the address so well pre-
pared, by the government of the day.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard unlimited
words of praise dropped from the lips of all
hon. speakers on the government side of the
House, on the record of this government.
Praise upon praise has been heaped upon the
hon. Prime Minister ( Mr. Frost ) of this prov-
ince, but I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker,
and to the hon. members of this House, that
no man deserves more credit and commands
more respect than the leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Oliver), and the hon. member for
Brant (Mr. Nixon), for their long public service
in this province. Their capacity as members
of the Opposition have brought untold experi-
ence and benefit to this great province. Their
scrutiny and their alertness to the everyday
problems of government have contributed to
the betterment of Ontario beyond the ability
of you and I to assess.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most important
things, I think, that has been discussed in
this House, and something that concerns us
all, is the matter of unemployment. If I
might, I would like to deal with it for a mo-
ment now, and I would want to refer, if I
could, to first, the position that we find
ourselves in the city of Cornwall and the
county of Stormont. Looking at the report
of the Cornwall local unemployment office,
as of February 1, 1958, there were 5,000 per-
sons unemployed, while in the December
report, 1957, there were 3,223. That is quite
an increase in unemployment during that
period of time.
In speaking on this unemployment matter,
I want to refer to the budget speech of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer. On page 382 of
Hansard, February 26, 1958, the budget
speech condensed 30 highlights to 4 major
highlights. The main one, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer said, was the provisions we are
making for employment, an expansion of
employment in this province of ours. In dis-
cussing the provisions for unemployment, he
mentioned built-in stabilizers in the economy
which have tended to minimize the effect of
the current unemployment crisis. The stabil-
izers cited were: unemployment insurance,
old age pensions, old age assistance and the
means test, disabled persons' pensions, blind
persons' pensions.
Now on page 383 of Hansard, the hon.
Provincial Treasurer spoke at some length on
the number of job opportunities created by
various departments of government, and the
various undertakings of government commis-
sions, and other intimations of government
MARCH 14, 1958
887
and the municipalities that are heavily sub-
sidized by this government.
In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958,
he said that 215,000 jobs had been provided
in the coming year, 1958-1959. He pre-
dicted that 235,000 jobs would be created.
Now just what did he mean when he spoke
of 215,000 jobs? What groups did he in-
clude? Was he talking about the number
of civil servants, Hydro employees, liquor
control and Brewers' Warehouse employees,
lands and forest personnel, and provincial
police? Was he including school teachers?
Just how did he arrive at the figure of 215,000
jobs in the current year? Are these jobs
full-time or part-time? How many are full-
time and how many are part-time? Does
the so-called increase of 20,000 job oppor-
tunities in the next fiscal year, represent the
normal growth of all government depart-
ments, boards, commissions and municipal
systems? Just what specific projects did the
hon. Provincial Treasurer have in mind when
he spoke of this budget as an unemployment
budget? Will the hon. Provincial Treasurer
name the specific projects created especially
for the purpose of alleviating the present
unemployment crisis?
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had other
people name this particular budget. I am glad
to see the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas
(Mr. Cass) in his seat because I read a
report in the paper not so very long ago,
a few days ago in fact, where speaking in
his riding, he called this a "pre-election
budget," and in that article also, he did
say that there would be an election in the
provincial field this year, in either June, or
if it did not take place in June, it was going
to take place in October or November.
Now what I want to know, Mr. Speaker,
is this. Is the policy of the hon. Prime Min-
ister to have the members of his government
go about the province and announce dates
of an election? I always thought that that
was the sole duty of the hon. Prime Minister
himself.
An hon. member: And the Opposition.
Mr. Manley: Of course, I would say that
this is a different departure from what we
usually have seen, and I think that, if there
is going to be an election in June, the hon.
Prime Minister should inform the House to
that effect before we prorogue and go back
to our own particular areas.
Mr. Speaker, Cornwall is a city with a
number of industries which have contributed
greatly to the growth of eastern Ontario.
These industries concern themselves with the
welfare of their employees, and the general
good of the whole community. Nowhere in
this province can one find a better relation-
ship between employer and employee than
in the city of Cornwall.
I am sorry to say that the textile industry
in Cornwall is experiencing a recession, and
this government, Mr. Speaker, did not help
the situation any by imposing additional
corporation taxes last year. The Diefenbaker
government at Ottawa failed to do anything
to relieve the problems facing our industry,
since they took office last June.
Unemployment figures are increasing rapidly
in my area, owing to the fact that different
phases of the power project are nearing
completion. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have
heard time and again, many people in that
part of the area, and many speakers coming
into that part of the area, saying that, with
the completion of the power development
and seaway, we should have more industry
established there.
Now I say that this government has failed
eastern Ontario in not setting aside a block
of cheap power for industry that might estab-
lish in that particular part of the area. I
believe that New York state has set aside a
block of power with the result that several
new industries have established just across
the river, while we got none.
Now, we have a great number of people
come into our area with the development,
with the result that we are faced with many
additional problems confronting the muni-
cipal councils, children's aid societies, wel-
fare agencies, police departments and the
courts. The city of Cornwall is doing what it
can to bring industry within its enlarged
boundaries. It has engaged a full-time indus-
trial commissioner. It is acquiring land to be
serviced. It is steadily laying the foundations
for future industrial expansion.
The Department of Planning and Develop-
ment in this government should be sincere,
in their suggestions, that eastern Ontario is
the gateway into this great province. Fine
talk by government leaders does not put the
bread and butter on the tables of the unem-
ployed of this province.
With the power development and annexa-
tion, Cornwall is faced with many problems.
We have great new large subdivisions; land
has to be serviced; new streets have to be
built; new sidewalks must be constructed.
The power development interfering with
the supply of water forced the city to erect a
new filtration plant. If our area wants to
benefit from the seaway and power develop-
888
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ment to the fullest, it means Cornwall should
have a seaport and an airfield.
All those services I have mentioned entail
large sums of money to be expended by the
municipalities. Those monies should be made
available by governments at very low interest
rates, because it is for the betterment of the
country and the welfare of the people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the next thing that I
want to deal with, if I might at this time—
and I have talked about it on other occasions
in the House— is something that is of concern,
I think, to not only the eastern part of the
province, but the whole province of Ontario,
because there has been a lot said about it on
different occasions, and that is highway No.
401.
To go back a bit, I would like to refer to
the time when the highway was first estab-
lished as highway No. 401 in this province. I
will go back to the 23rd Legislature of the
province of Ontario, on February 22, 1951,
and I am quoting Mr. G. Doucett, the Minis-
ter of Highways at that time.
We propose to initiate a programme that
ultimately will give to Ontario a modern
dual-lane highway from Windsor to the
Quebec border. This part of the pro-
gramme will do more to establish a true
highway of high standards, which has
become an obvious necessity. The whole
great Windsor area will be given means of
ingress and egress consistent with its great
and growing importance in the fields of
industry, commerce and agriculture.
Thus, also, there will be formal and
practical recognition of Windsor as one of
our great ports of entry.
Needless to say, the new highway will
be so routed as to serve vast stretches of
our province, now without adequate, true
accommodation. For example, the areas
centred around Chatham, London, Wood-
stock, Brantford, Gait and Kitchener, will
all feel the benefits of the proposed route.
We shall furnish means for through traffic
to pass to the north of Toronto, speeding
the motorist to his destination, eliminating
his battle through 30 miles or more of
crowded streets, and at the same time
help to solve a most trying municipal
problem, that of an increasing and intoler-
able congestion.
Our existing dual-lane highway will be
extended easterly from Oshawa.
The former Minister of Highways announced
on May 22, 1950, that The Department
of Highways would construct a trans-
provincial expressway to be known as high-
way No. 401. This was the first mention by
the government of the construction of this
road.
On Tuesday, February 25, 1958, in answer
to a question on the order paper, the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan) replied
that— and that was my question, by the way—
on January 1, 1958, 175.2 miles of this 507-
mile highway had been completed.
However, it must be remembered that ap-
proximately 33 miles of highway No. 401 is
that portion between Toronto and Oshawa.
This part was completed and opened to traffic
on December 3, 1947, more than two years
before highway No. 401 was announced.
Therefore, in 8 years, since the announce-
ment of it, the government has completed
175.2 minus 33 miles, or 142 miles, a yearly
average of 18 miles. According to the hon.
Minister, on January 1, 1956, there were 86.95
miles of highway No. 401 completed, so that
of the 142.2 miles completed since 1950,
some 89 miles have been completed in the
last two years.
Now, in the 1958 construction season, the
hon. Minister states that he expects to com-
plete and open an additional 50.12 miles,
composed of the following sections: highway
No. 98 to Windsor, 4.93 miles; highway No.
27 to highway No. 10, 6.64 miles; highway
No. 30 to highway No. 33, 9.68 miles; high-
way No. 15 to Joiceville sideroad, 5.60 miles;
and highway No. 33 to sideroad west of Mary-
ville, 23.27 miles.
Now it is estimated that the highway will
be completed by 1966. It is noted that there
is no part of highway No. 401 expected to
be completed and open in eastern Ontario
in the coming year. Now that is a very sad
mistake, I think, as far as highway No. 401
is concerned, because all kinds of pressure,
Mr. Speaker, have been brought upon the
department, both locally— I think that the toll
roads committee, in presenting their report
to this House, did say that the building of
highway No. 401 should be accelerated, and
that eastern Ontario should have high priority
as far as roads in this province were con-
cerned.
Of course, to give hon. members a little
idea as to just how people feel in eastern
Ontario, and what the press says about it,
I would just like to read one or two things
from this particular editorial and it is called:
Eastern Ontario and Highway No. 401
They are reporting here first from the toll
roads committee's report, and they say:
We quote from the report. The great
need for an accelerated programme for this
MARCH 14, 1958
889
highway cannot be over-emphasized. The
highway route used at present, which will
be relieved by highway No. 401, is being
called upon to carry traffic in excess of its
capabilities, and with certain sections, as
much as 3 times its capabilities.
In view of this, an accelerated construc-
tion is required which will provide a com-
pleted length from Windsor to the Quebec
boundary as soon as available staff and
funds will permit.
Then it goes on to mention the report that
the hon. Minister presented to the House
last year and it says:
Once again there has been no mention
of work being done in the eastern Ontario
area of highway No. 401. This is just one
more pill of disappointment for residents
of the forgotten portion of the province to
swallow. It was hardly unexpected, how-
ever, in view of the advance information
contained in the 1957-1958 budget white
paper.
Nevertheless, being forewarned has done
little to soften the blow which, in this case,
time only aggravates.
Now, further to that, Mr. Speaker, I want
to quote something again from an editorial,
and this has to do with a man who is very
attentive in the press galleries here, a man I
think that we do rely upon, who is very
honest in his report of what does take place
here, and this is Mr. Don O'Hearn. The
heading is:
Doubtful Distinction for No. 2
Highway
Mr. Don O'Hearn, veteran newspaper
man for some years, has been intimately
associated with provincial affairs. He has
corresponded at Queen's Park, Toronto for
several years, and his articles have appeared
in a number of publications, including the
Cornwall Standard-Freeholder. Mr. O'Hearn
has travelled extensively by automobile
throughout the province during the course
of his duties.
Recently, he drove to Cornwall on busi-
ness, and in his Queen's Park column,
which is published in many newspapers,
he had this to say:
"Worst highway in the province . . .
The honour still goes to highway No. 2
between Kingston and Cornwall. It is a
tribute to the motorists of today that there
are not more accidents than there are.
"The only safe thing about the high-
way is that no one can go fast on it. A
combination of circumstances, mainly in-
volving the seaway, has held up improve-
ment of the road, of course, but you could
not blame people in the area if they never
sent back a government supporter."
That is what Don O'Hearn had to say.
Now, I admit, Mr. Speaker, that consider-
able work has been done in the county of
Stormont, with the reallocation of highway
No. 2. Still I want to point out to this
House, at this time, that the portion from
Cornwall to the Quebec border is one of
the worst death traps that there is anywhere
in the province of Ontario, and I think that
eastern Ontario is deserving of some atten-
tion.
We do see headline after headline about
it. In fact, I have another paper here, which
contains comments from different motorists
going over this highway. They complain that
it is the worst road anywhere, the worst they
have ever driven on. They say that, if they
want to pass, they are breaking the law and
it means that if they do pass, they are under
great hazards of accidents.
I want to say to the hon. Minister of
Highways now, that I think, in all due
respect, if we are going to consider the
development of this province, this part of
the highway, I think, is one that should have
immediate attention by his department.
Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned another
highway on different occasions in the House.
It is one, I think which is very important.
The hon. Minister has commented on such
a highway on several occasions. It is a
north-south highway from Cornwall connect-
ing the city of Ottawa. Now we have a
bridge at Cornwall. It is a port of entry
from the state of New York, and it is inter-
esting to note that during 1957 some 490,810
vehicles crossed that bridge, with 1,741,814
passengers.
We have a great number of tourists com-
ing over the bridge, and people who are
visiting the project and the seaway develop-
ment, and naturally, a lot of those people
would like to visit the capital city of this
great Dominion. But, not having a road
to go north, they go on down into the prov-
ince of Quebec.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we did
lose the New York Central Railway that ran
through there. It was able to handle freight
and the different produce going to the markets
from that area, and to bring in the require-
ments of the people in those villages and
the surrounding districts.
890
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now we have lost that railway and it
appears to me that it is all the more im-
portant that something should be done as
soon as possible on this road going north
through our county.
Another thing I want to say to this House
at this time—
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member
would permit a question? I would just like
to ask him if he does not honestly agree
with our plan in connection with those roads?
He knows that we have definite plans for
improving highway No. 2 east of Cornwall,
which it is necessary to do, and I ask him if
he does not feel that is the proper thing to
do, rather than to begin a road immediately
from Cornwall toward Ottawa?
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
hon. Minister, I did say a while ago, I think
when I was speaking about highway No. 401,
that I thought that highway No. 401 should
have the priority from Cornwall east. I said
that very thing.
But the people in that area have been
promised and promised a road. It was in the
press reports a year ago that it was going to
be started a year ago. The same thing hap-
pened two years ago, and that is the question:
Just when is the highway going to be started?
When is it going to be built?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Let the hon. member wait
until my estimates come down, and I will
tell him.
Mr. Manley: Of course, again I say that it
is important that this road should be started,
that there should be some indication that
those communities are going to be serviced
with a road from Cornwall to Ottawa.
Now, if we look at the situation, we have
a highway running north and south in the
county of Glengarry. We have one again in
the county of Dundas, and we have far more
registrations when it comes to automobiles, in
that county, than the other two counties
together. Therefore, I think, in all due respect
to the people in that county and the city of
Cornwall, that they are entitled to a highway.
Now, I say that the hon. Minister has plans
for building what we call the Prescott high-
way. There is a highway there, but he has
said that it is going to get priority even before
a road from Cornwall to Ottawa.
Well, I say in all sincerity to the hon.
Minister, that if we had a highway as good
as highway No. 16, connecting Ottawa and
Cornwall, I think that we would not be press-
ing for it to be improved before someone else,
in a more unfortunate position, would get a
highway. I think, in all sincerity, that the
hon. Minister should do^ something. By all
means, let him get on with highway No. 401
from Cornwall east.
A year ago, Mr. Speaker, I did bring up
in the Legislature, and I did it for several
years, the matter of the seaway boundary
between the province of Ontario and the prov-
ince of Quebec. I pointed out, at that time,
how our fishermen going into the stream east
of Cornwall have been embarrassed on so
many occasions by getting over into Quebec
waters, and not knowing where the boundary
was, and being hauled into court and paying
fines, and all the rest of it.
Now, the hon. Prime Minister, a year ago,
rose and replied to me that he thought that
whenever the channel was completed, it
would establish the boundary line. I do not
think that it will, and, of course, if I wanted
to take the time and read it into the record,
I have a comment here just saying that very
thing, but I do not want to unduly delay the
time of the House this afternoon in that
respect.
There is something I want to mention
which was mentioned yesterday by the hon.
member for Brantford ( Mr. Gordon ) , when
he was speaking on the Throne speech
debate. He did refer to liquor problems in
this province, and made some comments
thereon. I do not want to enlarge on that.
He dealt with it very well.
But I do want to say that I think the regu-
lations of the liquor control board certainly
need to be scrutinized and looked into.
I am going to refer the House, if I may,
Mr. Speaker, to something right in my own
area to point out one of the deficiences I see
in regulations as far as the outlet of liquor is
concerned in this province. That is, the re-
quirement for the building of hotels in this
province.
Now, in a small village close to my home,
we had the misfortune to lose our hotel a few
years ago, and thg owner at that time decided
that he should build again, but when he
looked into the regulations, and saw what
he had to invest, he just could not do it.
In order for a man to build a hotel in an
urban municipality where there is 100,000
population or more, he has to provide 50 bed-
rooms. In towns less than 100,000, he has
to provide 20 bedrooms, and in all others 10.
Now, in this particular case, Mr. Speaker,
this was a hotel in a small hamlet. It was
providing the surrounding community with a
MARCH 14, 1958
891
service that the people in that area always
thought they needed. But I say in all sincerity
that it is nonsense to me, for a man to have
to provide 10 bedrooms to again establish a
hotel in that particular place, because with
our way of living and travelling today, I dare
say that man would not have two guests to
stay with him in a month. It seems that it
is folly to expect men to invest up to $100,000
in order to establish a beverage room in a
small village, that he had already had, prior
to the misfortune of having a fire.
Now again I could point out that in seaway
valley we are losing I do not know how many
hotels, but quite a number of them, for the
very same simple reason that none of those
men want to invest the amount of money that
is required to come up to the regulations and
the standards as set down by the liquor con-
trol board of Ontario.
Mr. W. H. Collings (Beaches): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the hon. member would just
change that to the liquor licence board?
Mr. Manley: Well, yes, the liquor licence
board, pardon me. That is something, I think,
that the liquor licence board should look into,
because it is making it difficult for outlets to
open in localities which had those privileges
before fires occurred, or in the case of the
seaway, flooding took place. In small hamlets
of that kind, I think it is absolutely silly that
we should have to have 10 rooms before we
can obtain a licence to distribute beer.
Agriculture is another thing I want to
speak about at this time. Agriculture is a sub-
ject that I am very much concerned with,
because I am in that field myself, and, of
course, we have a large number of farmers
in the county of Stormont.
The hon. leader of the Opposition, in
speaking on the Throne speech debate,
brought something before this House that
I would like to refer to because it is some-
thing we should certainly take a careful
look at. That concerns the matter of corpora-
tions getting into the field of production.
Now I think that it was rightly said that we
will soon have to determine whether we are
going to have the farm individually owned and
operated, or whether we will permit large
corporations to take over these farms from
the smaller farmers and make them tenants
instead of owners. It is something on which
this government should take action.
Another thing that I want to refer to is
the position we find ourselves in now with
regard to some of the marketing boards of
this province, particularly the cheese pro-
ducers' marketing board. They have had a
backing from this government for several
years now, so that they could go to the
banks and to the different money-lending
institutions and they could get sufficient capi-
tal to carry on an orderly marketing pro-
gramme in this province.
Now the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Goodfellow) announced last fall that that
guarantee was not going to come through
any longer. I am just wondering what the
position of the cheese producers of this
province is going to be in the coming year.
I do not think there is any doubt in the
minds of the cheese producers, all across this
province, that something constructive should
be worked out to assist them. The hon. Minis-
ter, I say in all sincerity, should take a look
at this particular picture, and should again,
do something to straighten away the present
difficulties being experienced by the board.
He should take away the cloud that is over-
shadowing their negotiations so that they
can look after their output more easily.
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of
Agriculture ) : Might I ask the hon. member,
who is very conversant with the cheese
industry, if he would suggest that we should
support the Quebec cheese producers again
this year?
Mr. Manley: Well, in answer to the hon.
Minister, I want to say that— and I think that
I am right in this— as long as he and his
department gave this backing to the cheese
producers of the province of Ontario, it did
not cost them any money.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: About two years
ago it cost about $275,000, which was writ-
ten off by the Treasury.
Mr. Manley: Well, we did not have the
same particular set-up at that time as we have
had since, and it has contributed greatly
and it has put a lot of money into the pockets
of the cheese producers of this province.
Regardless of whether the department did
spend that small amount of money in guaran-
teeing a bank loan at that time, I say that
it has paid for itself a good many times over
in the assets that the cheese producers have
received from that particular arrangement
ever since.
While I agree that there are a number
of different marketing boards calling upon
the hon. Minister to give assistance of that
kind, nevertheless he has been doing that, over
a number of years, for the cheese producers.
We are coming into the production season
and the marketing board still does not know
892
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
where it is going. The producers of milk
do not know what is going to happen this
year. It is just a clouded issue straight
through.
I say that, until something has been worked
out, The Department of Agriculture should
again look after the guarantees of the mar-
keting board, so that we can have orderly
marketing. The returns from the plants will
go back into the pockets of the farmers of
this province, because this is the time of
year that they need their returns— when they
are starting their spring operations— and I
think the hon. Minister should come forward
with those guarantees.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a very great
pleasure for me to, I hope, make some con-
tribution to this debate, and I thank you
very much.
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West): Mr. Speaker,
I was wondering whether it would be all
right for me to continue. I will only be about
20 minutes or half an hour, if you can stand
it that long.
First I want to congratulate you on the fine
way that you handle this chamber. I also
want to express my deep regrets on the pass-
ing of two hon. members who sat in this House
last year, and took such an active part in
the assembly. One, the hon. member for
Huron (Mr. Pryde), was very active and
assisted the Whip on many occasions here;
the other was also our good friend, known
to us all as "Tommy" Thomas.
Tommy Thomas was like a brother to me.
I knew him when he graduated from college,
and began his career as a county agricultural
representative; all hon. members know the
history of the late hon. Minister. He came
into the House on June 4, 1954. He served
as Minister of Public Works and then Mini-
ster of Agriculture.
I do want to congratulate the 4 new hon.
members who were elected to this House
in recent by-elections, namely Middlesex,
Glengarry, Lanark and Elgin. I would say that
they are a great addition to this House, and
that they will be here for a considerable
time to come. I know they will serve their
constituents well.
I would like also to mention the grand old
hon. member who moved the reply to the
speech from the Throne, our colleague here,
the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy).
Fifty years of public life and political life is
a very enviable record. I am sorry that he is
not in his seat today, because I feel that
everybody would like to pay him due respect.
The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr.
Guindon) should be congratulated on the able
way that he seconded the motion to the
Throne speech.
It is only natural that I should say some-
thing about my county of Kent, which is
recognized, without any doubt, the best county
in the province of Ontario.
An hon. member: Only one of them.
Mr. Cowling: Where is that place?
Mr. Parry: There is some opposition, but
not very much. It is weak.
First, however, I want to congratulate the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost), the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips), the hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger)
and all the other hon. Ministers for coming
down into the best part of the province and
building a new hospital. It was not because
of George Parry, I am sure. It was because
our riding had something to offer, that is
why. If hon. members who doubt this will
come down to Kent West, they will see we
have a beautiful spot. In fact, if any hon.
member happens to be driving through that
part of the country, he should take highway
No. 3 right through to Cedar Springs as
far as Merton Inn. He will see the grand
site we have for a hospital. It is 80 feet
above water level, has good soil, and every-
thing that goes with it.
Now as I said, I have farmed all my life
and I wonder whether I should be farming,
because so much gloom as been cast around.
This gloom has caused me to wonder if I
am in the right business, but I am proud
of my profession and I think there is a place
yet for the good farmers in this beautiful
land of ours.
Because agriculture is such a big business
today, we farmers have a great responsibility
toward ourselves. Now, it is true that we
have a government which is sympathetic to
agriculture. I want to pay the hon. Minister
of Agriculture ( Mr. Goodf ellow ) respect on
that score, because I have been here on
several occasions and know what his think-
ing is along agriculture lines.
The reason why I say we are in big busi-
ness is because, in 1957, the production was
$1,078,756,000. It plays a very important
part in the economy of this great province
of Ontario.
I think that I would be remiss if I did
not mention the good work being carried
out by the extension branch and its agricul-
tural representatives. The agricultural rep-
MARCH 14, 1958
893
resentative is the key factor in bringing the
findings of research to the level of the farm,
and through him the strides that have been
made in this connection have been tremen-
dous.
In addition, the junior farmer programme
carried out by this branch is making a
very worthwhile contribution to agriculture.
Through the junior farmers' association and
the 4-H clubs, the farmers of tomorrow are
being trained to take a place of leadership
in the ranks of agriculture.
Farming is a satisfying way of life, par-
ticularly to those that love the land. The
young people of today who turn to the
land, and who are willing to work, need
have no fear of the future.
What does agriculture mean to industry?
Some idea of its importance will be realized
when we consider the produce supplied to
woollen mills, flour mills, sugar mills, and
many other industries too numerous to men-
tion.
I want to say something about surplus.
I do not believe there is actually anything
surplus in this world. We may be in difficulties
through a little lack of distribution, and the
only way that we can contend with this is
to have orderly marketing. Now that is a
job we have to do as farmers— institute a pro-
cedure of orderly marketing. That can be
done by properly feeding the produce to a
market that will absorb it.
None of us should have any fear of what
the future will bring to the farmer. We have
increased population. We are going to grow
—it has been prophesied that we will have
10 million people within the next 10 years
or 12 years. That means something to us, as
agriculturists. That creates a home market
for that much more volume of our produce.
I have expressed my feeling that, despite
some setbacks, the future of agriculture looks
bright indeed. The Ontario farmer can assure
this in two ways: First, his willingness to
adopt new techniques and place his opera-
tions on a business-like basis. Secondly, his
willingness to take advantage of the develop-
ment of new varieties that will increase his
yields, to offset our reduced total acreage
under cultivation.
I want to say something about research.
I think the question was asked here: "What
has the department done for research work?"
All I would say, to my hon. friends and
colleagues of this House, is to look about us
and see what we have accomplished. Over
the past 15 years, we have revolutionized our
methods of farming. Fifteeen years ago, most
of our wheat was harvested by a binder, and
stooked and threshed by threshing machines.
What a change we have made there!
Through development in research work, we
have improved the quality of our grain as
well as improved our methods of harvesting.
Take wheat, for instance. I have some figures
for the county of Kent, but I am not going
to bore hon. members with a lot of figures.
I merely want to give some idea of what we
produce in the county of Kent.
Some 20 million bushels of wheat are pro-
duced in the province of Ontario. Of that,
the county of Kent produces 2,308,200
bushels. We produce approximately 2 million
bushels of oats.
An hon. member: A lot of oats.
Mr. Parry: A lot of hay too. I have the
hay down here some place. Yes, hay, 77,200
tons. That is a lot of hay, Mr. Speaker.
Here is the important part of it. We are
producing 10 million bushels of corn in the
county of Kent, and that is a lot of corn. It
would make a lot of corn "hootch", too, would
it not?
These figures indicate what has been done
through research work. I am speaking seri-
ously about this. Look at how we have
expanded the areas where they are growing
improved seed corn. About 5 years ago, in
this House, I mentioned hybrid seed corn.
That has been brought about through research
work.
I want, in this connection, to pay my
greatest respects to the experimental units at
Ottawa, Guelph, Ridgetown and Harrow.
They have co-operated with the farmers in
the test plots, resulting in the rapid improve-
ment in production and quality of farm
produce.
Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to
commend the government for its emphasis
in the importance of brucellosis control. We
know what that means to this great stock
industry— I call it an industry— because it is
vital to our method of farming today.
I have one or two other suggestions I
would like to make.
A year ago, to be serious for a moment
now, we sat in this House with much un-
certainty, wondering whether our marketing
Acts were constitutional. We have to give
credit to this government that fought this
through the Supreme Court and decided the
validity of our marketing Acts. To me, hon.
members, that is a step in the right direction.
But we have another little secret that
I would like to divulge to the House.
894
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This secret, in relation to this marketing
plan, is this percentage of votes that shall
carry. I want to say to the hon. members,
that only 51 per cent, of those voting for
any scheme dooms it to failure. It is not
worth it. I was very pleased to see our
wheat scheme carry with a substantial
majority.
All of these 19 schemes we have today
were approved by a substantial majority, and
have the support of the members who are
producing and putting their produce into
these farm marketing schemes.
Now, let it not be said that we can run a
marketing plan on a shoestring, because we
have to have proper support. As farmers we
have a job to do in going out and selling our
scheme to our fellow farmers, and that can
be done. The government has done its part
in giving us the legislation whereby we can
operate.
There is one thing that I regret to have to
say: western Ontario has suffered a financial
loss due to failure of some elevator com-
panies. I feel that the position of the grower
should not be impaired. To me, the matter
is simple. Storage means storage and only
storage. The grain so stored is still owned
by the producer, and he should be given
adequate protection.
I think this bill to protect the producer has
had the first reading. I do hope that every
hon. member in this House, regardless of his
political affiliations, will support this bill. We
are asking for some protection for stored
grain.
I say there is no government than can pre-
vent failures, there is no government that can
set up legislation that will prevent that. But
there is— and I think the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) is quite in accord
with this— legislation that can be set up to
make sure you cannot fool with other people's
property, and I believe that is just what this
bill means.
This matter has given me considerable
worry and anxiety, because a great number
of farmers in my riding have been affected,
and some people could ill afford this loss.
I want to congratulate those who sat in
The Department of the Attorney-General,
and The Department of Agriculture, and
worked out a plan. This bill which is before
the House has a considerable amount of
effort behind it. There may be amendments
to it next year, I do not know, but it cer-
tainly is a step in the right direction so that
we do not have repetition of this improper
selling of property by people who do not
own it.
I see the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Dunlop) is here today, and I would like to
say he is one of the better men— shall I
say that? There is one thing I would sug-
gest to the hon. Minister, about the coming
increase in population. In the next 10 years,
instead of having 5 million people, we may
have 10 million people. Therefore, I would
suggest he build new schools in proportion, so
that we would have two-storey schools instead
of one-storey schools. If 8 rooms are required
now, he could build today in such a way that
8 years from now, it would be easy to have
a 16-room school with a second-storey. I
hope the hon. Minister will give that some
consideration, because to me, from an econo-
mic standpoint, I think it is sound business.
The way they are building some of the
schools today, 20 years from now one would
have to have a motorcycle to travel from
one end to the other.
Hon. members have been very patient
with me. I do not like speaking in the House
this long. However, I hope that this gloom
in agriculture will soon pass over, and that
the farmers or agriculturists will realize that
we have a job to do, and will do it well.
I think it is up to us now to do our part
to make this a better country in which to
live. I thank you.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): I move the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third
reading, upon motions.
Bill No. 1, An Act respecting Windsor
Jewish communal projects.
Bill No. 22, An Act respecting the city of
Windsor.
Bill No. 26, An Act respecting the city
of Toronto.
Bill No. 27, An Act respecting the Cana-
dian National Exhibition Association.
Bill No. 28, An Act to incorporate the
Chartered Institute of Secretaries of Joint
Stock Companies and other Public Bodies in
Ontario.
Bill No. 33, An Act respecting the corpora-
tion of the synod of Toronto and Kingston
of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
MARCH 14, 1958
895
Bill No. 36, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Sunnidale.
Bill No. 39, An Act respecting the city of
Ottawa.
Bill No. 43, An Act respecting the city of
Niagara Falls.
Bill No. 44, An Act respecting the city of
Sault Ste. Marie.
Bill No. 88, An Act respecting United
Community Fund of Greater Toronto.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do now
now pass and be intituled as in the motions.
Hon. Mr. Allan moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into commitee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
inform the House that the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed
of the subject matter of the proposed resolu-
tion, recommends it to the consideration of
the House.
Clerk of the House: Resolved that:
The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may
authorize the investment of any surplus of
the consolidated revenue fund not exceed-
ing in the whole at any time, $5 million and
the purchase of debentures issued under
such by-laws in respect of which the Treas-
urer of Ontario has certified to the propriety
of the investment,
as provided by Bill No. 118, An Act to amend
The Tile Drainage Act.
Resolution concurred in.
SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND BOARDS
OF EDUCATION ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 80, An Act
to amend the secondary schools and boards of
of education Act, 1954.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 80 reported.
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 81, An Act
to amend The Public Schools Act.
Sections 1 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 81 reported.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOLS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 82, An Act
to amend The Separate Schools Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 82 reported.
THE ONTARIO-ST. LAWRENCE
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 83, An Act
to amend The Ontario-St. Lawrence Develop-
ment Commission Act, 1955.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 83 reported.
THE TOWN SITES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 84, An Act
to repeal The Town Sites Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 84 reported.
THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 85, An
Act to amend The Public Lands Act.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 85 reported.
THE INVESTIGATION OF TITLES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 86, An
Act to amend The Investigation of Titles Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 86 reported.
THE CHILD WELFARE ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 90, An
Act to amend The Child Welfare Act, 1954.
Bill No. 90 held.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 92, An
Act to amend The Workmen's Compensation
Act.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 92 reported.
896
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 93, An
Act to amend The Labour Relations Act.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 93 reported.
THE STALLIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 98, An
Act to amend The Stallions Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 98 reported.
THE MINING ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 94, An
Act to amend The Mining Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 94 reported.
THE SURVEYS ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 95, The
Surveys Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram moves that clause
B of sub-section 2, section 17 be amended
by inserting after "corners" in the fourth
line, "one being on either side of lots cor-
ners." The explanation for that being that
these words are omitted to bring the clause
in line with clause B of subsection 2 of sec-
tion 24. They are corresponding provisions in
double front townships.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 18 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram moves that clause
F of section 34, be amended by striking out
the last two lines.
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 35 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram moves that sub-
section 4 of section 48 be amended by strik-
ing out "lodged" in the second line and
inserting "register."
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 49 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 95 reported.
THE TELEPHONE ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 97, An
Act to amend The Telephone Act, 1954.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 97 reported.
THE JAILS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 99, An
Act to amend The Jails Act.
Sections 1 to 1, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 99 reported.
THE DISABLED PERSONS' ALLOW-
ANCES ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 101, An
Act to amend The Disabled Persons' Allow-
ances Act, 1955.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 101 reported.
THE BLIND PERSONS' ALLOWANCES
ACT, 1951
House in committee on Bill No. 102, An
Act to amend the Blind Persons' Allowances
Act, 1951.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 102 reported.
THE OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT,
1951
House in committee on Bill No. 103, An
Act to amend The Old Age Assistance Act,
1951.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 103 reported.
Hon. Mr. Allan moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report certain
bills without amendment, and one with
amendment, and begs leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report certain
MARCH 14, 1958
897
bills without amendment and one bill with
amendment and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, before mov-
ing the adjournment of the House, I would
remind the hon. members again that the
estimates of The Department of Health will
be on Monday afternoon.
I move the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 36
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
©euate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, March 17, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 17, 1958
Report, Ontario municipal board, re town of Eastview - 901
The Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, first reading 901
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, third reading 904
Public Schools Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Separate Schools Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Ontario-St. Lawrence Development Commission Act, 1955, bill to amend, third reading .... 904
Town Sites Act, bill to repeal, third reading 904
Public Lands Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Investigation of Titles Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Labour Relations Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Mining Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Surveys Act, 1958, bill intituled, third reading 904
Telephone Act, 1954, bill to amend, third reading 904
Stallions Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Jails Act, bill to amend, third reading 904
Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, 1955, bill to amend, third reading 904
Blind Persons' Allowances Act, 1951, bill to amend, third reading 904
Old Age Assistance Act, 1951, bill to amend, third reading 904
St. Peter's Church, Brockville, bill respecting, Mr. Auld, second reading 904
St. Michael's College, bill respecting, Mr. Yaremko, second reading 904
Estate of Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen Isabel Drope trust, and the Charlotte
Grant trust, bill respecting, Mr. Macaulay, second reading 904
Society of directors of municipal recreation of Ontario, bill to incorporate, Mr. Hall,
second reading 904
Town of Almonte, bill respecting, Mr. McCue, second reading 904
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mr. Child, second reading 904
Veterinarians Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Goodfellow, second reading 904
University of Toronto Act, 1947, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, second reading 905
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 905
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 905
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, second reading 905
Estimates, Department of Health, Mr. Phillips 905
Child Welfare Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 935
Mothers' and Dependent Children's Allowances Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 935
Indian Welfare Services Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 935
Public Parks Act, bill to amend, reported 935
Provincial Parks Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 935
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, reported 935
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, reported 935
Judicature Act, bill to amend, reported 935
Public Utilities Act, bill to amend, reported 936
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, reported 936
Local Improvement Act, bill to amend, reported 936
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 936
Time Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 936
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 937
901
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, March 17, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Clerk of the House: The report of the
Ontario municipal board in the matter of rule
75 of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in
the matter of private bill No. 42, An Act
respecting the town of Eastview.
In accordance with the provisions of rule
75 of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a
copy of the above bill and the petition on
which it is founded has been transmitted by
the Clerk of the House, and the board has
accordingly, within the limited time available,
caused an inquiry to be made into the allega-
tions set out in the bill and the financial
affairs of the municipality insofar as they
can be ascertained at the present time.
For such purposes the board have availed
themselves of the following sources of infor-
mation:
1. The annual reports of the municipal
statistics as issued by The Department of
Municipal Affairs for the years 1952 to 1956,
inclusive.
2. The audit report of the town of East-
view and its local boards for the year ending
December 31, 1956, certified by the munici-
pality's auditors, Messrs. Hector Menard and
Lucien Masse, and dated June 4, 1957.
3. Preliminary statement of the town's rev-
enue fund balance sheet as at December 31,
1957, and the preliminary statement of the
revenues and expenditures of the municipality
for the year 1957.
4. A financial analysis of the affairs of the
town for the years 1952 to 1956, inclusive,
prepared by the audit branch of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs, showing the
variances between actual and budgeted rev-
enues and expenditures for the years 1952
to 1956, inclusive, and listing the major items
contributing to the excess of expenditures over
the annual budgets.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): May I
ask in connection with this report, which
is lengthy, is it necessary to read all that
report, or could it be tabled for the hon.
members to read?
Mr. Speaker, if this goes to the committee
on private bills tomorrow, could the report
be read to the hon. members there, where I
think it would really have more relevance
than here? I imagine it requires the unanim-
ous consent of the House to dispense with
the reading of that. I make that proposal, but
if any hon. member wants it read, I am quite
satisfied, but why not have it read at the
committee on private bills?
Mr. Speaker: Do we have the consent of the
House? Then it will be dispensed with.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. J. Boyer, from
the standing committee on game and fish,
presents the committee's first report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 117, An Act to amend The Game
and Fisheries Act.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. Yaremko, from
the standing committee on highway safety,
present the committee's first report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 128, An Act to amend The High-
way Traffic Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE HOMES FOR THE AGED ACT, 1955
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Homes
for the Aged Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 1 of the
amendment is reworded to require the ap-
proval of the Minister of Public Welfare for
902
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
new construction, the acquisition of buildings,
and alterations to grounds, in addition to
those matters for which approval is now
required. Section 2, the subsection being
replaced fixed the percentage of provincial
contribution at 50 per cent., the new sub-
section leaves the percentage to that fixed
by regulation and insures monthly payments.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the
day, I would like to welcome to the assembly
this afternoon students from Bathurst Heights
secondary school in Toronto; Earl Grey senior
public school, Toronto; and Nelson high
school, Burlington. These students are here
to view the proceedings of the House, and
we extend to them a very warm welcome.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
may I say it is scarcely necessary for me
to announce publicly what day this is, and
the colour that surrounds me here indicates
very clearly that it is appreciated by many
of my constituents and friends.
I would like to thank the hon. member
for Bracondale (Mr. A. G. Frost) for this
remembrance on my desk. I would like to
thank my St. Patrick riding association for
this plant that is on my desk. I would like
to thank the KLM, and those associated with
that flight, for flying over from Ireland last
Friday these Irish shamrocks which came
from County Wicklow where I believe the
finest shamrocks, so they tell me, are grown.
And, Mr. Speaker, I also have on my desk
here a shillelagh named after the famous
village in County Wicklow where the oak
and blackthorn wood is so famous, and you,
sir, have graciously consented that, if I
were to send this up to you now, you might
conduct the business of this House for the
rest of the afternoon with a good Irish shil-
lelagh. That may be a warning to some of
my hon. friends opposite to behave even better
than usual.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, the shillelagh, I think, is an
Irish shibboleth, at least if you can spell
shillelagh, and I am going to challenge all
my friends in the press gallery who are in
their seats now without rushing to a dic-
tionary, to send me down their versions of
that. At least if you can spell shillelagh,
you will pass one Irish test.
I could take a few moments of the House
today to talk about Irish culture. I could
talk about the Irish poetry and I am going
to conclude my few remarks with that, but
I could also mention the population of
Ireland.
Ireland is noted for its emigrants and I
am told on good authority its population is
the lowest in all its history. They say that,
in addition to the emigration, for some
reason or other— and this I cannot under-
stand because I have seen with my own
eyes on a number of occasions those famous
Irish colleens— the young male Irish popu-
lation is not marrying to the same extent
that it used to. Be that as it may, the
population is at its lowest.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I quote to you,
sir, two short poems, or parts of poems,
illustrative of Irish poetry from the pen
of that famous Irish poet, writer and play-
wright, William Butler Yeats. The first of
these is very brief, from a drinking song
of 1910:
Wine comes in at the mouth
And love comes in at the eye,
That's all we shall know for truth,
Before we grow old and die.
Then this poem, to me particularly— and I
think to many of us in the Commonwealth-
reflects the type of Irish and the Irish that
we love best, "An Irish Airman Foresees his
Death":
I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above.
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love.
My country is still Tartan's cross,
My countrymen kill Tartan's poor.
Nor law nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men nor cheering crowd.
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds.
I balanced all, brought all to mind,
The years to come seemed waste of breath.
A waste of breath the years behind,
In balance with this life, this death.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Duffierin): Mr.
Speaker, since I have the honour of repre-
senting two Irish municipalities in the prov-
ince of Ontario, namely the village of Erin
and the township of Erin, I want to make
some observations on this St. Patrick's Day.
I could tell you that the first settler in the
township of Erin settled in what is now known
as the village of Ballinafad, back in 1820.
He was the first white man in that area. A
year later a man by the name of Howe settled
in what is now the village of Hillsburg. Four
years later my own great grandfather took
up a lot and established a farm in the town-
ship of Erin. All of this had taken place
before John Gait put the axe to the first tree
to found the city of Guelph, so Erin was one
MARCH 17, 1958
903
of the earliest development in Wellington
county. The peculiar thing about the village
of Erin and the township, is that although
they have Irish names, most of the early
settlers were of Scottish origin, with a mixture
of Irish, English and Pennsylvania Dutch.
When we speak of the pioneer families of
Erin, we think of names like Awrey, Barden,
Burt, Barbour, Graham, Griffin, Hurren, Hall,
Howe, Jackson, Kirkwood, Lang, Matheson,
McDougall, McEnery, McEachren, McKin-
non, McPhee, McMillan, Mear, Orr, Rozell,
Root, Robertson, Smith, Sutton, Tarzwell,
Teeter, Thompson, Wheeler; and there are
many others who joined these pioneers as they
cleared the forest and established the farms
and villages. These family names are still scat-
tered all over that part of Wellington county.
Now, what I want to do on this St. Patrick's
day is to extend, to all, an invitation to some-
time visit that beautiful rolling countryside to
see the fine homes, the clear trout streams
and the artificial lakes and ponds. I think
perhaps the one day that I would mention
above all others is Thanksgiving day. Every
Thanksgiving day, literally tens of thousands
of people journey back to Erin to attend the
Erin fall fair.
I think anyone who has ever attended that
exhibition will recognize that it is the greatest
rural agricultural fair in the province. There,
hon. members will see the finest in livestock,
in produce and in handwork; so on behalf of
the people of Erin, I extend to them an
invitation to come to the village, where they
will be greeted with a welcome on the sham-
rock, the village where Irish eyes are smiling.
Mr. G. W. Parry (Kent West): May I direct
a question to the hon. Attorney-General? Are
any of those gifts from Wallaceburg?
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know why the hon. Attorney-General
should have all those mementoes on his
desk. I know that a lot of people here would
like to be Irish, but honestly, I am the only
member in the House who was born in
Ireland.
An hon. member: Oh, no, he is not!
Mr. Gordon: I am sorry. There is another
one. I happened to be born in Dublin,
Ireland, and in speaking to many of the hon.
members today, they look back and they
trace their Irish ancestry on one side or the
other, and we can tell the origin of some of
the hon. members here by their accent.
I think of my hon. friend from Stormont
(Mr. Manley). I think his name in days gone
by was probably O'Manley, I do not know.
I think when we look in the face of the hon.
member for Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), we can
see some of the Irish there.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is a great day
for the Irish.
Mr. Speaker: May I just say it will be a
privilege and a pleasure to use this shillelagh
today.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, at this time,
I know we are very happy to welcome back
to our session our hon. friend from Hamilton-
East (Mr. Elliott). We are all very, very glad
to know that he has recovered and is able
to be with us again after several months
under doctor's care. We are very glad to
see the hon. member.
Mr. R. E. Elliott (Hamilton-East): Mr.
Speaker, I am very, very happy to be back.
I am very sorry that I had to miss several
weeks of this session, but I did have a little
difficulty about 6 months ago and the doctor
advised me to take a little rest. I have taken
as much of that as I could possibly take.
I am feeling a lot better.
I hope that I will be strong enough to carry
on and do the kind of a job that they expect
of me in my constituency and for the province
of Ontario.
I wish to thank every hon. member of this
House who had any part in helping me along
a little bit while I was sick. I had several
cards, letters, plants and so on from several
hon. members of this House, not to mention
any names, and I was very, very encouraged
by them.
I have received, with the co-operation of
our good Whip and our good friend from
Bracondale (Mr. A. G. Frost), the Hansard
right through, and I am right up to No. 25,
and I have read every one of them, so I
have a little knowledge of what has gone
on in the Legislature while I have been away.
I feel that hon. members are doing a splendid
job, both the government and the Opposition,
for that matter.
The Opposition is a little unreasonable in
spots, but I think that is the way they feel
they should be, but I have enjoyed the read-
ing of Hansard.
It has been a real pleasure to me to gel
back here and to get into harness again and
I am glad to receive the welcome I received
today. Thank you very much.
904
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions.
Bill No. 80, An Act to amend the secondary
schools and boards of education Act, 1954.
Bill No. 81, An Act to amend The Public
Schools Act.
Bill No. 82, An Act to amend The Separate
Schools Act.
Bill No. 83, An Act to amend The Ontario-
St. Lawrence Development Commission Act,
1955.
Bill No. 84, An Act to repeal The Town
Sites Act.
Bill No. 85, An Act to amend The Public
Lands Act.
Bill No. 86, An Act to amend The Inves-
tigation of Titles Act.
Bill No. 92, An Act to amend The Work-
men's Compensation Act.
Bill No. 93, An Act to amend The Labour
Relations Act.
Bill No. 94, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Bill No. 95, The Surveys Act, 1958.
Bill No. 97, An Act to amend The Tele-
phone Act, 1954.
Bill No. 98, An Act to amend The Stallions
Act.
Bill No. 99, An Act to amend The Jails
Act.
Bill No. 101, An Act to amend The
Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, 1955.
Bill No. 102, An Act to amend The Blind
Persons' Allowances Act, 1951.
Bill No. 103, An Act to amend The Old
Age Assistance Act, 1951.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the above bills
do now pass and be intituled as in the
motions.
ST. MICHAEL'S COLLEGE
Mr. J. Yaremko moves second reading of
Bill No. 25, "An Act respecting St. Michael's
College."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ESTATE OF MELVILLE ROSS GOODER-
HAM, THE KATHLEEN ISABEL DROPE
TRUST AND THE CHARLOTTE ROSS
GRANT TRUST
Mr. R. Macaulay moves second reading of
Bill No. 29, "An Act respecting the estate of
Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen
Isabel Drope trust and the Charlotte Ross
Grant trust."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
SOCIETY OF DIRECTORS OF MUNI-
CIPAL RECREATION OF ONTARIO
Mr. S. L. Hall moves second reading of
Bill No. 30, "An Act to incorporate the
society of directors of municipal recreation
of Ontario."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF ALMONTE
Mr. J. A. McCue moves second reading of
Bill No. 37, "An Act respecting the town of
Almonte."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mr. A. J. Child moves second reading of
Bill No. 41, "An Act respecting the city of
Hamilton."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ST. PETER'S CHURCH, BROCKVILLE
Mr. S. A. C. Auld moves second reading of
Bill No. 3, "An Act respecting St. Peter's
Church, Brockville."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE VETERINARIANS ACT, 1958
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow moves second
reading of Bill No. 146, "The Veterinarians
Act, 1958."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
MARCH 17, 1958
905
THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO ACT,
1947
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves second reading
of Bill No. 145, "An Act to amend The Uni-
versity of Toronto Act, 1947."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 142, "An Act to amend The
Assessment Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 143, "An Act to amend The
Municipal Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT, 1954
Hon. Mr. Dunlop moves second reading of
Bill No. 154, "An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954."
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Does this bill go to the committee on
education?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Yes.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of supply; Mr. H. M.
Allen in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, before we proceed with this esti-
mate, I might make an explanation which will
be apparent as we go along. These estimates
are for a period of 12 months starting April 1.
There will a hiatus period commencing
January 1, 1959, with the coming in of
hospital insurance, and the hon. members will
see that that item has not been dealt with
in detail. This is because it is quite apparent
that a portion of these estimates which run
for 12 months will actually carry on for a
period of only 9 months, and it will be neces-
sary to cover this item of hospital insurance
with a supplementary estimate next year,
which then will take into account our experi-
ence with the plans which have been intro-
duced, and at that time we will cover the costs
by the supplementary estimate which the
House can consider.
I discussed this in great detail with the
hospital insurance commission, and it would
have been possible to have taken these esti-
mates apart and put in a form of estimate,
but on the other hand it would have been
very uncertain and it seemed better to leave
it this way.
Now, there are certain items that, of course,
will not appear next year. There is the item
of assistance, for instance, to hospitals that
will be enrolled into the hospital insurance
plan. There is the item that appeared on the
supplementary estimates this year of some
$6 million or $7 million of special grants to
hospitals which will appear again there, but
will come into the hospital insurance estimates.
With that explanation, I will be prepared
to explain that in greater detail later.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
On the point that the hon. Prime Minister has
just raised, Mr. Chairman. In the supplemen-
tary estimates that we have before us this
year, there is a vote of $8 million which is
presumed, or set out to be $200 per bed. Now,
in the vote, in the main estimates for hospitals,
the amount is $15 million, which is precisely
the amount that was in the vote last year.
Now I would say, Mr. Chairman, that if
the government is going to be consistent and,
indeed, if it is going to be fair to the hos-
pitals of this province, it should say here and
now that the supplementary estimate that the
government will introduce next year will be
related to the $8 million that is presently in
the supplementary estimate with which we are
dealing.
Now, if that is not done, Mr. Chairman,
what is going to happen is, of course, that
the hospitals will be in no position to know
whether they are going to get the $200 per
bed or not. That has been the policy for a
number of years; now why cannot that be
written in now, so as to remove any doubt
that might exist that the hospitals will get
this $200 per bed?
906
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to the hon.
leader of the Opposition that the $200 per
bed will not be payable next year.
Mr. Oliver: Will it not?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, it will not. That will
be explained to the hospitals by the hospital
commission. We, of course, treat that item
as a matter of deferred depreciation, which
will really be taken care of in the cost item.
Now, it is true that the federal government
does not recognize that, but we propose in
our plans at least to recognize the matter of
deferred depreciation, which we think is a
logical and proper charge for the hospitals to
make.
However, as I say, that matter can be
discussed when we come to the item, but I
thought I had better make that preliminary
explanation before we commence the estimates.
Hon. M. Phillips: (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, I first want to say to this
House that I sincerely thank my officials,
as well as each and every one of our 9,000
employees, for their loyalty and co-operation,
and for the fact that they work at all times
in complete harmony.
We have had quite a number of changes
in our department in the last year. Miss Mar-
garet Higginson, who was my private sec-
retary, now is executive officer to The De-
partment of Health. Miss Clara Cresswell,
who was assistant to Miss Higginson, is now
the secretary to the Minister.
Then we come to our good friend, Dr.
John T. Phair, who has been the main pillar
in our department for many years— and he
certainly has been a tower of strength since
1943— serving as the Deputy Minister. It
is only because of his great loyalty to the
department that he consented, rather than
take the superannuation, to remain with us
as consultant to The Department of Health,
particularly the Minister.
Then, we have Dr. Gordon Brown, who
has been understudying Dr. Phair for the
last two or three years; he is now the Deputy
Minister of Health for this province.
Regarding our finance comptroller, Mr.
George Tattle, we have made no change
there, and I just want to say that I hope
that Mr. Tattle remains as our finance comp-
troller for a good number of years.
Then we come to the hospital commission.
I am very happy to have Mr. Swanson back
with us again. He has been ill for some
time, and I can only wish him good health
from this time onward, because he has cer-
tainly put every effort he could into this
hospital insurance scheme which is going
into effect next January 1.
Reverend Monsignor Fullerton has done
an excellent job as acting chairman during
Mr. Swanson's illness, and although Mon-
signor Fullerton is away at the moment, I
know he will be very happy, when he comes
back, to find Mr. Swanson back at his desk.
Then there are the other members of the
committee. We have Dr. John Nielson, from
Civic Hospital at Hamilton; Dr. R. W.
Urquhart of the Hydro commission; Mr. Mc-
Arthur; and also David Archibald, who was
director of Blue Cross.
Now I cannot mention all of my staff,
but each and every one of them play a
great part in solving the health problems
in this great province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this session, I gave
the Legislature some indication of the great
responsibility assumed by my department
in the care and treatment of the mentally
ill. For 1958-1959, our estimates in the
mental health branch show an increase of
more than $4.5 million.
It is not my intention now to repeat de-
tails of the progress and expansion that have
brought this about. New staff, normal salary
adjustments, and regular increases for some
7,600 employees in the Ontario hospitals
account for more than $3 million, and the
balance is expended for maintenance of
patients in the beds we have been able to
add to our accommodation.
This all costs us something— as a matter
of fact a very great deal— in dollars and cents,
but that is not our main objective.
Our main objective is to benefit human
lives. Even a small return on this great
investment in health is worthwhile, and,
actually, with the progress that is continu-
ally being made in the treatment field, better
and better results can be expected.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that some
other items have increased fairly substanti-
ally. To mention only a few— epidemiology by
about $200,000; tuberculosis prevention by
slightly more than that; industrial hygiene
by $170,000; and the hospital services com-
mission by almost $7 million.
Through the division of epidemiology, we
will distribute Salk vaccine. Now that an
adequate supply is available, this prepara-
tion has been added to those products which
can be supplied to medical health officers
and, through them, without cost to local
physicians.
MARCH 17, 1958
907
Anyone, now wishing to take advantage
of this new protection from poliomyelitis has
only to ask his doctor for it, and we will
provide the vaccine. We have estimated
the cost of this service at about $250,000,
but only experience will tell us definitely
what the demand will be. The school child
programme will, of course, continue as for-
merly.
Again, for 1957, we anticipate a favour-
able report on the death rate for tuberculosis.
In 1956, this was at a new low of 4.1 per
100,000 of the population. There is every
indication that it will be below 4 per 100,000
for 1957. This, however, need not make us
complacent about tuberculosis.
Today's therapy accounts for the lowering
of the death rate; and today's vigilance ac-
counts for finding these cases in the early
stages. Now, fewer people are becoming in-
fected. Mass surveys, clinics, X-ray on admis-
sion to hospital, examinations for employ-
ment in industry and business— all of these
are good things and should continue.
But there are still many sources of infec-
tion not being detected. As staff is available,
we hope to have tuberculosis clinics more
widely distributed, and, optimistically, we
have provided in our estimates for an expan-
sion of this service. We would like to see
at least several new clinics established in the
next year. We know where they are needed.
So, when we can bypass, or overcome, our
constant obstacle— namely, the shortage of
trained professional staff— we can go right
ahead with this programme.
The air pollution branch has been added
to our division of industrial hygiene, and
money for it is included in that vote. This
is a new departure, so we cannot predict
what demand there will be from municipali-
ties or from industry for the type of service
and assistance the province is prepared to
give. Details of the programme are outlined
in the bill before the Legislature, so there
will be ample opportunity to discuss any par-
ticular features that may be of special in-
terest to individual hon. members.
I can say that we have been most fortunate
in the staff we have been able to get thus
far; and also that a special analytic labora-
tory for the air pollution branch has already
been set up on the fifth floor at 67 College
Street, that is the old sick children's hos-
pital.
We have been criticized for not setting up
our air pollution programme under a com-
mission, as recommended by the select com-
mittee of the Legislature. In our opinion, such
action would be an indication that we were
prepared to give complete authority to a
commission for administering such a pro-
gramme. That is not our intention. We think
that the responsibility begins with the muni-
cipality, and that government action should
be in the form of assistance where it is most
needed.
In the air pollution branch of the indus-
trial hygiene division, we now have, as
director, Dr. Jephcott, and 5 well-qualified
scientists.
Our experience so far would indicate that
our greatest problem will be air contamina-
tion from industry, because each type of
industry is an entity unto itself. Less difficult
to control is the other type of air pollution
caused by combustion, which really means
incomplete combustion. The latter probably
causes 70 per cent, or more of all pollution.
In exploring the situation in Pittsburgh, we
found that they have dealt in the main only
with air pollution from combustion.
We come now, Mr. Chairman, to the
Ontario hospital services commission. Of our
total $12.75 million increase, more than half
is in that vote.
As of January 1, 1959, Ontario will have
a hospital insurance plan in effect.
I do not think that any one of us can even
come close to appreciating the magnitude of
the task that has been done by the chairman
of the commission, Mr. Arthur Swanson, his
colleagues, and the staff. It is not too difficult
to build something from scratch, but, in one
of the older provinces like Ontario, to incor-
porate well-established services into a new
plan presents problems which are beyond
anticipating or imagining.
Fortunately, much experience has been
gained by the Blue Cross division of the
Ontario hospital association, and their facili-
ties and staff will be used to advantage by
the commission through 1958.
An amount to cover the cost of this service
has been provided. As with any new enter-
prise that must be supported by funds which
have to be collected, capital is required for
the first few months. Therefore, for the
period January to March, 1959, the province
will put up close to $5 million for the opera-
tion of the hospital insurance plan.
We have been working towards this goal
for a long time, and I think we all want
to express to the hon. Prime Minister our
sincere appreciation of the vision, patience,
and determination he has shown in his
efforts on our behalf.
908
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
That, Mr. Chairman, is all the comment
I feel that I need to make on these estimates.
If there are explanations that hon. members
wish to have on any items, I will be very
happy to try to supply them. Thank you.
On vote 501:
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): On item
No. 12, federal health and operating fund,
$500,000, may I say that this item was in
there last year and the year before, I think.
Yet, looking through the public accounts
for the fiscal year ending March, 1957, I
find that $.5 million was unexpended. Would
the hon. Minister explain that?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I would
say to the hon. member that this is a revolv-
ing account, and we have to have this money
in order to pay whatever grant we do to
whatever society, on a dollar per dollar basis.
But before we can collect one dollar from
the federal government we must first pay
in the grant, then apply to Ottawa and we
get the money back, so that this money is
simply a revolving account, and at the end
of the year we end up with the same amount.
Does the hon. member understand?
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Minister care
to make a comment on the progress being
made relative to cancer investigation?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Would the hon. mem-
ber repeat that, please?
Mr. Wintermeyer: I see under this vote
501 that the grant to the cancer institute, for
cancer treatment, is included. Now, has the
hon. Minister any comments that he could,
or would, like to make with respect to the
progress that is being made by the cancer
research foundation?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Would the hon. mem-
ber like to know the progress of the foun-
dation?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, I think I can
tell him that. As hon. members probably
know, we have a full set-up between the
Dunlap Building and the General Hospital,
and along with it the cobalt bomb and
other therapeutic agents such as the isotopes,
which are used for various types of cancer
under Dr. Clifford Ash who is director.
Over at the institute which the hon. Prime
Minister opened about 5 or 6 months ago,
we have placed another cobalt theratron unit
for therapy which has not been used as yet.
But I am quite sure I can promise the Legis-
lature that, within the next 3 or 4 months,
we will have complete equipment in there
to go to work, including having places for
ambulatory patients, whether it is a hospital
or a number of houses, but we should be
in full swing before fall.
Mr. H. Nixon (Brant): What is the death
rate now per 100,000 from cancer, and is
there any improvement in this in the last
year?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, it is the second
cause of death, I cannot tell the hon. member
how many per 100,000. A few years ago,
pneumonia was the greatest cause of death,
but today cardiovascular disease has become
No. 1 and cancer is No. 2. I think I can tell
the hon. member that, if there is any down-
ward change, it is very, very little.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion about item No. 9, hospitalization for
indigent immigrants. Now surely after Janu-
ary 1, this item will be looked after by the
hospital services commission?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, all I can
say to the hon. member is that, in time, it
certainly will be taken care of. But I cannot
promise this will be done within the next
fiscal year because of the fact that we are
going to be in the plan only 3 months before
the end of the 1958-1959 fiscal year. The
adjustment will depend on whatever contract
is made in Ottawa, because we have a con-
tract now whereby they pay 50 per cent, and
we pay 50 per cent, for these people, New
Canadians, in the first year in this country.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, in item No.
24, there is an amount of $300,000 for the
alcoholism research foundation, and I am
wondering if the hon. Minister would give us
some indication of just whom this foundation
is composed, and what they do? Another
question I would like to ask is a supple-
mentary one. Do the breweries or the liquor
interests give any money as a donation
towards funds such as this?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
think the hon. member knows that I am
from Owen Sound, a dry town. I do not
know whether that has anything to do with
his question or not, but may I say that about
5 years ago we set up the alcoholic founda-
tion at 911 Bedford Road, at which time we
MARCH 17, 1958
909
really divided it into 3 parts. The first part
was the hospital, the second research and
professional, and the third the Alcoholics
Anonymous quarters. Now this same plan has
been carried out ever since.
I think they have done a terrific job under,
first, the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Kelly,
and then under the chairmanship of Mr. I. P.
McNabb, and I am very sorry to say that
his term of office ended.
At that time, and it is only 5 years ago, or
less, the budget was $149,000. Today, as hon.
members will see, for this coming year it is
$300,000, and they have set up special clinics
throughout Ontario in order to help in this
work.
This is a condition that started, I daresay,
when the world began. It was a problem then,
and it is still a problem, and it is going to
take a long time to defeat it.
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford): Is it not
true that this foundation is increasing all the
time, and the amounts that the department is
giving to the alcoholic research foundation is
not increasing with the problem we have on
hand? When we think of what the govern-
ern is receiving from this business, some $65
million a year, it seems that $300,000 is a
mighty small amount to look after the finished
product of that business.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, I really cannot
agree with the hon. member about the prob-
lem increasing at a greater proportion than
what our grant is. We have doubled our
grant. The problem is increasing, there is no
doubt about that, but so is our population.
However, although our population is increas-
ing rapidly in this great province of ours,
it has not doubled in that same 5-year period,
as our grant has.
Mr. H. A. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Mini-
ster how many clinics they have set up and
approximately how many patients they are
treating with that $300,000.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, there was
a report on the table about two weeks ago.
I do not have that report with me, but if the
hon. member does not have a copy, I will be
glad to supply him with one but I do not
have the figures here.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, item No. 28,
the Ontario heart foundation, amounted to
$12,000. In 1956-1957 this heart foundation
received a supplementary estimate of $100,000
and another $100,000 in the supplementary
estimates for 1957-1958. Now, my question is
this: Why does it need the supplementary
grant? Why not give them the $100,000
right now in the estimates?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, as a matter of
fact, they will get the $100,000 on or before
April 20. This is the only government that
has given to a foundation of this kind without
having placed before it the exact project
which they are going to carry out.
The federal government pays $100,000 for
research each year— this will be the third year
—providing that the heart foundation sets
before them the research projects which they
wish to carry out. And if they do not carry
out enough research to cover the whole $100,-
000, why the money does not come from
Ottawa, and it does not matter who is in
power down there.
On the other hand, this $12,000 is simply
a token grant to pay maintenance charges.
It pays for their stenographic staff, office,
rent, and so on. We hand them $100,000
without any strings tied to it except this— that
at the end of each year, they must submit to
the Minister an accounting of what the money
was spent for.
Mr. J. Spence (Kent East): I wonder if I
could ask the hon. Minister a question. What
progress was made in combating heart dis-
ease? What is the death rate per 1,000, or—
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, I wish I could tell
the hon. member that. I am very sorry, Mr.
Chairman, that I have not the answers for
those questions, but they would be very, very
simple to get. But heart disease certainly
must receive more recognition by every gov-
ernment in the world because it is the No. 1
killer, and the strange part of it is that we
do not have the same fear complex towards
a heart condition as we have towards a
malignancy such as cancer. But I will certain-
ly provide the hon. member with the informa-
tion before the orders of the day tomorrow.
I will give him the number of deaths per
100,000 people, in say, the first 5 or 6 killers.
Mr. Whicher: In regard to that $12,000
to the Ontario heart foundation, I am sure
that we are all very pleased that there has
been a supplementary grant during the past
two years of $100,000. But the fact still
remains that there is no grant for the next
year. And if this is necessary, which all of
us, I am sure, believe, why not include the
$100,000 now, because they have absolutely
no guarantee that they are going to get
any of it next year.
910
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, may I
say this. If this government does anything,
it will not be a decrease, it will be an in-
crease, because the hon. Prime Minister and
every hon. member of his government recog-
nizes the great importance of cardiovascular
disease, and it is very hard to separate the
heart from the vessels, the kidneys, and so on.
Now, if we were to give a grant, such
as Ottawa has, then we would have to have
them requisition for each part of this grant
on a project basis, which is the usual way
that both the federal and provincial govern-
ments operate.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, there seems
to be an unusual power given to the hon.
Minister in at least 5 or 6 items under vote
501. Item No. 16 for instance, is the type
of thing that I have reference to— the regis-
tered nurses association of Ontario. Now,
that is to be a grant to that association-
why not say so? Why have it subject to
the direction of the hon. Minister? At least
in 5 or 6 items in this particular vote, we
have "As may be directed by the Minister."
Now it would seem to me that there ought
to be a greater measure of stability to these
votes, and that they need not be subject to
the direction of the hon. Minister. What is
the hon. Minister's reason for putting them
in that way?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I wonder if the hon.
leader of the Opposition would mention the
others in this vote. There is item No. 16—
registered nurses. What are the other ones?
Mr. Oliver: Well, there are quite a few of
them. Items Nos. 34, 11 and 28.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I really think it is an
excellent idea to have it the way it is because
of the fact that we pay according to their
budget and the amount of money which they
spend, or their revenue and their spending.
We are not bound to hand over the whole
amount unless they are in need of this amount
of money.
As a matter of fact, the registered nurses
association of Ontario have been paid their
$5,000 every year, even though they now
have their own Act, and it is only because
of the fact that we have had such a shortage
of nurses that this grant-call it what you
like— has not been cut off two or three years
ago.
We are doing everything in our power to
have girls, after they have passed grades 12
and 13, go into the nursing profession. The
association needs this money for good public
relations and advertising.
Then, if we go over to the next one— is it
item No. 26?
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): Item No. 24 is one,
Mr. Nixon: Item No. 28.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: The Ontario heart
foundation. In amounts, this may be author-
ized by the Minister. Now, this only takes in
this $12,000. They have to send in their
accounts each month or every two or three
months, before they receive one cent. Their
expenditures each year, since this grant has
been in effect has been in the neighbourhood
of $10,000 for the 12-month period. It runs a
little less than $1,000 per month.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there is one question I would like
to ask the hon. Minister with relation to a
problem that does not seem to fit into any
particular estimate, so perhaps this is the
appropriate place to raise it.
Dr. Berry used to be with the department
but is now with the water resources commis-
sion. Under whose jurisdiction does the
following kind of health problem fall?
Representations have been made to the
council in Port Credit, where it is claimed
by citizens that the water is being polluted
by oil from the refinery. In fact in the Port
Credit Weekly of March 6, there is a story
to the effect that one of the complainants—
and they acknowledge that there have been
18 in the last two or three months— came with
a sample of water which had been gathered,
along with the engineer, or with Dr. Berry,
indicating that there was oil in the water.
Now, under whose jurisdiction does this
problem come for action?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: This problem still comes
under The Department of Health. I would like
to say this, to the hon. leader of his party,
that Dr. Berry and some of the sanitary engi-
neers went under the jurisdiction of the hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger) in
the water resources commission. We were
very sorry to lose Dr. Berry and his associ-
ates. He still works in very, very close co-
operation with our department, and he still
brings health problems to us.
In regard to the specific problem on which
the hon. member speaks, we have Mr. W. M.
Walkinshaw, who is now the director of
environmental sanitation. He looks after this
instead of Dr. Berry. We still use the labora-
MARCH 17, 1958
911
tory up at Christie Street as well as their
other sanitary laboratory.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask this question
of the hon. Minister? On this problem itself,
I understand that it is possible for water
to be good from the health point of view—
they describe it as A 1 in this news story— and
yet taste of oil. Can this kind of situation go
on for quite some time?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Does the hon. member
mean as far as Lake Ontario is concerned?
Mr. MacDonald: Presumably it is the water
that is taken from Lake Ontario and goes
through the normal filtration process.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Yes, I know, but it is
oil which some boat has—
Mr. MacDonald: No, it is oil from the dis-
charge of the refinery.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Where does he mean?
Down at Oakville?
Mr. MacDonald: Port Credit.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, that is almost the
same place. Now, that is a very difficult thing
for either the water resources commission or
for us to handle— that is, to get complete con-
trol of it. We had, last summer, I do not know
how, many hundreds of gallons that were
either dumped, or it was an accident, or
something— in that same area. We did find
out later it was from a boat that had a large
cargo of oil dumped on the surface.
It is not entirely a health hazard, and yet
it is most distasteful. It is very similar to
the situation regarding air pollution, that
we were not worried one bit about air pollu-
tion, because we can bring it under control,
we know what to do. It will take a little
time, but it is those pollutants in the air,
or contaminants that are due to industry,
and every type of industry is an entity unto
itself, and science as yet has not been able
to neutralize these pollutants.
The same situation exists with oil, and
we would be very happy if the hon. member
could find a research project any place in
the world which can give us the answer,
because that has given us a great deal of
trouble. In spite of the fact that we cannot
consider it an absolute health hazard, it
certainly is a public nuisance.
Votes 501 and 502 agreed to.
On vote 503:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Minister tell us how many of these units
are now in operation? Were any new ones
started last year?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: There are 32 in
operation.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, but how many last
year?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have now in On-
tario 32 health units. We have part of them
being paid for by provincial money, part
of them by the federal government. I think
the only fair thing in answer to the hon.
member's question is to mention the various
health units.
The first one that was formed was, as
hon. members know, under the Rockefeller
Institute back in 1943. I am going to give
them in alphabetical order. The first is Brant
county, 1946; they received— and I am going
to give round figures— $38,000 from the prov-
ince, $6,600 from the federal government,
making a total of $44,600.
The same year, 1946, Bruce county, $32,500
from the province, almost $15,000 from the
federal government, a little over $47,000 total;
Dufferin county, 1946, that is the year they
were established, $15,500 from the province,
$2,500 from the federal government, making
a total of $18,000. In 1947, East York, Lea-
side, $36,000, $6,750, a total of $42,000.
And in 1945, Elgin-St. Thomas, $31,500
from the province, $2,500 from the federal
government, making a total of almost $34,000.
Fort William and district— now this is one
of the new ones— 1952, no money from the
province or the federal government. Now
this is under the Fort William district health
unit, and the total cost there is $20,651.09
of which they received, under the health
unit branch, 50 per cent.
Halton county, $59,000 from the provincial,
$37,000 from the federal, making a total of
$96,000. Kent county $41,000, $3,500, total
$44,500. Then Leeds and Grenville; now
I have this down here under 1947. It was
always my thinking that was the No. 1 health
unit we had in Ontario. However, they
received $43,000 from us, almost $6,000
from the federal.
Lincoln: now Lincoln is one of our largest
health units, and it takes in the city of St.
Catharines; $63,000 from us, $34,000 from
the federal. Northumberland and Durham,
in 1945, $50,500 and $15,000 from the
federal.
912
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We now come down to Port Arthur
and district, which was started just last
year, 1957, and they received in all $26,600,
of which they received 50 per cent, from
the two senior governments.
Now we come down to 1940, Stormont,
Dundas and Glengarry. This is the one
that was started up in the Rockefeller Insti-
tute. Today they receive $62,000 from us
and almost $3,000 from the federal. Sudbury
and district, $5,000 from us, and the federal
pays 50 per cent, of the balance. Welland
and district— this is probably our second
largest unit— receive $58,000 from the pro-
vincial and $29,000 from federal. Wentworth
county $10,000 from the provincial and
$58,000, making a total of $69,000. The
last one is York county— as a matter of fact
I would be glad to give any of the hon.
members a copy of this. In York county
they came in and they received $109,319.01
from the federal government.
Mr. Nixon: Could the hon. Minister tell
us what the county pays into this, what per-
centage of the entire costs is paid by pro-
vincial and federal grants together?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Yes, we have a base
foundation which covers practically all the
services, but I think the hon. member for
Brant will agree with me that some of the
members of the board get over-enthusiastic.
I have no fault to find with that, and they
hire perhaps more personnel than is needed.
We know the number of doctors and nurses
and all other personnel who are required.
In that case, in all rural areas, no matter
if it is in a suburban area, considered rural,
either the federal government or the provin-
cial government or the division between the
two senior governments, pays 50 per cent.
Cities of 10,000 to 25,000 population
receive 33^ per cent. Those with more than
25,000 population receive 25 per cent.
Mr. J. A. Auld (Leeds): Probably this
should more properly be raised in the
previous vote, but it has to do with the
shortage of doctors in rural areas.
In my own riding, for instance, we have
one quite sizeable area where there is a
vacant practice, and I am told by the people
who live there that they have attempted to
obtain a doctor to come and practice, and
they have been unsuccessful. I think it is not
unique in Leeds county, I think this holds
true in other places, and I wonder if the hon.
Minister could tell us whether this problem
has been discussed with the Ontario medical
association, or whether there are any sugges-
tions as to what might possibly be done about
it?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, may I
say to the hon. member for Leeds, I would
very much like to solve that problem myself,
but on the other hand I have a son who
finished medicine a year ago now. I would
not want him to go through what I went
through as a country doctor when I first
started out. That is the truth. If the rural
people can find ways and means to get our
doctors, no one would be more pleased than
I. But if a doctor goes to the rural areas to
practice, he works twice as hard, and makes
half the money. One has to look at this at
face value, because it just so happens that I
have had experience in both a city and a
country practice. May I say this, it was the
people themselves, I am sorry to say, who
chased the doctors to so-called specialties.
If I were to criticize my own profession it
would be this, that I think we are getting too
highly specialized. I would like us to go
back to the general practitioners' days when
there was real personal contact between the
doctor and the patient. That is what we need
today.
But when Mrs. Brown pays her country
doctor $2 because he is not supposed to
know anything, then comes down to a city
doctor who actually knows half as much and
gives him $25, therein lies the answer.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister, in relation to the solution
of this very difficult problem, if he sees any
answer to it, or at least a partial answer to
it, in the development of smaller hospitals,
particularly now that we are moving into a
hospital plan, so that there will be some hos-
pital facilities closer at hand?
One of the factors that drives doctors into
the cities is the good hospital facilities there,
and if we had a range of hospitals, some of
which provided the more rudimentary facili-
ties, scattered across the province so they
would have at least some hospital facilities
there, it might be— and in fact the experience
in some jurisdictions has been— that the doc-
tors would be more willing to stay in the
country? Is this part of the answer?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
agree entirely with what the hon. member
has just said. I think this government has
done a great deal in establishing a great num-
ber of hospitals between 20 and 40 beds, the
average being about 32.
MARCH 17, 1958
913
In my county of Grey, in my time as
Minister— that is, since August 8, 1950— we
have had one established at Markdale, which
was a private hospital before it became a
public one, then a 32-bed hospital at Meaford,
and a 30-bed hospital at Wiarton, just outside
of Grey county-
Mr. Whicher: It is outside, is it?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: No comments. Certainly
these hospitals are of great benefit to a physi-
cian. In fact, I do not know how any doctor
can work without the facilities of a modern
hospital. I can assure this House that is what
our hospital commission has in mind, to
have a hospital centre with all the facilities,
and around that a number of hospitals with
the facilities which they need for their par-
ticular area, and for the number of people
they serve, but that is one action.
Mr. Oliver: With the advent of hospital
insurance, does my hon. friend feel there will
be a tendency towards further decentraliza-
tion in hospital accommodation in this prov-
ince, or what would he think would happen
under that system?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, we have every
reason to believe and we certainly hope that
is true, that there will be more decentraliza-
tion.
Mr. Auld: Just one other question before
we go on. It has been suggested, I believe,
that as an extension of their studies, before
medical people became specialists— or perhaps
before they had completely finished their
training— that they be required to be in general
practice for some short time. Has that re-
ceived any consideration?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I just want to say to
my hon. friend from Leeds that we still live in
a democracy. Speaking personally, I want
my son to get as much post-graduate work
now as he possibly can, because I know what
has happened to so many young doctors. They
take one year, then they go out and practice,
they get married, then they have a family and
cannot afford to go back to take the specialty
which they longed for. I would say that,
on a per capita basis, we do not have a
shortage of doctors in this province. We do
not have proper segregation of doctors, never-
theless there is no shortage, like there is of
nurses and others, and if hon. members can
get them to go into the rural areas, there
will be no one in the province more happy
than I will be.
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): Would
the hon. Minister say that doctors practicing
in the country make less money than the
doctors in the city?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Now, I do not think that
is a fair question, because the doctors today
are making different money from what I did.
But I certainly made a lot more money in the
city than I did in the country, and I think
that is true of practically every doctor previ-
ous to 1950. Since then, I am not in a
position to say.
Mr. Oliver: He spent more, too.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, at least one had
fun in doing that.
Mr. Janes: The doctors in the country in my
area are making as much, if not more, money
than are doctors in the local cities, and they
are doing exceptionally well. But they are in
the same position. I know that one doctor,
who had a heart attack, tried to get someone
to take over his practice. A young doctor
whom he approached insists on a guarantee
of $8,000 a year for the first year or he will
not come there.
I have a feeling, Mr. Chairman, that this
province is spending millions of dollars to
educate these young doctors, and I think they
have a debt to the people in the province, and
I think they should try to fulfil it. Surely
we are not getting to the place where all
the doctor thinks about is the money he can
make. I know that the older doctors are
not taking that attitude, and I think they have
an obligation to serve the people in the
province.
Mr. Nixon: The hon. Minister was going to
make another speech there. I think we ought
to hear it.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, I am just going to
say to my hon. friend, who is he to speak, with
his two brothers, both prominent in the field
of service?
Vote 503 agreed to.
On vote 504:
Mr. Thomas: The appropriation for those
4 items in the maternal and child health
branch for this year has been reduced by
$150,000. I wonder if the hon. Minister
would explain the reasons for that reduction?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Hon. members will
remember we passed legislation a couple of
years ago in order to cut off the $5 examina-
914
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion fee for medical men. That was left in
last year in order to clean anything up,
but it was not spent. This year we wiped
it out.
Votes 504 and 505 agreed to.
On vote 506:
Mr. Oliver: Now does this include prac-
tical nursing?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Does the hon. leader
of the Opposition mean the certified nursing
assistance course?
Mr. Oliver: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: No, that has nothing
to do with practical nursing, although it is
comparable to it or moderately comparable.
When nurses were so terrifically short about
two years ago, I believe it was, before I
came in as Minister of the department, my
predecessor saw fit to start this 10-month
course in order to train what was called
certified nursing assistants. They only had
to have two years in high school, followed
by a 10-month course. First they have 3
months of school training followed by 6
months of practical training, in a hospital,
followed by one month of school training
and their examination.
They have filled a terrific space, and have
helped out greatly in our hospitals. They
do not get the training that registered nurses
receive, but nevertheless they get enough
training so that they know the danger sig-
nals of any disease, and they also learn how
to take care of the comfort of the patient.
But these certified nursing assistants are
trained and have been trained ever since
about 1948, was it not? It was approximately
1948 or was it back as far as 1946?
However, they have been trained by our
department under Miss Dick who is director
of our registered nurses branch, and then
she has two registered nurses who are train-
ing the field and we now have 5 schools,
at Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Fort William
and Sudbury. If hon. members were at the
Canadian National Exhibition, they would
have noticed the pamphlets we were handing
out to start our night classes which were
started last fall, but this is entirely a De-
partment of Health project.
Mr. Oliver: These certified assistants are
not trained in the hospitals then, is that
right?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Oh yes. They receive 3
months in the schools, followed by 6 months
in a hospital where they receive clinical
nursing advice and training, then they go
back to school for one month, so out of the
10 months they are in a hospital for 6
months, and they receive $60 a month.
Mr. Oliver: Just one further question. Does
the department licence schools for the train-
ing of practical nurses?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have licenced one,
just very recently, as a pilot project.
Mr. Oliver: There is more than one school
for that purpose in the province?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Unfortunately there have
been a number of schools coming in from the
United States of America. First of all they
started a correspondence course. But no one
can train for a nurse by correspondence, any
more than one could train a person to drive a
car by correspondence.
So we picked out the one school that we
knew had the best equipment, the best ser-
vices, the best personnel training, and the
one we feel will make a test case for us, and
we are going to let them carry on for a
period of one to two years at the most.
At the end of the first year, there will be
an evaluation made and at the end of the
second year another evaluation. At the same
time, we are going to find out what other
schools have, but we do not believe that any
nurse can be trained by correspondence.
Mr. Oliver: Can the hon. Minister tell me
how many schools there are in the province
that train practical nurses?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I only wish I could. They
are springing up every day, but they are
coming in from the United States mostly. As
far as I know, there are only 3 here in
Toronto.
Mr. Oliver: Are they licenced?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: No, they are not. There
is only one school licenced. The Canadian
practical school of nursing is the one and
only school.
Mr. Oliver: On that point, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Minister said there is only one of
these schools that is licenced. Now what
about the graduates from the other schools
that are not licenced; what position are they
in, in relation to the graduates from the
school that is licenced by the department?
MARCH 17, 1958
915
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, they
have been told that they will hold no status,
and the schools have been advised to hold
off until we can carry out a proper research
pilot project, as we are very anxious to have
trained practical nurses because we feel
that it is in the welfare of the people of this
province.
At the same time we have to protect our
people and make sure that the training the
students receive is sufficient so they will
know the danger signals, particularly how
to make a patient comfortable, and also
how to carry out the doctor's orders and to
notify him if any of those signals arrive.
Mr. MacDonald: What is there in the way
of forbidding any school of questionable
standards from operating?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have not forbidden
any of them as yet.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, why should you
not?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We are just in the
experimental stage. We have licenced one,
we are going to look the others over, and
we have 3 of the best registered nurses who
will make a report to my officials, and at
that time we will make an evaluation. There
is only one other school that is, as far as I
know, trying to go ahead in a big way.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister said
just a moment ago that they are springing
up all over the province, and he wished he
knew how many there were.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I should have said this:
That they are sending out advertisements
all over the province, and all over the United
States, even down as far as Texas. The hon.
member would not want them trained by
correspondence, would he?
Mr. MacDonald: No, but my point is
simply this. It seems to me that, for the
protection of both the public and for the
protection of the person who might be duped
into enrolling in such a school, in the belief
that he or she is going to graduate with
generally accepted qualifications, these so-
called schools should not be permitted to
operate until licenced.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Now listen, the hon.
member cannot say that, because the stu-
dents have been told they will not receive
a diploma until we have made the proper
evaluation which we have done only with
one school up until now.
Mr. MacDonald: How soon does the hon.
Minister think he can complete this survey?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: As a matter of fact,
our director of nursing service is doing it
at the moment, I mean during these few
weeks.
Mr. MacDonald: Will it be completed by
say, June or by the end of the year?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Oh, yes, it will be com-
pleted, I would say, by July.
Mr. Gordon: This is more serious
it appears on the surface. I had a young
lady contact me not too long ago, and she
answered one of these advertisements she
saw in the papers, and paid her fee, and
then she found out— after going through the
course that they gave to her— that the certi-
ficate she received was absolutely of no value.
It is false advertising to tell these people
that they can become practical nurses after
going through this course that they give
them, and yet these ads are appearing in
the paper all the time.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I know that, Mr. Chair-
man. I have a whole box full of certificates
and stuff at my house that was advertised,
and I was told these were good, and I was
gullible enough to buy without looking into
it. Now why did not these girls look into it?
I feel sorry for them, we are going to do our
best for them, but at first we have got to look
into these schools.
Remember this has happened only in the
last few months, and as the hon. member said
himself, they are advertising, and we must
lay down certain standards for them, the
same as for doctors and nurses, nursing assis-
tants, and so on.
Mr. Gordon: The case I mentioned must
have occurred 6 months ago, and what I
want to point out is that this is false advertis-
ing. They say they are going to give you
something that they cannot give you.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: There are only two
schools that are in my mind— the Private
Nursing, and the Allied. If it is the Canadian
Practical School of Nursing, they will get
their licence. If it is the other one, they
will have to wait until this investigation is
made.
I want all the hon. members to know that
we are in need of nurses, and if this is one
way we can get qualified people to do it,
why we are willing to accept it.
916
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wintermeyer: What is the status of a
practical nurse after she completes the course
in the approved school?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Does the hon. member
mean a nursing assistant?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, the difference is
this. For a registered nurse, they either have
to have their junior matriculation before they
take 3 years arduous training, or their senior
matriculation in certain hospitals, particularly
the teaching hospitals. The nursing assistants
have to have at least two years in high school,
and then they receive this training, and they
have to try the examinations.
One thing which the director may do is to
set examination papers for these girls; that
will certainly show very soon what standard
of qualification they have, because a great
number of our New Canadians who came into
this country, as doctors and dentists graduated
from approved schools over in Europe, others
graduated from schools that had very low
standards. We are very fortunate to live in
Canada where all dentists, and nurses try the
same examinations for their council whether
they have to go to Dalhousie university on
our east or right across this great Dominion
of ours.
Vote 506 agreed to.
On vote 507:
Mr. Wren: I would like to direct a question
to the hon. Minister under vote 507, the item
that refers to medical care in unorganized
districts. We have a peculiar problem in the
north country, and I am sure it is not only
peculiar to the north country, it is very diffi-
cult there, where people suffering from seri-
ous chronic diseases, while they get the best
of medical attention, find it a financial im-
possibility to purchase the drugs which are
necessary to carry out the doctor's recom-
mendations.
I have in mind particularly the treatment
of arthritic diseases, and I have one constitu-
ent's case which I am very familiar with,
where the cost of metacortone for the treat-
ment of arthritis runs from $50 to $70 a
month, depending upon the dosage prescribed
by the doctor.
Now, these people just simply have not got
the money to buy the drugs to get the pre-
scription, and this is not an isolated case,
there are several like it in a variety of dis-
eases.
I think, first of all, we should take a good
look at the prices that are being charged for
some of these drugs, but secondly in the light
that the patient cannot afford to buy the
drugs which are prescribed by competent
physicians, what are they to do to obtain
assistance?
I have in mind one lady who, after they
had sold their house and their car to keep
up the payments to the drugstore for their
supply of drugs, when those resources were
exhausted, the woman had to revert to living
in a wheelchair. Now is there anything we
can do to help those people?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: On vote 501?
Mr. Wren: On vote 507.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Vote 507, item 4?
Mr. Wren: Vote 507, item No. 4, medical
care in unorganized districts.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: All right. After Jan-
uary 1 of this coming year, we are introduc-
ing into hospitals, or at least we are paying
for in hospitals, drugs along with their hos-
pitalization. Now, as the hon. member knows
if he was in the House committee the other
day, it reads like this: "All drugs are included
that are accepted by medical practitioners
for regular medical practices." That takes
in those expensive drugs.
Mr. Wren: Out-patients as well?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I cannot say if it does,
but it may— now just a minute. When a
patient goes home, the doctor tells him to
come back. He has to return to the hospital
—and the hon. member is speaking about
arthritics, which is another chronic condition—
they give the patient a supply of one of
these anti-biotics, and then the patient re-
turns in 3 weeks or 4 weeks. He may spend
the day in the hospital for examination or
several days and then go out with another
supply.
In cases such as the one the hon. member
speaks of, I know there will be some plan
devised whereby none is denied a drug
that is necessary.
But I might as well tell him the danger
of that, and that is that it would almost
break any nation if it allowed medical men
who are human— believe it or not— full say.
Instead of giving two different drugs, they
may give 4 or 5, because they think: "It is
free anyway."
MARCH 17, 1958
917
Now if they used this with discrimination,
there is no reason why those people cannot
be taken care of. I might say this, too, in
unorganized territories this government is a
municipal government, and I think the hon.
members will agree with me in that. The
Frost administration has been pretty good
to the people of Kenora.
Mr. Wren: How are we going to get
ladies like this out of a wheelchair simply
because they cannot afford to buy drugs?
That is my question. Between April and
January of next year, what can we do to
help them?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I wish I could get
them out of a wheelchair with the medicine,
that has been the big trouble.
If they do get out of the wheelchair, we
all know too well— the hon. member can
ask the other two medical men here— that
the results are not as favourable. They are
for awhile, but after they stop the drug,
they slump back.
Now I am not saying they should not
get the drug, because there is an odd one
who pulls himself right out of it. I will
promise the hon. member this, we will see
what we can do about his problem.
Mr. Wren: It is not a situation where there
is the odd one, there are a good many who
are beyond the pale of health schemes, Blue
Cross schemes, and what have you.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Is the hon. member
staying right with arthritis?
Mr. Wren: Well arthritis is just one of
these that I am thinking of at the moment.
I know of perhaps 9 cases in my own riding
where these people are simply financially
unable to purchase the drugs prescribed by
their physicians. There is no agency to which
they can appeal.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: There is no policy
devised at the present time, but if the hon.
member will come and see me we will see
what we can do, that is the best I can do.
Vote 507 agreed to.
On vote 508:
Mr. Thomas: There is one question I
would like to ask the hon. Minister, and I
cannot find it in the estimates, but perhaps
it would come under this item, regarding
the polio vaccine.
The hon. Minister did mention during his
talk that the doctors can now get the vaccine
from the local medical officers of health.
My question is, do they get it at cost, and
if so, does it preclude the local medical
officer of health from giving the vaccine to
the children in the schools?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: As a matter of fact,
I repeat again we are living in a democracy.
We supply it to public health nurses, doc-
tors and medical officers of health free of
charge. The federal government pays one-
half of the cost. In this vote we have some
$225,000 that we will recover. That is our
share, and then the federal government will
also pay a like amount.
But we have an adequate supply and it
is free to our people. But let us not forget
that if they go to their family doctor, he
has a right to charge an office call.
Mr. Thomas: Does this stop the local
medical officers of health from giving it to
the children free of charge and through the
schools?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: No, I said in my re-
marks, if the hon. member will remember
that our school programme will go on the
same as with diphtheria and other diseases.
Mr. Wren: On vote 507, medical care in
unorganized districts, are the number of doc-
tors we have in unorganized districts not con-
sidered to be sufficient, and on this auspicious
day, I wonder if the hon. Minister could tell
me why the medical council has barred Irish
doctors from coming into Canada and taking
up a licence until they put in, first, two years
interneship and then a course in the basic
sciences?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: That is not true. I was
going to refer this question to the hon.
Attorney-General, but I will answer it myself.
That is absolutely not true. Any New
Canadian has to spend one year as an interne
before he can write his council, which is not
a bit different to any Canadian graduate. My
son, although he wrote his exams a year ago,
does not receive his council until July 1 of
this year. It is one year.
Mr. Wren: The hon. Minister assures me,
then that doctors from Ireland are not
required to serve two years' interneship?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: One year.
Mr. Wren: Plus the course in basic science.
918
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Oh now, the hon. mem-
ber is talking about a different thing
altogether. They must come from an approved
school, and have passed their basic science,
and any man gets his basic science in the early
years of medicine, and if he does not know
his medical sciences— well, that is all I am
going to say.
Vote 508 agreed to.
Mr. Wren: They do not require 2 years'
interneship? Well, there is someone on the
medical council who is very loose with a
typewriter.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: The hon. member is not
holding me responsible for that, is he?
On vote 509:
Mr. Innes: On item No. 5, would the hon.
Minister care to tell me how much he paid
per empty bed in the sanatorium?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Now, the average cost
which we have been paying, regarding to our
sanatoria, has been $6.93, and my finance
comptroller is very accurate, he went on to
say 39/ 100th after that. $6.93 per patient
day is the average that we paid, and in 1956,
we paid 89.6 per cent, of the total mainte-
nance cost of the patients in the sanatorium,
3 per cent, or 4 per cent, paid for themselves
on their own volition, the rest were paid out
of money that was left.
Mr. Innes: That is not answering my ques-
tion. I want to know how much per bed
we paid to empty beds, how much grant to
an empty, vacant bed.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, we pay on patient
days but we do not pay a dollar on empty
beds.
This is on a patient day-basis, $6.93.
Mr. Innes: Well, that is so much per how
many beds in a hospital? and if 40 per cent,
of them are empty, they still get something.
It can be worked out in percentage.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We start off with the
number of patient days in the year that the
"san" has, and we pay them that almost $7
per day, and then besides that we pay what
might be called an overhead per bed per day,
of $1.47.
Mr. Innes: Last year, we had over 1,000
beds in the sanatoria in the province, and
it is estimated that by next summer we will
have approximately 1,500 vacant beds. At
$1.40 a day this is going to amount into a
very sizeable sum, I would say somewhere
between $500,000 or $600,000. I would
like to know what the government intends to
do along this line. It is quite evident that
the problem is increasing.
I would first like to compliment the doctors
and the personnel in the sanatoria for the out-
standing job that they have done in the past.
But this situation is quite evident at the time,
and we must take steps to reduce it. I won-
dered what the department intends to do.
The hon. Minister spoke this afternoon
about possibly making more headway along
heart research and heart diseases. Possibly
some of these hospitals could be used for
research for heart disease or something like
that. What comment has the hon. Minister
on this?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have made a good
start on this, but I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber realizes the psychological part? Say one
of his loved ones was going in there, now
let him just think that over. Three years
ago we gave approval to Cornwall, and they
were going to fill these beds in no time, there
were 45 beds vacant. The most they have
had at any time is 35 at Freeport Sanatorium,
about two years ago. They have 56 beds and
less than 25 patients, and the only people
that will occupy those beds are elderly people
who have lost fear of getting this condition.
The last thing I would like to say is that
we will take London. Now, we are having
two of our officials, along with one or two
officials appointed by the chairman of our
hospital commission, and they are going to
visit London this week and bring back a
report on whether this one building they
have there can be rehabilitated for con-
valescent or chronic patients.
I do want the hon. members of this House
to remember that there is a terrific phy so-
logical fear complex there.
Mr. Innes: The hon. Prime Minister has
always said "Let us be practical." When
there are more than 25 per cent, of the
beds vacant, we have to be very practical
about it.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am willing to be
practical. Let the hon. member get the
people to be practical.
Votes 509 to 512, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 513:
MARCH 17, 1958
919
Mr. MacDonald: There are a number of
comments and 3 or 4 questions I would like
to put to the hon. Minister with regard to
the government's mental health programme.
Let me say at the outset that the hon.
Minister has already indicated, in this ses-
sion, the kind of importance that he places
upon the mental health programme by de-
voting one speech to it. But I sometimes
wonder whether hon. members are as com-
pletely aware of just how large a part of the
overall picture this programme takes? I
wonder if we realize, for example, that half
of the patients in our hospitals, on any day
you want to choose, are in there for mental
illness.
To put it in another way, there are as
many people in our hospitals today because
of mental health problems as are there be-
cause of all the other diseases put together.
This raises a question that I think we
must take another look at, because while
I would be the first one to detract from the
achievements that this government has made
in its programme of mental health, I think
there is some danger that we are going to
dwell in praise upon the first few steps that
we have taken, instead of recognizing how
long is the road that lies ahead in terms
of really coming to grips with this whole
problem of mental health.
The first question that I want to ask the
hon. Minister is this. Our tendency at the
moment is to build huge institutions across
the province in various areas, such as the
one that has just been opened in North Bay.
We have one up at the Lakehead and one
in Smiths Falls, and so on.
I have looked into this, and talked it
over with people who are active in this
field and they draw to my attention that
the advice of experts is precisely the opposite.
For example, just a few weeks ago, the
head of the Montreal Allen Memorial Insti-
tute in Psychiatry, Dr. D. Ewen Cameron,
made a broadcast over the CBC in which
he made this comment:
As one sees within visible prospect, that
the psychiatric hospitals of the future will
not need to be the great architectural mazes
and stone wildernesses that they once
were, and the vast building programmes
which it seemed certain so short a time
ago we would have to undertake are now
not likely to be required. We now see
that a rapid treatment can be carried out
in a small, efficient up-to-date psychiatric
division built within our large general
hospitals.
In other words, he is pointing out that,
instead of more huge institutions, we should
work toward the development of psychiatric
wings in our existing large general hospitals.
I was rather interested for example—
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Who started the
psychiatric wings in general hospitals?
Mr. MacDonald: Who started them?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We did.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that so? Well, that is
rather interesting. The point I want to draw
to the attention of the hon. Minister is that,
as it is reported in the annual report to
British Columbia Department of Mental
Health Services, when the scientific planning
committee of the Canadian Mental Health
Association met recently their recommenda-
tion was to get away from these big mental
hospitals, in favour of small regional hospitals.
I find, to cite another example, in the
report of the province of New Brunswick,
where they have a Conservative government,
that they talk about getting down to the
community hospital to meet mental health
needs — a small community hospital rather
than one that takes in a great region.
I was interested, for example, in the case
of New York, where they have just moved
into a new programme— at least they claim
it is a new programme— in
Hon. Mr. Phillips: New York state?
Mr. MacDonald: New York state, yes.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: What does the hon.
member mean by a small hospital? I ask
because I visited 5 hospitals there last
summer.
Mr. MacDonald: Just let me quote two
brief paragraphs here, and what they say
in their latest annual report:
The first of its kind in the country, the
new programme is designed to foster the
development of local psychiatric services,
this is services related to smaller hospitals,
increasingly recognized today as the com-
munity responsibility. The modern medical
approach to mental illness emphasizes
early detection and prompt on-the-spot
treatment. The objective of the new pro-
gramme is to deal with mental disease,
when and where it is first found, providing
diagnostic and therapeutic facilities right
in the community.
920
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Then they detail a programme which, I
think, merits our consideration here in
Ontario.
The Act establishes a permanent system
of state aid to local units of government
for the support of community mental
health services. Counties, and cities of at
least 50,000 population, which create local
mental health boards, are reimbursed by
the state for 50 per cent, of their approved
expenditures, up to the limit of one dollar
per capita. Services eligible for such re-
imbursements are out-patient psychiatric
clinics, in-patient psychiatric services in
general hospitals, psychiatric rehabilitation
services and consulting and educational
services to schools, courts, health and wel-
fare agencies.
The hon. Minister claims— and I am not
going to dispute it, although I think there
are other jurisdictions where this move has
been made— that we have started these psy-
chiatric wings in hospitals in our general hos-
pitals. But does the Government still feel
that the answer to this problem is building
big hospitals of the size of the one, for
example, that we have just opened at North
Bay, when all of the experts in the field argue
that precisely the opposite kind of approach
should be taken— community hospitals no big-
ger than a few hundred beds?
For example, in Denmark they are cut-
ting down their large hospitals of 800 and
1,000 into half, so that there are no more
than 400 or 500 in each of the hospitals.
Is this the kind of thing that we are going
to do in Ontario, or are we going to go on
building these bigger institutions in the
fashion we have done in recent years?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Let me say this to
the hon. member. We have given a great
deal of thought to the size a hospital should
be. Dr. Hincks, who has been one of the
heads of the Canadian Mental Health for
some years, came in to see me one day and
we had lunch and talked about the matter.
We discussed the size of these hospitals.
Now, I am not talking about psychiatric units
in general hospitals, I am talking about a
mental institution. In order that a person
can afford, or the state can afford, to run
that hospital efficiently, giving every service
that is needed— because after all today, when
we are treating a mental patient, we are
treating an actively ill patient, the same as
if he had pneumonia— we decided that 600
beds should be about the smallest hospital.
I believe both North Bay and Port Arthur
are 1,100.
The largest one of our hospitals is St.
Thomas, with approximately 2,000. In
London, Hamilton and the others 1,400 to
1,600. The school at Smiths Falls has over
2,100-it will have 2,400 when it is finished-
and Orillia about 2,400.
We do think that is too large, and as the
hon. Prime Minister said in this House a year
ago, it would be better to cut down the size
of the hospital schools. He did not say
exactly to what extent, but he said he would
cut down on the number of beds.
We are in full agreement that they should
be cut down by half, but we do not feel that,
if we cut them any further, we can possibly
have the services which will serve 600 or
800 just as easily as 200 to 400. I think
the important things are the psychiatric units
in general hospitals.
Does the hon. member realize this, only
1 out of 9 who go into a psychiatric ward,
in the last two or three years, in this
province, have not needed to go on to a
mental institution? Now that is really worth-
while, and I still think we were the first in
the world to start.
Mr. MacDonald: If I had the money I
would finance the hon. Minister's trip to
Saskatchewan.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Oh, now, we are so far
ahead of Saskatchewan that they followed us.
I do give credit to the mental hospital at
Waverly. My own uncle started the mental
hospital at Waverly, and they have done a
great work, and so has the medical school
at Saskatoon, because I was there.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon. Min-
ister another question in relation to com-
munity hospitals, or even if we take a big
hospital and its relationship to the community.
In the past, when mental hospitals were
regarded as a sort of place of human storage
and you put people in and forgot about
them, a community sort of shunned the
whole thing. I understand that today there is
a growing tendency to integrate community
services even on a volunteer basis with what
is going on in the hospitals. To what extent
does it exist in Ontario, and to what extent
does the department encourage it?
For example, I was interested in reading
an article in the May, 1957, issue of the
Chatelaine magazine, entitled "How Regina
Housewives Helped the Mentally 111." This
is really a very moving story of how a busload
MARCH 17, 1958
921
of housewives of club women, go out once
a week to the mental hospital and visit these
people in the hospital. The article relates
one or two stories which I think are really
quite dramatic, of how people who had been
lost for 30 years, gained a new interest in
life because of the fact that somebody
befriended them.
My question to the Minister is this, What
is the government's policy in this connection?
I am told in some instances it is encouraged,
and in other instances the superintendent
frowns upon it. What is the view from the
departmental level?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Does the hon. member
want me to give him my idea?
Mr. MacDonald: That is what I asked.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: The superintendents of
these hospitals have a terrific responsibility,
we must not lose sight of that. Sometimes
they allow some of the patients to go out,
and then they injure someone else, and for
that reason it makes the superintendents all
the more cautious. Nevertheless, we are
working steadily and progressively, and I
may say we are making great headway at
the present time in bringing in more com-
munity help and effort with our patients.
We have some things today that they do
not have in most of the hospitals I saw in
the United States, and I was at most of the
largest ones. The one at Ogdensburg is ahead
of us as far as open wards are concerned,
taking the box off the doors and the bars off
the windows, although I want to tell the
hon. members that we started that too; how-
ever, not on a big scale.
Then, we have hairdressing parlours, we
have nice blankets on their beds instead of
the old army grey, and I noticed one article
in one of the papers that wanted us to put
uniforms back on again after we had just
done away with them. We are especially
concerned for the women. Men do not worry
so much about what they wear, but I want
the women to be able to pick out their own
dresses, the colour of the suits and things,
and nylon hosiery.
Mr. MacDonald: When did this change
take place?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Three or 4 or 5 years
ago. The nylon hosiery are worn by the non-
disturbed. Most of these patients, and a great
number of people outside these institutions—
and I think I will stop right there— become
very disturbed at times for several days after
each cycle. I may say the moon has nothing
to do with it, unless they each have a moon
of their own.
But for 3, 4 or 5 days each month, the
patient does become disturbed, the rest of
the time the patient is quiet and complacent.
He might be a little eccentric, the same as
you and I, but in the main the patient is
normal. Now such patients want to get back
into society, and the best way to do it is
to have the community effort plus open wards,
which is a go-between the inside of the
hospital and society. I can assure the hon.
member that every one of these things that
he has mentioned has received great consid-
eration with us, but we want to be practical.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
pursue another aspect of this question.
We are now spending about $30 million
a year on our mental health— roughly that
figure — and I suppose if one made the
suggestion that this was inadequate, immedi-
ately it would raise the question of whether
or not I am being unrealistic.
The thing that impresses me, as I look into
this question, is that we are spending today,
per patient, on people who are confined in
our mental institutions, a little over $3.
In comparison, we are spending per day
on our inmates in reform institutions a little
over $4.50, and on those who are in our
general hospitals approximately $12.
Now there are a growing number of people
who question the wisdom of this disparity.
As a matter of fact, there is one state in the
United States, Kansas, where, instead of
building more and bigger institutions, they
have directed the spending of more money
on a more intensive research and rehabilita-
tive programme within their limited facilities.
They discovered that they were able to get
better results, discharge more patients, and
did not need more beds.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: That is not true. I mean,
let us get down to facts. They are just in
the thinking and planning stage the same as
we are, and we have the same thoughts
exactly, but they have no empty beds. I
would venture to say there is not an empty
bed in any mental hospital in either the
United States or Canada.
Mr. MacDonald: Well perhaps my infor-
mation is wrong. I got it from a Canadian
Mental Health pamphlet. I read books. The
hon. member for St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman)
chastises me for reading, but I got the infor-
mation from what I thought was an authori-
922
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tative source. The reason why I raise this is
that the hon. Minister, in talking about 999
Queen St. West a week or two ago, offered
to take me on an escorted visit, which I hope
some time to accept.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Any time the hon. mem-
ber says.
Mr. MacDonald: He spoke, and I think
quite rightly, in very enthusiastic terms of the
new wing. But when I read his remarks of
about two weeks or so ago when he spoke
equally enthusiastically about what was going
on in the old institutions, I was puzzled.
What I have difficulty in equating is his
enthusiastic remarks with regard to the old
institutions and the grand jury report of about
3 months ago. As the hon. Minister knows,
there was a grand jury that went in and
visited the institution on December 6th. They
made comments, for example with regard to
why there was not more fresh fruit in season.
I do not want to go into that.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Does the hon. member
want to know the truth on that, because I
want to tell him?
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute. I would
like to know the truth because this is a public
document, and presumably grand jury reports
provide us with an authoritative glimpse of
what goes on. But their comment with regard
to the old institution is this:
The old section of the hospital, in which
the majority of the patients are accom-
modated, is deplorably overcrowded. Addi-
tional beds are jammed into every available
space. The only place for the patient to
relax is on his bed or in the halls.
Originally it would appear that a sun-
room was provided for each floor of each
wing for general use. These rooms are also
jammed with beds. An almost overpower-
ing odour of disinfectant, possibly used in
the water for washing the wooden floors,
permeates the sleeping, living and dining
areas.
The average normal person would find
it difficult to eat in the dining rooms on
this account.
The general appearance of the clothing
of the patients is very depressing.
I asked the hon. Minister when he made
these changes in dresses and nylon hose and
so on, and he says 3 or 4 years ago. I just
wanted to make certain that it was not in
the last 2 or 3 months, because their comment
is that the general appearance of the clothing
of the patients was very depressing. The
grand jury report continues:
While garments were probably clean,
the majority were old looking, worn and
drab. While there may be some valid
objections for the sake of convenience,
efficiency, neatness, and personal pride, a
uniformed institutional costume provided
by the hospital would be of great improve-
ment.
Now I return to the question I want to
ask the Minister.
There are experts in this field who argue
that, in spending only $30 million on mental
health, working out at $3 per person per day
as compared with $4.5 for inmates in a reform
institution, or to $12 in the general hospital,
we are stinting and we are the losers in the
end.
Would it not be wise to spend more, for
example, on research? Figures of expendi-
tures on research into mental health in
Canada and the United States are really
appalling.
Just to cite a few, last year we devoted
$24 million to military research in Canada.
We devoted $8 million to atomic research.
We devoted $2 million to research on forests
and fisheries; and many millions— how many
I do not know— to industrial research.
The total amount of money devoted in all
of Canada, including Ontario, on the research
in mental health was $.5 million, the equiv-
alent of 5 cents per capita.
My question to the hon. Minister is this:
Have we not reached the stage when, recog-
nizing that more can be done in this field
than was thought possible a few years ago,
we can rescue these people from these places
of human storage, when the spending of more
money would really pay off? Are we not
stinting unwisely, and therefore our pro-
gramme is not being as effective as it might
be?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I have
many questions to answer, and in the first
place we come to the grand jury report. Here
we have the best proof of public-spirited
citizens of any place, but they have no
medical knowledge they are not supposed to
have. They are a group of good Canadians.
Now, they must have gone in there, when
they were housecleaning, because I have been
in Queen Street time after time, and as far
as the odour is concerned it is a good healthy
smell.
MARCH 17, 1958
923
Now we come to the ladies. There are
some of the women who will not, under any
circumstances, allow the nurses and the
doctors to touch them.
Now we come to the next criticism about
fruit juice. I looked up the fruit juice in
every Ontario hospital, and what did I find?
We were giving them 4 ounces more fruit
juice than what was laid down by the federal
foundation of nutrition at Ottawa. They were
getting more than that.
Mr. MacDonald: Is it fresh? That was the
pomplaint of the grand jury. I do not think
it was the amount that was being criticized.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, it was just as fresh
as I drink, only I do not get as much as they
do, that is about the size of it. Now then,
they said they were not getting enough
vitamin C from the solid fruit. Now I am
not in any way criticizing them for not know-
ing that in the juice there is only one vitamin.
That could be debatable, but the others are
in such minimum quantities that there is only
one vitamin, C, in the citrus juice and, for
the same volume of tomato juice, you get
about one-half the number of international
units of vitamin C.
In your solid fruits, you do not pile up
your vitamins, but you pile up your minerals,
and each and every hospital serves it 6 nights
out of 7.
The hon. Prime Minister has asked me on
many occasions to step-up our fruit juice, or
tomato juice, or vitamin C, and it has a terrific
benefit, remember, on our physical condition,
which in turn helps the mental condition and
the minerals certainly do not fall far behind.
The hon. member's figure of $3.52 for 1956
is correct. Last year the cost was about $1
more than that. That money was spent chiefly
for these comforts, particularly food.
Mr. MacDonald: How much was spent on
research?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Not quite $.5 million.
It is almost half a million, just as the hon.
member said.
Mr. MacDonald: In Ontario alone?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: In Ontario alone. Let
me say this. I know our hospitals are crowded.
If the hon. member can tell me of a mental
hospital any place in North America that is
not crowded, then the conditions must be
pretty deplorable, because they need more
and more space for them.
Let us come back to the last thing. I am
not satisfied with research. That is why we
are trying to find out the basic principle that
lies behind the cause of mental illness. I think
before too long there is going to be a silver
lining. In fact there already has been one,
because we in the last 3 or 4 years have been
discharging about 69 per cent, of our acutely
mentally ill with a repeat of only 3 per cent,
to 4 per cent. Now I think that is excellent.
That is just about comparable exactly to
Ancora, to Poughkeepsie, and to Ogdensburg.
Those are the 3 large mental hospitals in the
states of New York and New Jersey.
We spent $4.5 last year. I am not sure
whether that is right to the cent, but it is
about $1 more than the year before.
Last year in the state of New York it ran
$4.02.
I tried to answer all the hon. member's
questions, I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. MacDonald: I think the fact that New
York state only spends $4.02 is equally de-
plorable. I said I was not going to deal with
American statistics, but let me give just one.
They are spending $102 million in the United
States on medical research as a whole, while
spending $36 billion on defence. There is no
justification for that kind of disparity in face
of a situation, when half of the people are in
hospital because of mental disease. We are,
if anything, worse in Canada.
Here we are spending only $.5 million in
Ontario on mental research. The fact that
we have made as much progress as we have
is really quite remarkable, in light of the
very small research that is being devoted to
it. Our progress has been a gift from the
gods.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We are just in the
throes of starting another big research project
right now, with the children.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me ask one final ques-
tion on this because the hon. Minister is, in
effect, dismissing altogether this grand jury
report. Will the hon. Minister tell me who
inspires grand jury visits and reports?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have absolutely no
criticism. I think they are a group of top
public-spirited citizens. Unfortunately the day
that they were at Queen Street the higher
officials were not there to show them around.
Now, we need the superintendent. I am not
too sure just who was there, but in order-
Mr. MacDonald: He was there.
924
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Yes I know, but they
should have had the superintendent, the
assistant superintendent, the superintendent
of nurses, the dietitian and the administrator.
Then the visitors could get a complete picture.
As a matter of fact, I would still like to take
the same group of men— I do not know who
they are— back there and show them around.
And did the hon. member notice this, that
they did not say anything about the beautiful
building out in front. Let us not forget that
this old building behind is rehabilitated to
such a degree than hon. members would not
know it. That is why I want the hon. member
for York South to come out there with me.
We have torn down that old stone fence in
front, and have a reception building there
that will hold 58 men, and 50 women in the
other, along with the administration, physio-
therapy and all types of treatments. There
is also a gymnasium. It is as beautiful as any
modern hospital has built since 1948, but I
assure the hon. member that we are going
to keep after this because it is a problem.
Mr. Oliver: Might I ask the hon. Minister
about the position of Langstaff at the present
time?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: There is no more Lang-
staff. The city took back Langstaff and Con-
cord.
Vote 513 agreed to.
On vote 514.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: We have here Dr.
Neilson and Mr. Erdmann who are appointed
by the chairman of the commission, Mr.
Swanson, to aid me in this last vote, 514.
Mr. Oliver: I would like, in starting on
this vote, to ask the hon. Prime Minister a
question. It may be a political question, I
know he is not used to that particular type
of question. But I want to ask in what
respect does the agreement that he has signed
with the federal government, for hospital
insurance, differ from the one that he stood
prepared to sign a year ago with the former
Liberal government? What difference is there
in essence between the two?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well we could never get
down to an agreement to sign, that was the
problem. Now we did by correspondence
agree to certain principles, and those prin-
ciples have remained very largely unaltered,
with the exception of a provision about the
majority of the provinces, and I forget
whether there was another point or not but
I would say, concerning the correspondence
between Rt. hon. Mr. St. Laurent and myself,
of a year ago that those principles have been
followed.
Mr. Oliver: Just one supplementary ques-
tion. My hon. friend says "with the exception
of the point in respect to the majority of the
provinces". I could never see what particular
difference that made to Ontario. Would my
hon. friend enlighten me?
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out to my
hon. friend that it made this very great differ-
ence, that we are engaged in a very great
business operation. This is an immense thing,
and it involves in total the expenditure in the
first year of about $200 million. Now, if we
reach this point that there were 5 provinces
that were in agreement, and there was one
that was not— the sixth was not in actual
agreement or had not signed— we might get
to January 1, 1959 and not be able to go
ahead. That was our problem.
With the hospital insurance plan, the regis-
tration has to commence next August, I think
it is, or about that time. The hon. Leader
of the Opposition can see the highly embar-
rassing position that we would be in, in regis-
tering and making contracts which might not
come into effect.
The taking away of that provision took
away an uncertainty which had a very great
effect on the planning for this provision.
Mr. Oliver: Except for this, is it not a fact
that at least 6 of the provinces have signed
this agreement?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The point is this, that
there are 6 of the provinces that have agreed.
Well, at this moment Ontario is the only
province that has actually signed. Now when
is a province in the agreement? There is the
problem.
We have signed an agreement. I have no
doubt Saskatchewan and British Columbia
will doubtlessly complete their agreements
before July 1, which is the effective date,
but at the moment they have not. I would
say that they are certainties, so that we have
Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia,
which I am sure will be signing up by July 1.
The others have apparently announced an
agreement in principle, but that is hardly
sufficient to go ahead on, and I doubt that
if we had the provision that was in the pre-
vious Act, we could count that an agreement
in principle, without entering into a hard and
fast agreement such as we have, would be
sufficient.
MARCH 17, 1958
925
Mr. Wintermeyer: Excuse me, Mr. Chair-
man, exactly what is the difference in the
regulation now as opposed to a year ago? A
year ago it was 6 provinces representing a
majority and now it is what?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now they can make indi-
vidual agreements with the provinces, and
there is no contingency on other provinces
signing. For instance, we have signed an
agreement and we can with surety go ahead
and come into operation on January 1.
If none of the other provinces agree, it
would still be effective, and if British
Columbia and Saskatchewan enter into an
agreement, which I have no doubt they will
by July 1, 3 can go ahead. But it is not a
necessity that there be 6 agreements in
operation.
Mr. MacDonald: There is one phase of the
developments of the last few months that I
want to raise, because I think it gives rise
to problems for which we have not yet worked
out a complete solution. I refer to the
relationship of the doctors to this whole
hospital plan.
Some of the problems involved in this
have at least reached the public press. A
good many of them have been battled out
behind the scenes, and that battle is still
going on.
The criticism I find in talking to doctors
—and believe it or not I have some very
close personal friends who are in the profes-
sion—is that the doctors were not involved
in any real sense in this plan from the outset,
and many of the difficulties that have arisen
were because of the fact that they were left
off the commission until the appointment of
Dr. Urquhart late last fall.
As a result the Ontario Medical Association
has had to beat down a revolt that developed
in a few places in the province. I think
it eminated, in the first instance, from the
Sudbury Medical Society, and was supported
by the doctors in St. Catharines and a few
other areas, until it reached such serious
proportions that they had to call in repre-
sentatives of the various local medical
societies and thresh the problem out.
I do not know whether the difficulties have
been satisfactorily resolved by now, but I
want to say to the government that in my
opinion a very serious mistake was made in
not giving adequate representation from the
outset to the medical profession on the
hospital services commission.
The brief that was produced by the
doctors up in Sudbury, in effect, expressed
impassioned opposition to almost every phase
of the hospital plan. But there was one
sentence in that brief with which I agree
completely: that a hospital without doctors
is just a hotel. The proposition that we
should set up a hospital services commission
without putting doctors on it to sort out
the problems involving them, it seems to me,
was a very serious error.
Now, one of the reasons why I think we
must have the medical association represented
on the commission is to cope with problems
we are going to face as soon as this hospital
plan gets into operation. That is a popular
idea, often advanced by opponents on this
kind of a plan, that it is the patients who
abuse hospitals by staying in too long or
going in when it is not necessary.
But there is a growing amount of evidence
that some of this abuse arises from the lack
of self-discipline— call it what you will— of
the doctors.
In fact we have had in the last year or so
a very striking proof of this in a case at
Hamilton where the Steel Company of
Canada and the union, in conjunction with
the local medical association and an insurance
company, worked out a plan to provide for
the medical needs of their employees.
Apparently when the plan which was to run
for two years, was only about half over, the
insurance company came back and in effect
said that the available funds were already
exhausted.
So you had the remarkable situation of
the Steel Company, the union, and the
insurance company joining forces to look into
the matter. They discovered that when the
doctors would visit the hospital, they would
go down a ward, visiting a half-dozen patients
in a casual way, looking at their charts, or
asking them how they were feeling, and a
charge would go in for each patient, so that
at the end of one year they had exhausted
all the insurance funds originally anticipated
as necessary for two years.
This is only one instance that is recent,
and on our own doorstep, of the possible
abuse of a hospital plan by the medical
profession.
Now I have talked this problem over with
an official of the Canadian Medical Associa-
tion, and his comment was that 5 per cent,
of the doctors will abuse the plan all the
time, 10 per cent, or 15 per cent, of them
may abuse it until it is drawn to their atten-
926
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion but will stop; 80 per cent., he said, will
not abuse it.
But it seems to me that even those figures
are a little optimistic because once there
is a plan set up, in which a person has the
right to go to hospital, it is very easy for the
doctor to say: "Well, I will play it safe and
put the patient in the hospital." There is a
built-in problem of this kind in any hospital
plan. But if part of our problem in the
over-use of the hospitals, or the abuse of the
hospitals, is because of the doctors, it seems
to me that the answer to coping with this
problem is for the doctors to discipline their
own members. If they are going to do that,
the medical association should have been
represented on the hospital services commis-
sion long before last November.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say this, that the
difficulties my hon. friend mentioned that
existed between the, or do exist between the,
medical profession and the hospital services
commission, are really non-existent.
If you take the Sudbury case, the objection
on the part of the Sudbury people is entirely
this, they are fearful that this plan is the
commencement of a system of state medicine
with which they want to have nothing to do.
Now that is the point.
I would say to my hon. friend, whether he
is or is not in favour of the system of state
medicine, I do not think that there is any-
thing in this Act which would lead to that.
I think that the fears that the profession
have on that score are entirely groundless,
and if state medicine were to come at a
later date, it would have to come from an
entirely new approach within the ambit of
this Act.
Therefore I do not think there is anything
to that.
The second point is this: in regards to the
medical profession, when the Act appears—
remember the commission was in an organiza-
tional state when we passed the bill two years
ago — and on the commission were Mr.
Swanson, Monseigneur Fullerton and Dr.
Neilson.
Now, Dr. Neilson is here today. He was
on the commission from the commencement.
Well, later as we enlarged the commission,
Dr. Urquhart was brought in last November.
As a matter of fact the medical profession
gave us a panel of names, and Dr. Urquhart's
name was one of them, and his appointment
was very satisfactory to them.
Now at the present time, the medical
profession has throughout had one-third of
the representation on the commission. I think
that is very fair and very reasonable.
I ask my hon. friend to remember this, that
this hospital plan is really, to a very large
extent, based upon the Blue Cross plan
operating in this province. As a matter of
fact the Blue Cross plan was resolved by the
hospitals themselves, the doctors did not
really come into that picture at all. But we
have brought them in with a one-third repre-
sentation in this case.
Now I would say, as regards to the second
part of this question, that the abuse by what
he says would be by 5 per cent, of the medical
profession, I will leave that to the hon. Min-
ister of Health to reply to, because he is more
competent to do it than I am, and I think he
does understand the situation.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: As a matter of fact, it
was the same as Christ and the 12 disciples,
one was a bad egg. One of the 12, 8H per
cent.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
go back to this for a moment because the
complaint of the medical association, whether
valid or not, is that they do not feel that Dr.
Neilson was their representative, though I
do agree that he was on the commission from
the outset.
But their complaint is that there was not
any opportunity to sit down and thresh
through these problems. In fact, some of them
claim that they still have not had the oppor-
tunity to sit down and negotiate in the kind
of way negotiation takes place between a
potential employer and his employees.
If it eases the hon. Prime Minister's mind
any, they have exactly the same complaint
with regards to the late Liberal government
at Ottawa. Their complaint is that before the
federal bill was brought down they were not
able to see a copy of it, and as a result many
differences that could have been ironed out
became included in the bill.
I have been very critical of the medical
profession in the past, and I suspect I am
going to be very critical again, because of
their basic attitude toward what they choose
to describe as state medicine. But it seems
to me that they play such an integral role
in any such plan that it is just plain common-
sense to sit down and negotiate differences
at close hand, instead of at arm's length.
Rightly or wrongly, the medical association
is concerned. This has been the case up until
now. Now the hon. Prime Minister in fact
dismisses it by saying they are imaginary
problems. I do not know whether that
MARCH 17, 1958
927
explanation will satisfy the doctors, because
they insist they are not imaginary.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I can assure the hon.
member there is no arm's length dealing now,
and as a matter of fact their representative
was there all the time they christened the
agreement with Ottawa, which was really the
important thing that was negotiated between
last October and November and the time we
signed it. That was when the agreement was
really negotiated. They were present all the
time, and I can assure the hon. members that
there was no desire on our part to do any-
thing but have a real good working heart.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, this un-
questionably is a historic vote. I think we
will all agree in that respect, and with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
refer to one or two things.
Firstly, the hon. Prime Minister has said
that, due to a change in what we might term
the regulations, he was in a position to sign
an agreement with the federal government
where he was not in a position to do that a
year ago.
Now, being very technical about it, I think
that there is something in what he said, that
immediately he can sign in an unilateral
fashion, whereas before, he was required to
have a stipulated number of provinces in
agreement with him.
From a practical point of view, however,
I think that all will agree that there is no
question in the world that the requested
number of provinces would have come in.
Now one thing that I do think should be
pointed out at this time— and I am sure the
hon. Prime Minister will agree with me— is
that this current vote is the culmination of a
lot of work. It started 10, 12, 13 years ago,
in 1945 I believe, when the federal govern-
ment made its original proposal. At that time,
the proposal did not relate to hospital insur-
ance but rather to a health insurance scheme.
As such, they indicated they were not specific-
ally intended for, or limited to, hospitalization.
At that time, the federal government sug-
gested it would help by underwriting a good
cost of the construction of hospitals by
inaugurating as we all know, the blind pen-
sion, and implementing the old age pensions
to the extent that over 70 they assumed 100
per cent, of the total cost.
Now during all this period of time, I think
that we must recognize the real initiative that
was demonstrated by the federal government
of that particular date.
Today, I think we are privileged to have
the opportunity to work on the foundation
and build on the foundation that was prepared
12 or 13 years ago, and immediately there
is the opportunity to undertake hospital
insurance.
I think the hon. Prime Minister will agree
with me that it was on his initiative, at one
stage of the conferences, that the direction
of the conferences changed from an over-all
health scheme to a specific hospital scheme.
I think the initiative in that respect came
from the provinces.
Now, I would hope that this is only the
first of a series of steps. I would hope that
the original intent that was outlined 12 and
13 years ago, in the form of a broad health
programme, is not to be repealed and dis-
carded, and that we are to onclude that this
is the end of the entire original proposal and
scheme that was undertaken and proposed
12 and 13 years ago. I would hope that this
is only one step in the ultimate series of steps
that were envisaged by the government of
the day back in 1945.
And now specifically, Mr. Chairman, I am
concerned to know how much money this
particular scheme is really going to cost. I
think it has been estimated that the total
cost is in the neighbourhood of $210 million.
Now it is an estimated cost, of course, of
which Yj, will be paid by the federal govern-
ment, J/z by premium collections, and presum-
ably Yi by the provincial government.
Now, if I am right in those assumptions,
I would like to know how the Y3, that is to
be paid for by the provincial government, is
made up. If I am right in the assumptions
I have made, the cost to the provincial
government would be in the neighbourhood
of $70 million or y3 of the $210 million.
Now, included in that $70 million, I
presume, is the cost of tuberculosis care at
the present time, and mental care at the
present time. Those costs are in the neigh-
bourhood of $42 million.
Now then, that leaves a balance of say
$28 million. What portion of that $28
million is represented by grants to be made to
municipalities, or indigent care, and what por-
tion of the $28 million is represented by ad-
ministrative costs? These are the specific
questions I have in mind at the present time.
I would like to know exactly how this gov-
ernment breaks down the $70 million over
and above the specific references I have made.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well I do not know that
I could give my hon. friend that information.
928
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
When the supplementary estimate is intro-
duced later, when this is worked out, we
will be able to do that. But there are certain
things that enter into this picture at the
present time. There is the matter of insur-
ing and paying the premium for all the social
service cases. There is that question, that
he mentions, of the medically indigent
person, the person who is not a social service
indigent or case, and for whom the munici-
pality would pay but we would reimburse
the municipality.
As a matter of fact, I do not know the
amount or how, as yet, it will be worked
out— that unconditional grant to the munici-
palities—whether it would be a flat rate, a
grant, or a graded grant. It will depend
upon the work that the commission will do
in evaluating what the costs are.
Then of course there is the mental health
end of it in which we of course will lose
certain revenue. The small amount we
collect in premium is not to be devoted to
hospital care, but is to be devoted to a
research programme designed at keeping
people out of mental hospitals along the
lines that my hon. friends mention here.
As a matter of fact, I think the hon.
Minister of Health will agree that there has
been perhaps much too much emphasis in
the past to the custodial feature, and not
enough to the other feature. Keeping people
out will save us vast amounts of money.
That is the purpose to which we intend
to devote the small premium involved in that
particular matter.
Mr. MacDonald: How much does that
involve?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I forget the amounts, but
I think it is— what is it 20 cents or 30 cents.
Twenty cents for an individual and 30 cents
for a family, I believe — some very small
item anyway. As a matter of fact, all the
mental health costs will be taken care of,
and all the costs in connection with tuber-
culosis will be taken care of.
Mr. MacDonald: That will be something
like $1.25 million.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I mean whatever loss
there is. Our estimate was roughly that it
worked out to about I think 1/3 each way,
as closely as we could figure it out.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, when the hon. Prime Minister says ^,
he acknowledges the fact that this is roughly
$70 million, of which the government of
Ontario at the present time is contributing
at least $50 or $60 million. Is it fair for
the hon. Prime Minster to say that, when he
determined the estimate for provincial contri-
bution to the health services commission in
the amount of $4.6 million, that he was
making as accurate an estimate as he could?
All right, if so, and that is as the hon. Prime
Minister has said, in fairness, I think—
Hon. Mr. Phillips: That is for the first 3
months.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We would multiply that
by 4 and we come up with a figure of $18
million. Likewise either the hon. Minister
or the hon. Prime Minister has told us that
next year the $8 million will not be included
in the supplementary grants, so we deduct
that. So the $8 million is included in the $18
million, if you will. The additional cost would
be in the neighbourhood of $10 million. Now
is that a fair assumption?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well I do not know if I
follow the hon. member.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, what I had hoped
was that we could start with a 70 and work
backwards. If we cannot do that, can we
approach it in a different way? The hon.
Minister has set forth, in his estimate of
The Department of Health, under item No.
514, subsection 10, the amount of $4,625
million as his estimate for the cost of— or
your contribution toward— the hospital com-
mission, for a period of understandably 3
months. Presumably therefore, for a year,
the contribution would be 4 times that, or
$18 million.
Now that, I presume, is this government's
estimate of the cost of this new programme,
over and above the current costs. From that
$18 million, of course we must deduct the
$8 million that the hon. Minister says he will
not contribute next year, or at least in the year
1959, and I would therefore conclude that
the cost of this programme to the province
of Ontario is a difference between $18 million
and $8 million, or $10 million.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well it might be. I would
say to my hon. friend that it is very difficult.
I suppose that his question is: How much
more is it going to cost than at present?
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that that is pretty difficult to calculate,
if he takes that figure of $10 million. It might
MARCH 17, 1958
929
be right. But he must remember that we
would also be relieved of certain costs we
are presently paying.
I read an editorial in the Toronto Daily
Star the other day. It was the last editorial
on the page. I do not know whether the
editorial was written to be critical or not,
but I took it as being complimentary. It said
that a "pretty workmanlike job" had been
done. Now what we are endeavouring to do
frankly is this. We are not looking to find a
great big hole in which to put money with
a pitch fork. We are trying to take vast
sums of money that this province has been
paying, and streamline them into a hospital
insurance plan that will be for the benefit
of everybody.
I would say this to my hon. friend, if we
can keep our expenditures close to what we
are spending at the present time, it will please
us all very, very much.
Now I would like to do that. I am not
looking for a place to throw away money.
Remember we have probably 4.5 million
people in the province at the present time
paying premiums. They are paying premiums
for a partial coverage. Nobody has a complete
coverage at the present time. They are paying
an immense sum of money for a partial
coverage. In the meantime, we are paying
money in all sorts of directions, for tubercu-
losis, mental health, grants to hospitals, and
all sorts of things.
If we can take what we are paying in this
province, and can combine that with the
assistance we get from the federal govern-
ment, and can make a compact insurance
plan that will give our people the coverage
that we envisage, without increasing general
taxation and reducing, as a matter of fact,
the premiums our people are paying and
spread it out over the entire population, I
would call that a workmanlike job. Now I
would say that is the objective.
I would say to my hon. friend, when he
says $10 million, that there are savings that
we will effect other places in the budget-
savings probably in indigent payments and
things of that sort that we are presently pay-
ing for. I would hope myself that we will
be able to bring in a good plan that will just
simply streamline and direct the payments
we are presently making, together with the
payments individuals are making, and out of
that make a good insurance plan.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I think it
is fair to conclude that what the hon. Prime
Minister is saying is that, in all probability,
the estimate of $10 million is too high, and
he would just as soon see it low, and I think
that is true to that extent.
My real concern is this. There has been
a lot of talk that the premium, although it is
lower than we would expect or is currently
being paid to other institutions for similar
types of protection, is in fact not the $4 and
some odd cents per family, but it is really
costing the people of this province 3 times
that. They are, after all, making the contri-
bution toward the provincial government and
the federal government.
Now what I am concerned about is this.
Is it fair to the people of Ontario, to in effect
say to them, now the Ontario government is
going to pay 1/3, the federal government is
going to pay 1/3 and we are going to collect
1/3 from you, and because of that, we set
the premium at the rate we have set?
Would it not be better to reduce the pre-
miums if you can, and assume more of that
cost at the provincial level, for this reason,
that the premium at the present time bears
heavily, there is no question, on the larger
family, on the individual householder? Could
it be spread more equitably?
The hon. Prime Minister will recall very
well, that when these committee meetings
first started, he was not much impressed
with premium collections. The hon. Prime
Minister preferred some other type of con-
tribution. I must in fairness say that I per-
sonally at the outset thought a lot of pre-
mium collections, and thought it was one
means of underwriting this whole scheme
with a minimum of cost to the province.
Personally, my thinking is changing in this
respect, and I would like to know whether
or not there is any truth whatsover to the
rumours that, in due course, within a matter
of one year or two, we will vacate the pre-
mium payment plan for something in the
nature of a sales tax to underwrite and pay
for this cost that is currently being borne by
the people?
Mr. MacDonald: That is what the social
credit in British Columbia did.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Has the hon. Prime
Minister any intention of doing that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Has the government
any intention?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Have the experts sug-
gested that is an inevitable result?
930
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, they have not. As a
matter of fact, there are some people who
have suggested that, particularly from other
places and other provinces, but we have
thought that we could do it this way.
I would say that that was one of the
reasons we carried the point with the federal
government of the interpretation of universal
availability. You can get in the collection
of premiums. It is not the soundness of the
premium system, I mean the theory of
premiums that was wrong. Of course, remem-
ber that these premiums are very heavily
subsidized. The coverage is subsidized to
the extent of % by the provincial and the
federal governments, which is a tremendous
thing. The problem of premium collections
elsewhere, and what has caused the trouble
notably in British Columbia, and I do not
like to mention another province, was the
fact that their premiums were mandatory on
everybody, and therefore you ran up against
an impossibility.
In this case here, we have a very great
deal of flexibility on that matter, and I do
not think that we will run into that problem.
I think that we can avoid it, and I think
that we can do what I think everybody says
is the sound thing to do, and you might ask
Dr. Malcolm Taylor on that point. Dr.
Taylor has always taken the position that a
premium collection, or premium payment, is
one of the sound features, or should be one
of the sound features, of a plan such as this.
I would say that we do not have any
intention of doing that, and I think with
the type of agreement we have, we can make
the premium system work. Furthermore, I
think that the type of agreement we have
negotiated will make it very much easier for
some of the other provinces which would be
faced with difficulties which would be almost
insurmountable if they did not have this
arrangement.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is
one other aspect about which I would like
to ask the hon. Prime Minister. A question.
Does he anticipate that the increase in grants
for hospital beds is going to be sufficient
to increase the availability of hospital beds
to meet the situation after the plan gets into
effect?
Now, may I just spell out a few related
facts here. Out-patient diagnostic services
are not included, which I think is a very
serious defect in the plan. As a matter of
fact, the hon. Prime Minister himself, in the
early stages of committee discussion, intimated
that, too. He said this would be the area
for first expansion.
I hope it will come sooner rather than
later, because until it is included, it simply
means that the federal government does not
share in this cost; we pay the whole cost
ourselves, in the province of Ontario. For
other reasons this is regrettable, for until we
have out-patient diagnostic services, it means
that there will inevitably be a good many
people entering the hospital for diagnostic
treatment that might be kept out, and thereby
reduce the pressure on our limited number
of beds.
The government has increased the grants.
So far, so good. The grant now is $4,000
instead of $2,000. But I point this out to
the hon. Prime Minister that when the grant
of $2,000 per bed was in effect, say 5 or
10 years ago, the cost of the hospital bed
might be $7,000 or $8,000. Now it has
gone up. True the two governments are
paying $4,000, but the cost of the hospital
bed may be $15,000.
It seems to me that the point that we
must look at is not how much the grant is,
but how much remains at the municipal
level. When the cost was $7,000 or $8,000
and the government was getting $2,000 in
grants, the municipality had $5,000 or $6,000
left.
Today the cost is $15,000, and they are
getting $4,000 in grants, so that the amount
left is $11,000.
It still is twice as heavy a burden on the
local authorities to build these hospital beds,
and it would seem to me in light of the
experience in many other jurisdictions that
not enough is being done to make available
sufficient hospital beds, particularly when the
demand will be greater because out-patient
diagnostic services are not included.
I would like the government's comment on
that, either the hon. Minister or the hon.
Prime Minister.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In connection with
diagonistic services I certainly agree with
anything that will lower the time to be spent
in hospital stays. In working it out with the
hospital commission a great problem was this
—it was where to start that particular plan.
As a matter of fact we did look at that
very carefully and I thought myself that
the proper place was to start the diagonistic
services first of all. After we got into it we
found we were really putting the cart before
the horse; that actually speaking it would
be easier to work that system once you got
MARCH 17, 1958
931
the plan in operation than to try and do
it before hand, so I was correct in my
approach. I was wrong in what I thought
about catastrophic illnesses and the way they
would be taken care of. As a matter of fact
there is only one sound way to take care
of them and that is by general plan. Those
things come about evolved in the course of
your dealing with the problem.
The point raised by my hon. friend, in
connection with hospital accommodation I
have no doubt the hon. Minister of Health
can give you this but I think that there is
this feeling on the part of the hospital
services commission and I could be wrong
about this, that the problem really is not
one of active treatment beds, that is highly
specialized beds or treatment beds, but really
it is more of a problem of the convalescent
and chronic beds. Now I again could be
wrong in that, but may I say there have
been very many things done to assist in that
area. Take for instance the building of
homes for the aged, we have been having
an addition of thousands of beds in Ontario,
that in itself is having a very great effect.
My hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Innes)
this afternoon mentioned the matter of TB
hospitals. Now I think that probably what
will come about is this, that certain of those
hospitals will be taken over in their entirety
and they will be made hospitals for con-
valescents. We have already looked at that
in connection with certain of the hospitals in
the Kitchener area. We have looked at that
possibility through the instance of Mr. Lang
and others who are very much interested in
that problem.
I would think myself that that very prob-
ably is where the emphasis should be placed
in the time to come.
What can be done in that regard I do not
know. The steps taken to provide for home
nursing I think is an important feature. You
have to begin in a small way but I think that
is an important feature. I would not want
to get into the controversial area of private
hospitals but it may be that there is an area
in which by regulations private hospitals
could come, which would again very much
reduce the pressure if that can be worked,
on the highly specialized hospital. Those are
the things, I can only say this, that this is a
great plan which has very many difficulties.
There is no doubt about that. Those difficul-
ties can only be worked out with patience
and understanding and the preparedness to
change the plan (on the point of view) if it
becomes necessary to change it.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon. Prime
Minister a final question, going back to
diagnostic services. Apart from the difficulty
of working out a procedure for payment with
the medical association what reason is there
that makes it impossible to include out-patient
diagnostic services immediately?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now it might be possible,
it might be possible to work it out imme-
diately, but I would say Dr. Neilson might
not agree with this.
My hon. friend mentions, for instance, the
medical profession. One of the great problems
in bringing this plan into being was to do
what he suggested to keep the medical profes-
sion as part and parcel and partners of this
plan.
A great many doctors that were very sus-
picious, I think wrongly so, in connection with
diagnostic services— and I would say this, that
perhaps added to our difficulties to change
the order on them. I am talking about the
management of the affairs and men.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, the main
problem is the attitude of the medical
association.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I would not say that;
I would let the hon. Minister of Health speak
for the doctors. I am only a layman, I do
not tread on dangerous ground. Undoubtedly,
there were feelings there which I do not think
were justified, and I think can be satisfactorily
worked out, but in any event it did appear
that it would be easier to work it from a
plan such as the Blue Cross plan, which
covers everybody, and then to work out these
subsidiary matters — to start them first and
work up from that.
Mr. Thomas: I would like to ask the hon.
Prime Minister a question regarding the cost
of indigent care. At the present time of course
as you know, sir, the statutory rate is some-
where between about 5 or 6.25, and whatever
cost to the municipality will be reimbursed I
presume at the end of the year by uncon-
ditional grants, that is what the hon. Prime
Minister said.
Obviously of course the care for the
standard ward care, set down by the commis-
sion, will be higher than the statutory rate.
Which would the municipality pay, the
statutory rate?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, the actual cost.
Mr. Thomas: The actual cost, and then they
would be reimbursed at the end of the year
in the form of unconditional grants.
932
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Oliver: In this statement of the hon.
Prime Minister's this afternoon, that the $200
per bed to public hospitals for maintenance
would not be granted or continued this year.
I want to ask him what the hospitals get, or
what will they get in lieu thereof? It would
seem to me cutting off a grant of $200 a bed
would be quite a bad blow to the hospitals.
What do they get either in the hospitals,
or through the hospital insurance scheme?
What is there in it, that in any measure com-
pensates for the loss of the $200 per bed?
Hon. Mr. Frost: With the hospitals, we
were dealing really with organizations which
were generally speaking insolvent. The hos-
pitals had been losing money for years and
these grants were sort of deferred maintenance
grants to enable them to get their plant and
equipment into reasonably good shape. I
think by and large they have done a very
good job, but again remember they were
really insolvent organizations, the whole 150
of them.
What has happened is this— with this plan
remember there are certain profits now that
they can make.
For instance, they now receive their cost
of doing business. A person goes into a public
ward and they are paid for that, there is no
question about that.
Private rooms and things of that sort pro-
vide, or do in theory, some profit. Now, that
was one of the points of difference with the
hon. Mr. Martin; we felt that the matter of
depreciation should be included in their cost
of operation. Now the federal people felt—
and I am bound to say that they had some
justification for feeling this— that there was a
profit that accrued to the hospitals under this
plan that would enable them to take care of
their own depreciation. I am doubtful about
that myself. On the other hand, I am prepared
to give it a run. I think that sooner or later
—and I think soon— the federal authorities
and the provincial authorities will recognize
some type of depreciation in the cost of doing
business and will enter that into the per bed
cost. I forecast that that will come about. I
think that the cost of administration will be
likewise. I hardly think it arguable that
administration is a matter which should be
excluded from hospital cost. I think it will
be included. There will be some of those
things that will come into the plan as we go
ahead with it. I am satisfied with that.
Mr. Oliver: One more question; it is
related to the one the hon. Premier has been
discussing.
That has to do with the supplementary
vote itself. My hon. friend has said that he
is not going to pay them $200 per bed, but
he has also said that in his opinion or judg-
ment it will be necessary to have a supple-
mentary vote. How are you able to forecast
the supplementary vote and what would it
be for?
Hon. Mr. Frost: As a matter of fact, my
illustrious predecessor had freed me from the
work of making this estimate but I think it
must be agreed that this vote, 514, cannot
be anything more than a guess of what is
involved and, as I say, there are other mat-
ters which will run into this cost and that
is also true, for instance, in connection with
indigents in the Department of Municipal
Affairs estimates It was felt far better to go
ahead and make the estimates, as we have
made them, rather than take them all to
pieces from a number of different points of
view and hypothesis that we would run across
in trying to estimate what would happen on
the first three months of next year. And,
therefore, when I say that I have no doubt
that this matter will have to be taken care
of by a supplementary estimate, I say that
after having been seated with these men
when these estimates were in the course of
preparation— or at least part of the time—
and I would think that this can only be a
reasonably accurate estimate of what is in-
volved. They will be refined as we go ahead.
Mr. Whicher: I would just like to ask the
hon. Prime Minister one further question
along that line.
He said that in the past there were certain
people in the public wards who, of course,
did not pay and now they will pay. I wonder,
if they will be paid for by the municipalities
and reimbursed by the province, but could
they. I wonder if the hon. Minister of Health
could tell us what was the approximate per-
centage of loss by hospitals in Ontario in the
past.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I doubt if we could give
it to you here.
You put it as a percentage lost in our A
hospitals. They receive for indigent patients
$10.25 a day, now that is made up of $6.00
from the municipality, $2.35 plus $1.90 from
the province making a total of $10.25. In our
B hospitals they receive $5.25 per day, plus
$3.36, making a total of $8.66, and then in
our 'C" hospitals $2.80 plus $4.50, so they
did not just get their municipal statutory
grants. Now they may have lost a little, but
.they did not on the whole lose too much.
MARCH 17, 1958
933
And remember, they were paid our grant of
$2.35 for every day of the year regardless
of occupancy.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, that was the
point that I wanted to be fair about, I do
not think the hospitals really did lose very
much and to me it will be extremely doubtful
if the Ontario government does not have to
give $200 per bed next year, because I do
not think there was a great loss by any means.
I know in our own hospital the percentage is
very, very low indeed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon.
Minister what percentage of the population
of Ontario does he think will be enrolled by
the 1st of January, 1959? He must have some
figures.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, the hospital com-
mission has it figured between 80 and 85
per cent., but even if we were a little more
conservative in our estimates it would be
between 75 and 80 per cent., we are quite
sure of that. And that is really being liberal.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the fact that the hospital care is going to be
taken out and taken care of now by premium,
and by the two levels of government, what
about the hospital tax on theatre tickets? Will
it still be continued? What are you going to
do with that? After all, if you are going to
have a hospital plan and it is being taken
care of by the federal and provincial gov-
ernments and premiums, what is the hospital
tax on theatre tickets going to be for now?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it will run into the
provincial share, I would assume. That is
where it would go, to help to pay that $70
million. You have to get it somewhere.
Mr. Whicher: You will be making a profit
before you are through.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, no, no. I should
say not.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is
a question that we were told before the
standing committee on government commis-
sions the other day— or rather before the
health committee, when the hospital commis-
sion was there— was political and beyond their
jurisdiction. I want to put this problem to
the hon. Prime Minister. There is a major
problem in integration of union contracts
with management regarding hospital coverage.
It may be that this hospital coverage is going
to become available at a cheaper price,
resulting in a saving which can be negotiated
either towards the coverage beyond standard
ward, or if conceivably this is already covered,
my question is this: Can this saving be an
item for negotiation either in extended cover-
age or in some other fringe benefit or is this
saving something that management can
pocket? The reason why I ask is this, that I
understand that there is a sort of gentlemen's
agreement that contracts which may run out
at varying times, having no relationship to the
starting date of January 1, 1959, when this
scheme comes into effect; that because of this
running out of contracts at varying times,
there is going to be a difficulty in settling
this in the extraordinary circumstances when
normal rights under the Trade Union Act
are denied. When a contract is normally
opened up, if there are difficulties, which
cannot be settled, a union can go as far as
strike action. Now is there going to be this
normal freedom of negotiation, even though
it may be halfway through a contract, should
differences and difficulties arise in negotiating
the disposition of this saving from hospital
insurance?
Hon. Mr. Frost: It is pretty hard for me
to answer the hon. member for York South,
because it is apparent, that there is a sort
of a hiatus period there. I would think the
tendency in any of them would be to remem-
ber that the hospital services plan is for a
public ward bed. As a matter of fact, most
of these plans cover more than that, and that
is one of the reasons that we have been so
careful to keep alive the Blue Cross and
other organizations which could take care of
that. I have no doubt that there will be
periods of adjustment there. I think that the
tendency will be to give a better coverage,
a more complete coverage, I think that will
be the tendency, but how it would work out
in the balance of individual contracts is
pretty hard to say.
I want to say this to express my own
belief in it. The hon. Minister of Health
has said that at the end of the year, 85 per
cent, of the population would be covered?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Oh no, I said 80.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, the Commission felt
85 per cent., he thought 80; I have not been
as optimistic as that myself, I have been
more cautious than that for the first year.
I think, myself, that perhaps it might be a
lesser number than that, but I certainly think
that in the course of a year or two they
would go beyond the 85 per cent. I think
that is the point, but I doubt that— they may
be able to do it; as a matter of fact, a very
934
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
good organization may be able to do that,
but there are a host of problems to be dealt
with, I can assure you. I express my great
admiration for Mr. Ogilvie and for the
members of the commission, for the hospital
association organization.
They are all very optimistic as to what
they can do and they perhaps have more
grounds for saying they can do it than for
my wonderment that they can go so far in
one year. I do express that, that I have been
cautious on that point.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
did not answer my question, and I want to
assure him that there are a lot of local unions
who are asking this question, and why can-
not there be some clear answer to it? If
there is a saving in hospital insurance, has
the union got the right to negotiate that
saving in terms of extended coverage or if
they now have complete coverage, otherwise
into other fringe benefits?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is a difficult question
to answer, they are all different-
Mr. Child (Wentworth): It's a matter of
negotiation.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, another gentleman
over here says it is a matter of negotiation.
What I am asking is, have they the right to
negotiate? Or are they going to be faced
conceivably with this situation, where
management says, "You got hospital coverage,
it is now going to cost no less than it did
before, but we have the right to pocket it."
Are they going to have the right to negotiate
no matter what stage of the life of their
contract, to negotiate that saving for extended
coverage or another kind of fringe benefit.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I could not give a blanket
answer as to what right there is of negotia-
tion, it depends on the contract, but they all
come up in the course of a very few months
anyway. It is not a very lengthy period in
any event.
Mr. MacDonald: There may be a union
with a contract that started the 1st of January,
1958 and is going to run until the 1st of
January, 1960.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I assume this, that if it is
a matter that there is a public ward coverage
and it is all paid for by management, I
suppose management saves. On the other
hand, if there is a public ward coverage and
it is paid by both parties or paid by some
arrangement of deduction, then the employees
would save. I suppose that would be the
case but on the other hand, I think the hon.
member will find that there are few contracts
like that. I think most of the contracts
provide for some private coverage. I would
have to ask the Blue Cross about that, but I
think that is so, and therefore the coming
in of this plan on a basic arrangement would
still leave it that the residue would have to
be taken care of. Beyond that, I am sorry,
I could not answer the question.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the hon. Minister could give us some indica-
tion as to what would happen in connection
with chaps who are in the hospital under
the Department of Veterans Affairs or the
workmen's compensation?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I must say myself that I
doubt the hon. Minister of Health would have
the information behind this. Why not ask
those questions in the committee on health.
We would be very glad to have the commis-
sion there, and all of these questions can be
explored there, and can be asked and
answered in conversation. It is pretty difficult
to answer these questions.
Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. Prime Minister
know there is a very obvious limitation in
the committee on health. The questions
themselves are not taken down nor are the
questions recorded.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If it would be of assist-
ance, I would be very glad to arrange a time
and place where they would be recorded.
If that is desired, it can be arranged. The
questions about the hospital insurance plan
itself could be asked and dealt with in a
conversational way. I think more ground
would be made that way.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to point this
out, that the way it is going now, there are
three or four committee meetings every
morning and it is impossible to get to them
all, that is all there is to it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will tell you what I will
do. I think the committees end some time
this week, but I can arrange for a day next
week where you will have full play all morn-
ing, how would that be?
Mr. Whicher: That would be very good.
As a matter of fact, I would not want to give
the indication that we did not have a meeting
with the commission, but after listening to
MARCH 17, 1958
935
them explain things, many, many questions
came up that we just did not think about at
the time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, we will arrange that
for next week. There will be a day next week
available.
Mr. Oliver: On that point, if we are going
to agree to this proposition which is, after all,
a reasonable and an understandable one, I
would want to make clearly understood that
there would be a verbatim report of the
questions and the answers.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We will arrange for that.
Vote: 514 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move the
committee rise and report certain resolutions.
Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex South): The
committee of supply begs to report that it
has come to certain resolutions and asks for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee; Mr. Allen in the chair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If there are any of these
points that the hon. members opposite want
to hold up or if they want them held over,
if they just say so, I will do that.
THE CHILD WELFARE ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 90, "An
Act to amend The Child Welfare Act, 1954."
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On Section 3:
Hon. Mr. Cecile: I move that section 2 of
section 64, of that section 3, be amended by
striking out the word "fifteen" and substituting
therefor the word "seven"; by striking out
"fifteen in the seventh line and substituting
the figure "21."
The Chairman: Shall the motion for amend-
ment carry?
Section 3, as amended, agreed to
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 90 reported.
THE MOTHERS' AND DEPENDENT
CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES ACT,
1957
House in committee on Bill No. 104, "An
Act to amend The Mothers' and Dependent
Children's Allowance Act, 1957."
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 104 reported.
THE INDIAN WELFARE SERVICES
ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 105, An
Act to amend the Indian Welfare Services
Act, 1955.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 105 reported.
THE PUBLIC PARKS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 108, An
Act to amend the Public Parks Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 108 reported.
THE PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 109, The
Provincial Parks Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 109 reported.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 112, An
Act to amend the Sheriffs Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 112 reported.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 113, An
Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 113 reported.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 116, An
Act to amend the Judicature Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 116 reported.
936
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 119, An
Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 119 reported.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 120, An
Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Board
Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 120 reported.
THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 121, An
Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 121 reported.
THE HOMES FOR THE AGED ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 122, An
Act to amend the Homes for the Aged Act,
1955.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the new section 24 as contained in
section 2 be amended by striking out the
following words: "the amount of the operating
and maintenance cost" in the fifth and sixth
lines and substituting the words "any oper-
ating or maintenance costs" so that the
section shall read— "they shall be paid monthly
out of the money appropriated therefor by
the legislature to the treasurer of every home
and joint home an amount equal to the per-
centage prescribed in the regulations of any
operating or maintenance cost of the home
or joint home computed in the manner
prescribed in the regulations."
The explanation for that is the amendment
is simply to widen the scope of the language
to insure that the necessary regulations may
be made.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Chairman, again in
section 3, I move that the new clause E be
amended by striking out the words — "the
amount of the operating and maintenance
cost" in the first and second lines and sub-
stituting the following words: "any operating
and maintenance costs" and that the clause
shall read— "prescribing the percentage of any
operating and maintenance costs of homes
and joint homes that will be paid by the
province under section 24." The same reason
as before is alleged, to enlarge the scope of
the language and insure the necessary regu-
lations may be made.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Sections, as amended, agreed to.
Bill No. 122 reported.
THE TIME ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 136, The
Time Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 136 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the committee rise
and report certain bills with and certain bills
without amendment, and asks for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The Chairman of the committee of the
whole begs to report certain bills without
amendment and certain bills with amendment
and asks for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, I think
perhaps I can give my hon. friends opposite
the programme for this week, provided they
do not hold me too tightly to this. I will do
my best to live up to this arrangement.
Tomorrow there will not be a night session,
and if possible, if the House could adjourn
about 5:30 I think it would help the gentle-
men of the press.
Tomorrow, at 2:00 o'clock, there will be
the unveiling of Mr. Hepburn's portrait. Mrs.
Hepburn has very kindly consented to come
and perform that. Now I think the method
of operation will be for you, Mr. Speaker,
after the prayers to adjourn the House at
pleasure, which will enable the unveiling to
be carried out and then carry on with the
ordinary routine following that.
MARCH 17, 1958
937
The first order of business will be the
estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
If there is any time, we might take in some
of the bills on the order paper, or addresses
if there is sufficient time. I endeavoured to
get one of the hon. members on this after-
noon but the time went by too quickly. If
it is possible to work in an address by a
member, then we will do it.
On Wednesday, there will be a night
session. First the estimates of the Depart-
ment of Highways and then the Department
of Transport which will be run together and
in the evening, bills and either budget or
Throne debate. On Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.,
if it is agreeable with my hon. friends
opposite, the conclusion of the Throne debate
—the speeches in conclusion and the vote.
Now I say if that is not satisfactory, that
date can be moved on and we can take up
other business. Following that, the estimates
of the Department of Lands and Forests and
the Department of Planning and Develop-
ment.
Friday morning at 10:30, the estimates of
the Department of Travel and Publicity,
followed by bills and debate.
I am very anxious that all of the orders
on the order paper should be called including
the public bills and orders and resolutions,
and I have been endeavouring to work in
time for that. I would think as I intimated
to my hon. friend earlier this afternoon, that
this House would have to rise, whether it
prorogued or not by a week from Thursday,
otherwise some of the hon. members who
live at great distances may be deprived of
their vote on the 31st day of March.
I think that next week, of course, we
would have night sessions on Monday,
Tuesday and Wednesday, which ought to
give every one the opportunity to speak on
all of the issues and I think also give an
opportunity for committee meetings.
Now I say that if the business of the
House is not completed by the 27th of March,
then of course we can meet the following
week or wait until after Easter. That I
think is the situation. I am very anxious
not to curtail the opportunities of members to
speak and I think by following this order
we can get in a good amount of work in any
event.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
This House stands adjourned until 2:00
of the clock, tomorrow afternoon.
The House was adjourned at 6:05 of the
clock, p.m.
No. 37
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
Beuatea
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, March 18, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 18, 1958
Final report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Maloney 941
Report, standing committee on health, Mr. McCue 941
Second report, standing committee on municipal law, Mr. Rankin 941
Second report, standing committee on agriculture, Mr. W. E. Johnston 941
Presenting reports, Mr. Dunbar 941
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, 1957,
bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 941
Public Hospitals Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 942
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, first reading 942
Trench Excavators Protection Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Daley, first reading 942
Rehabilitation Services Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 942
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 942
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 943
Child Welfare Act, 1954, bill to amend, third reading 944
Mothers' and Dependent Children's Allowances Act, 1957, bill to amend, third reading .... 944
Indian Welfare Services Act, 1955, bill to amend, third reading 944
Public Parks Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Judicature Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Public Utilities Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Local Improvement Act, bill to amend, third reading 944
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, third reading 944
Time Act, 1958, bill to amend, third reading 944
Estimates, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Goodfellow 944
Charitable Institutions Act, 1956, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 962
Tile Drainage Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 962
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading ..'. 962
Public Commercial Vehicles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading 962
Public Vehicles Act, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading 962
Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading .... 963
Female Refuges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 963
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 963
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 963
Extension of the municipal franchise, bill to provide, Mr. Warrender, second reading 963
Financial Administration Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 963
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 963
St. Peter's Church, Brockville, bill respecting, reported 963
St. Michael's College, bill respecting, reported 963
Society of directors of municipal recreation in Ontario, bill to incorporate, reported 963
Town of Almonte, bill respecting, reported 964
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, reported 964
Coroners Act, bill to amend, reported 964
Police Act, bill to amend, reported 964
Corporations Tax Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 964
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 964
941
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 18, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Before we ask for the next
order may I announce that the committee
on game and fish will not meet tomorrow.
The notices are on hon. members' desks, but
disregard those notices— the committee will
not meet.
Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. Maloney, from
the standing committee on private bills, pre-
sents the committee's eighth and final report
and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 42, An Act respecting the town
of Eastview.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. J. A. McCue, from
the standing committee on health, presents
the committee's report and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 100, An Act to amend The Sana-
toria for Consumptives Act.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. D. J. Rankin,
from the standing committee on municipal
law, presents the committee's second report
and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. 143, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Act.
Your committee also begs to report the
following bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. 142, An Act to amend The Assess-
ment Act.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. E. Johnston
(Carleton), from the standing committee
on agriculture, presents the committee's sec-
ond report and moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the following
bills without amendment:
Bill No. 127, An Act to regulate the storage
of farm produce in grain elevators.
Bill No. 146, The Veterinarians Act, 1958.
Your committee begs to report the following
bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. 125, An Act to amend The Milk
Industry Act, 1957.
Bill No. 126, An Act to amend The Farm
Products Marketing Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
1. Twenty-fourth annual report of The
Department of Municipal Affairs for the year
ending December 31, 1957.
2. The 1956 statement of the returns under
sections 235 and 241 of The Municipal Act
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT, 1957
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act,
1957."
i
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: There are several amendments here
which are not too significant, but there are
two or three I should like to draw atten-
tion to. One is that by-laws are considered
unduly formal for the transaction of the
commission's business; it is, therefore, pro-
posed that they may also do their business
by resolution.
Another subsection makes it an offence for
a person to contravene an order of the com-
mission with respect to the collection, produc-
tion, treatment and so on of water for public
purposes.
The commission has broadened the super-
vision of all surface and ground waters used
942
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as a source of water supply, and the examina-
tion of all surface and ground waters for
pollution. An amendment also:
Provides for the control by the commission
of water works undertaken without the re-
quired approval of the commission.
Requires that the commission be advised
of the location of the waters into which it is
proposed to discharge sewage when the ap-
proval of sewage works is stopped.
Provides for the prorating of payment by
municipalities to the commission under agree-
ments where there is more than one agreement
in respect to the same project.
Regarding section 41 of the Act, this sub-
section is rewritten to extend the authority
the municipality now has, to impose a rate
to pay for sewage work and sewage service,
to include water works and water service and
to make the same formula apply to both.
THE PUBLIC HOSPITALS ACT, 1957
Hon. M. Phillips moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Public
Hospitals Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 29 of The
Public Hospitals Act, 1957, is being amended
so that in case of indigent patients, where the
municipality pays the hospital bill, or if the
patient should die, the municipality also pays
the funeral expenses.
The municipality could collect from any
person liable in law, with respect to such
dependent, or if the deceased had any estate,
the municipality could collect either or both
the hospital and the funeral expenses.
Proclamation of this bill will likely not be
before January 1, 1959. We have deleted the
part where they can collect the hospital bill,
because the new hospital insurance plan will
be in by that time, and after proclamation
the municipality will be able to collect only
funeral expenses and the hospital commis-
sion will pay the other expenses.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES COMMISSION
ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Phillips moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Commission Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: I would like to ask permission of
the House to give this first reading, and
before next Tuesday, second reading, and at
9.30 a.m. next Tuesday morning, as the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) said yesterday,
there will be no committee meetings, and
therefore we have decided to meet in these
chambers at 9.30 Tuesday morning next, and
the hon. Prime Minister also promised the
proceedings would be taken down by a sec-
retary or Hansard, so we will use the same
system as we use here in the House and
everything will be reported. I hope the
House will go along with our thinking.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that at
that time we will have the officials of the
hospital commission here, along with their
solicitors, to answer all questions.
THE TRENCH EXCAVATORS
PROTECTION ACT, 1954
Hon. C. Daley moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Trench Ex-
cavators Protection Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to, first reading of the bill.
He said: This is a very short Act, and it
endeavours to clarify the word "trench," re-
defining it as to its intent.
In a recent case in court, a magistrate
indicated that the language was not suffi-
ciently clear for him to render his decision.
There are two other sections which extend
the exclusions from the Act and the duty of
the owner or contractor to cause a trench
to be inspected at least once a day.
THE REHABILITATION SERVICES ACT,
1955
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Rehabili-
tation Services Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to, first reading of the bill.
He said: In this Act, as in the other Acts,
concerning old age assistance, blind, and
disabled, the administrative officers are re-
defined to correspond with departmental
practice.
THE CROWN ATTORNEYS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act."
Motion agreed to, first reading of the bill.
He said: This amendment extends the
authority which already exists for responsi-
MARCH 18, 1958
943
bility for payment of fees and allowances for
Crown attorneys, in cases where there is a
fine, to cases where imprisonment is the
sentence without the option of a fine.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Summary
Convictions Act."
Motion agreed to, first reading of the bill.
He said: This bill extends the time for
service of a summons under The Highway
Traffic Act from 15 days to 21 days, and is
considered advisable in view of the new
procedure under The Highway Traffic Act
for summoning the driver of the car.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome to the House this
afternoon students from the York Memorial
Collegiate Institute of this city.
Hon. M. Phillips (Minister of Health):
Before the orders of the day, I would like
to give answers to two questions which were
asked of me yesterday, and one of which, at
the time, I stated that I did not have the
vital statistics with me and therefore could
not give the answers.
I think the question was asked by the hon.
member for Oxford (Mr. Innes), as to how
many people per 100,000 died from heart
trouble, cancer, and so on. I promised at
that time to give to the House the figures for
5 or 6 of what we might call the worst
killers.
These are the statistics from 1952 to 1956
which include all ages.
Vital Statistics
Annual specific
death rate
per 100,000
1952-1956 (all ages) population
Diseases of the heart 333
Cancer 138
Vascular lesions of the central
nervous system, mostly cerebral
haemorrhage or so-called strokes 117
Accidental causes 59
Pneumonia, bronchitis and
influenza 38
Now the second thing, the hon. member
for Kenora (Mr. Wren) was quite persistent
regarding what graduates of schools in Ire-
land had to do in Canada regarding interne-
ship before they could practice. This covers
all physicians from outside of Canada, that
is, from approved schools in medicine only.
Requirements of Physicians from Outside
of Canada to Practice in Canada
1. The United Kingdom including Northern
Ireland, and United States, required to pass
our Dominion Council examinations and pay
the fees.
As regards the above, they must have
graduated from an approved school of medi-
cine, and have had at least one year's interne-
ship.
2. Southern Ireland, which does not belong
to the United Kingdom, must, after April
12, 1958, have a two-year interneship, the
same as all foreign nations.
Before any physician can obtain a licence
to practice medicine in Canada, he must have
passed his basic scientific subjects, which
are:
English, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry,
pathology, bacteriology, and pharmacology,
along with the other very necessary subjects,
such as medicine, surgery, obstetrics, gynae-
cology, and so on.
I think that will clarify the matter but I
may say to the hon. member this does not
come along until April 12, but the council
does not sit until June so the law might as well
be announced.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make a small but
rather important correction in the Hansard
record. On page 670 of Hansard of last
Monday, March 10, and again on page 696 of
the Hansard of Tuesday, March 11, in refer-
ence to the price which was paid by Mr. R.
K. Farris, for the shares he got in the private
distribution of Northern Ontario Natural
Gas, it was 4/5 of a cent which is recorded
in Hansard as $0.08. Now when I went to
school that would be '8 cents, not 4/5 of a
cent. I think it should be $0,008. Since the
verbal text reads 4/5 of a cent, anyone who
examined it carefully would be puzzled as
to how we figure our mathematics here.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Does the hon. member mean to say that it
is not what he said there?
Mr. MacDonald: No, no, in Hansard.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Oh, I would put another
"0" in for the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: At the beginning of the
session we had a few complaints about the
Hansard, and I would just like to say now,
as this is about the only opportunity I will
have of saying it, that we have had fewer
complaints regarding Hansard up to the date
944
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of this session than at any time during the
period that I have been Speaker, so that the
new system is working out fairly satisfactorily.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing, upon motions:
Bill No. 90, An Act to amend The Child
Welfare Act, 1954.
Bill No. 104, An Act to amend The
Mothers' and Dependent Children's Allow-
ances Act, 1957.
Bill No. 105, An Act to amend The In-
dian Welfare Services Act, 1955.
Bill No. 108, An Act to amend The Public
Parks Act.
Bill No. 109, The Provincial Parks Act,
1958.
Bill No. 112, An Act to amend The Sheriffs
Act.
Bill No. 113, An Act to amend The Fire
Departments Act.
Bill No. 116, An Act to amend The Judi-
cature Act.
Bill No. 119, An Act to amend The Public
Utilities Act.
Bill No. 120, An Act to amend The
Ontario Municipal Board Act.
Bill No. 121, An Act to amend The Local
Improvement Act.
Bill No. 122, An Act to amend The Homes
For The Aged Act, 1955.
Bill No. 136, The Time Act, 1958.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do
now pass and be intituled as in the motions.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Speaker, I move that you now leave the
chair and the House resolve into committee
of supply.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): In
seconding that motion may I say that this
is the night of the press dinner, and on the
completion of this estimate-that is, if there
is any time left over— I suggest we deal with
some matters on the order paper which are
purely routine. I might say to the press that
I will not deal with anything that might be
termed newsworthy, so they will not have to
stay in the news press gallery. There are a
number of routine matters here for instance,
in, say, private bills and things of that nature,
which we might clear up and which would
not necessitate them staying if we had a few
minutes to clear up those items.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
On vote 101:
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture): Mr. Chairman, in presenting the
estimates of The Department of Agriculture
to the House, perhaps I should elaborate for
a short time on some of the activities of the
department, and to point out to the hon.
members that, for the most part, The Depart-
ment of Agriculture, as I see it, is a service
department, giving service to the farm people
in the province of Ontario, in order that they
might be able to do a better job for them-
selves.
I think that, as a farmer, I know farmers
reasonably well, and I am always proud to
belong to that profession if for no other
reason than that farmers are perhaps the least
demanding of government of any group in
the community, in respect to handouts and
assistance. Agriculture is going through chang-
ing times, and an evolution is taking place
in agriculture which perhaps has not kept pace
with the changes which have taken place in
the industrial revolution in this province and
in this Canada of ours in the past few years.
I have sufficient faith in the farm people
of Ontario to believe that they will adjust
themselves to these changes, and I say to the
hon. members this afternoon that they are
fast adjusting themselves, and I believe that
agriculture is again on the road to a place
where it will play its part as perhaps the
most important basic industry of our province.
I think the hon. members will agree with
me that, in this change taking place in our
economy— with mechanization particularly—
there will be fewer farmers in the years
ahead, but these fewer farmers, through
adopting modern methods, will be more
efficient and produce more than the farmers
we have at the present time. I think that,
Mr. Chairman, is bound to be the case.
I see the farmer of tomorrow to be a suc-
cessful farmer. He will need more and more
qualifications in order to meet the changes
which are taking place in our economy.
One of the most gratifying aspects of the
work, which is being carried on by The
Department of Agriculture, is the interest
being shown and the leadership being given
towards encouraging our young farm people
to take an interest in agriculture, which is
evident in the ever-increasing number of
farm boys and girls who are participating in
projects of the 4-H clubs.
MARCH 18, 1958
945
When we consider the number of farmers
we have in this province, in the neighbour-
hood of 140,000, last year nearly 23,000
farm boys and girls were engaged in 4-H
club activities.
In addition to that there were the seniors,
the young men and young women— I think
that they would like to be called that— who
were engaged in junior farmer activities.
Nearly 7,000 young people were engaged in
junior farmer activities.
In other words, nearly 30,000 young
people in this province were in the club
activities through 4-H club work and junior
farmers last year.
It is also gratifying to note that the attend-
ance at our colleges and agricultural schools
is on the increase. I think possibly I might
point out, to the hon. members, to give some
idea of the numbers we have enrolled in the
colleges and the schools which are conducted
under the administration of The Department
of Agriculture, that we have 146 enrolled in
the so-called diploma courses in Guelph, at
the Ontario Agricultural College this year. In
the degree course we have this year 465.
This means that we have over 600 enrolled
at the Ontario Agricultural College this year
in the degree course and the diploma course.
I might say that in the first-year degree
course this year, there are 146 enrolled, com-
pared to 100 who are in the second-year
course at the college at this time.
At the MacDonald Institute, the enrolment
is quite static there, at just about 200 who
are attending at the present time.
The Ontario Veterinary College is enrolled
to its capacity. As a matter of fact, with
the large administration and technical con-
struction programme which will be completed
this year at the Ontario Veterinary College, it
is anticipated that the enrolment will be much
larger next year. We have, in the 5-year
course at the Veterinary College this year,
276 students.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Does the hon.
Minister know how many of those are from
outside of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: No, but I think I can
get that for the hon. member for Brant. I
think possibly, in the estimates, we deal with
that item, and I would be very glad to get
that information for the hon. member.
In the more practical field of agricultural
education, at Kemptville we have this year
enrolled 98 students, who are taking eco-
nomics. I might say in the junior year at
Kemptville, this year, there are 45, and in the
senior year 28, which shows a very marked
increase and interest on the part of the farm
people for the most of eastern Ontario in the
work which is being carried on at the Kempt-
ville Agricultural School.
At Ridgetown there is another school, which
is doing a splendid job for agriculture in west-
ern Ontario, particularly southwestern On-
tario where we have a more specialized type
of crop production. In first year at Ridge-
town, this year, there are 71, and in the
second year there are 57, a total of 128, which
shows a marked increase in the interest as
evidenced by the enrolment there this year.
I think one thing we must recognize is that
in the 4-H club and junior farmers' organiza-
tion in the province, we have nearly 30,000,
in addition to these young people who are
enrolled in our colleges and our schools. So
here we have the nucleus for the farm leaders
of tomorrow. And they are going to be needed,
with the more complicated type of agriculture
with which they will be confronted, compared
even to what farmers are confronted with in
the province at the present time. These things
are very gratifying indeed.
Mr. Chairman, it will not be possible for
me to go into the many activities of The
Department of Agriculture which are spread
across this province of Ontario, but I would
like to dwell for a few minutes briefly on
several of what I consider important factors
in agriculture, and I refer to research, exten-
sion, management, production, quality, and
marketing.
Since I spoke at some length earlier in
the Throne debate on marketing, it is not
my intention to discuss that matter further
this afternoon.
I would like to say, though, that research
is absolutely essential in modern-day agricul-
ture. I believe we have, in the Ontario Agri-
cultural College and the Ontario Veterinary
College, facilities which are second to none
in any jurisdiction, and we are indeed lucky,
so far as our industry is concerned, that we
have these institutions which are doing an
outstanding job and are training the research
specialists of the future.
I might say that recognizing the importance
of research in agriculture— and I want to give
due credit to my predecessor, the late
"Tommy" Thomas, and also to the hon. mem-
ber for Peel (Mr. Kennedy) in their foresight
in bringing to the attention of the govern-
ment the importance of enlarging and expand-
ing the services at these institutions— that a
very comprehensive building programme is
taking place at the Ontario Agricultural Col-
lege, at the Veterinary College, and at Mac-
946
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Donald Institute. The new soils building
alone, which will soon be opened at Guelph,
will be able to handle 100,000 soil samples
a year, to assist the farmers of this province
in analyzing the soil, so that they will be
better able to govern their planting of the
proper types of crops and also the feeding
of the soil as will be indicated in the
surveys.
Research is indeed very important. We
have at the Ontario Agricultural College a
very comprehensive research programme. I
might say at the present time there are over
250 research projects under way.
We are at the present conducting in Guelph
a soil survey which will cover the entire
province of Ontario. Up to the present time,
the soil surveys have been completed in
11 counties in the province, and it is the
intention of the department and the college
to carry that work forward, so that we will
have the very necessary soil survey wher-
ever agriculture is conducted in the province
of Ontario.
I might say that research is tied in very
closely with extension. We must have those
who are engaged in research, but research
by itself is of little use unless we have the
extension services to carry that work from
the laboratory to the farmer in the practical
application.
I think possibly, as a department, we are
as fortunate as any department, inasmuch
as we are able to enlist into our department
graduates from the colleges at Guelph who
become the extension people to carry on
and assist the farmers in this province, and
to carry the laboratory work at Guelph into
the practical application on the farm.
For the most part our extension men,
before they attended the college, came from
the farm. They had a background of prac-
tical experience which, with the training
which they received at Guelph puts them
in a position where they are able to render
a great service.
They understand the farmers' problems
and they try to assist wherever possible,
without trying to give the farmers the idea
or the impression that they are trying to
force anything on them, rather they are just
there to assist.
We have at the present time, in the prov-
ince, 54 agricultural representatives, 13 asso-
ciates, and 17 assistants. We have 42 exten-
sion workers in the home economics branch of
the department, we have 15 agricultural
engineers who are assisting the farmers with
farm building, drainage, and what-have-you.
We have 11 fruit and vegetable field men
who are specialists in their own particular
line.
I might say to the hon. members that it
is our intention, believing and knowing as
we do the importance of having an adequate
staff to assist the farmers, and assist agricul-
ture in this province, to increase the number
of these extension workers, as required,
across the province of Ontario. I believe
it is money well spent, and that it will work
in the future interests of the agricultural
economy of the province.
I just want to point out that we are asked
very often what we consider to be the most
important factor in farming. I do not think
there is any particular factor more important
than any other. There is no doubt that
research and extension are basic, but pro-
duction is also very important. We have
many programmes which are carried on to
assist the farmers in increasing production
in their own particular line of farming.
I might refer to one, dairy herd improve-
ment, which is carried on across this province.
This has been found possible, from 1950 to
1956, in spite of the fact that Ontario's dairy
cattle population decreased by 225,000, to
increase the actual production of milk in the
province of Ontario by 400,000 pounds.
I think that, Mr. Chairman, is important,
and can be attributed to better feeding, better
breeding and culling in respect to the live-
stock industry insofar as dairying is con-
cerned. I think among the most important
projects which have been under way in this
province to increase production, to get more
efficient production, are the dairy herd
improvement plan and the artificial insemina-
tion work which has been carried on and
which actually is comparatively new in the
province of Ontario.
Some of the hon. members might remem-
ber when the first artificial insemination Act
was introduced in this House, in the session
of 1947. Last year, 1957, there was a total
cow and heifer population in this province of
approximately 1.3 million, and out of that
number 356,000 were bred artificially, which
represents approximately 27 per cent, of the
total female herd population in the province.
We have figures, compiled by the
economics branch of the department, of the
improvements which have been noted under
The Dairy Herd Improvement Act. I would
like to point out that, in the survey, which
gave comparisons in the county of Halton
from 1951 until 1956-1957, taking the same
41 herds which originally came in under the
MARCH 18, 1958
947
improvement plan, the total returns per herd
in 1951-1952 amounted to $7,644; and in
1956-1957, $9,626.
I might say the most of that not only
can be attributed to increased production due
to culling, from the information which they
deducted from the test, but also to better
feeding methods, and making a very close
check on the feed that was consumed per cow
in comparison to the production per cow.
Quality is equally essential. Production in
itself is of little value because what the con-
sumer is most interested in is the quality of
the product. I think we farm people must
persistently try to improve the quality of the
farm products which we offer to the consum-
ing public. I think it is just as essential, per-
haps more essential, than production itself,
to always work to improve our livestock that
we are marketing, our dairy products, poultry
products, fruits, vegetables, and so on.
Although our various Acts control grading
and quality, and although we are making
steps toward improvement, I do feel that we
have a long way to go, and it is something
that we cannot force farmers to do overnight.
I think it is more a matter of education than
it is of establishing rigid rules and regula-
tions in connection with grades and quality.
Although it is essential that we have controls,
I think we at all times should try to point out
to the farmers the importance of marketing
a good quality product.
Possibly one of the things we have given
only secondary consideration to, as farmers,
is farm management. I have been convinced
for a great many years— and I only go back
to my own experience in farming— that farm
management is very important.
Personally, I am one who was never over-
possesed with ambition. I always tried to
figure ways and means to let somebody else
do the work, and do as much figuring as I
could myself. I found, from the time I first
started farming, that the set of books I
established was the most profitable operation
I had. I am convinced that the importance
of good farm management is something we
must put across to the farm people in Ontario.
We are striving to do that. I want to pay
tribute to the agricultural representative in
Bruce county (Mr. Gear), who has taken a
great interest in this particular factor in agri-
culture. He has developed a farm manage-
ment course up there, and I might say he has
been in the office and discussed this with
myself and the officials, and it is something
that we are going to try to extend across the
province, through our extension services, to
try to put across to the farm people the
importance of better farm management.
I care not how long a man works or how
hard he works, if he does not work to good
advantage, he cannot succeed. I have never
seen one yet, who has not put his time and
his effort to good advantage, who has been
too successful. This is something we do
intend to promote, because I think it is most
important to the future of agriculture, parti-
cularly in this day and age in which we live,
with the investment which a farmer has in
his stock and the equipment on his farm. He
must pay more attention to his set of books
in the years ahead.
It is interesting to note, though, that the
demand on the department of economics at
Guelph and our own department, for the
farm accounting book to the farmers in this
province, has passed the 10,000 mark per
year. At least, we know there are at least
10,000 farmers who are keeping account of
their farming operation, and I have reason
to believe that a great many others are keep-
ing books of one sort or another on their own.
I would like to say a few words about a
few of the so-called facets attached to The
Department of Agriculture. I want to pay
tribute to the hon. member for Peel, who
perhaps is primarily responsible for the build-
ing and developing of the Ontario food ter-
minal in west Toronto. I must say I have
been out there on several occasions, and from
the many reports that we receive, it has
meant a great deal to the orderly marketing
of fruits and vegetables in the province of
Ontario.
It is being very well operated as the hon.
members are aware. It is a proposition that
will soon pay for itself, and we always like to
have those types of operations in government
where a project will take care of itself even-
tually. The board is doing a good job, and it
is certainly worth the time of any hon. mem-
ber to go out there, especially in the summer
time, in the early morning around 4.30 to 5
o'clock, and see the operation at the Ontario
food terminal in west Toronto.
We derive a great deal of satisfaction from
the operation of the Ontario stock yards. I be-
lieve in Fred Campbell we have an outstand-
ing manager with a competent board. He is
doing a good job on behalf of the farmers of
Ontario, those who avail themselves of the
marketing facilities at the Ontario stock yards.
Those yards belong to the farmers, and I
might say that, in spite of a great deal of
pressure which is brought to bear by many
elements who have something to do with the
948
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
stock yards, I believe that those stock yards
primarily belong to the farmers. It is a place
where they can market their livestock to
better advantage, and I think the farmers are
quite competent to run the Ontario stock
yards.
I might mention the Ontario telephone
authority. The hon. leader of the Opposition
( Mr. Oliver ) brought up the matter when we
were discussing amendments to The Tele-
phone Act. The Ontario telephone authority,
as the hon. members of this House who were
here in 1953 will remember at the time the
new Telephone Act was brought down, was
set up to assist telephone companies. I be-
lieve on the whole, the authority has been of
assistance to the independent telephone
companies in the province.
In 1954 they were operating in the prov-
ince of Ontario, at least they were supposed
to be operating, some 465 independent tele-
phone systems representing some 176,000
telephones.
From 1954 to 1957 the number of systems
has been reduced by amalgamations and
mergers, and some have closed out and have
been taken over by other systems because
they simply could not continue to operate
on their own any longer. Instead of the 465
systems in 1954 there are only 347 systems
at the present time.
I think the authority can take a great deal
of credit for assisting these small independent
telephone companies to get together and
amalgamate in their own interests, in order
to have a more efficient operation. I might
say the remaining 347 independent telephone
systems in the province, which is more than
100 less than there was 4 years ago, are
handling approximately the same number of
telephones as there were when there was
over 100 more systems. That is due to the
expansion that has taken place, and more
people are availing themselves of the services
offered by the independent companies.
The telephone authority was established to
serve these small independent systems in the
province. It is a service the government pro-
vides for them, and I must say that I get
many favourable reports from the work which
is accomplished by the staff of the telephone
authority, in connection with engineering and
assisting them in laying out lines and improv-
ing their existing switchboards, and also
giving them advice in connection with financ-
ing extensions and financing their operations.
Mr. Nixon: Could the hon. Minister tell us
how many of the independents have been
taken over by the Bell Telephone Company?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Yes, I have that
here. During the years 1954 to 1957, 104
independent systems have merged or ceased
to operate. Negotiation for the sale of several
more have been completed. Of the 104
systems sold, merged and so on, 65 systems
have been taken over by the Bell Telephone
Company; 39 independent systems have been
merged or sold to other independent systems.
I think that is a trend of the times. Perhaps
we should have had a telephone authority
many years ago, perhaps 40 or 50 years ago,
before the Bell Telephone Company became
so well established in the province of Ontario.
The independents find it most difficult to
compete with the Bell Telephone Company
because apparently the most remunerative
phase of telephone work is the long distance
tolls that they collect.
The hon. member for Lambton East (Mr.
Janes) is much more conversant with this
than I am. As a matter of fact, I often consult
him on matters which arise in connection
with telephone affairs, because he has long
been connected with an independent tele-
phone company and is quite an authority on
them. He has been of great assistance. His
advice is very much appreciated.
I might say, in connection with the Junior
Farmer Establishment Loan Corporation,
which was established by an Act of this
Legislature in 1952, that I believe it has
served a very useful purpose in assisting young
farmers to get established in the province. It
was established to assist young' men between
the ages of 21 and 35, who have had 3 years'
experience in farming, and who intend to
pursue agriculture on a full-time basis.
I might say up until February 18, 1958,
there have been some 2,634 loans granted,
which involved an outlay of over $18 million.
It is very gratifying to know that, in spite of
the fact we hear so much about agriculture
not being prosperous today, almost all
of these young men have been able to meet
their payments on time.
The fact there are only a few, I believe,
who have not, is due to the fact that the
board has screened them very carefully. I
might say though, I gathered the hon. leader
of the Opposition seems to approve the fact
that they have been screened very closely.
In the initial stage, in the first year of
operation, I find that over 50 per cent, of the
applications were refused. I find that in 1954,
for instance, approximately 45 per cent, were
refused. I find in 1954 only 32 per cent, were
refused. I find that last year only 31 per cent
were refused.
MARCH 18, 1958
949
Last year I might say was the largest year
in respect to applications, and also in respect
to the amount of loans that were made, which
amounted to over $4 million.
I do believe though that the board has to
screen these applications very carefully. Per-
sonally, I have, just for my own information
and satisfaction, gone over many of these
applications myself, and I would say for the
most part, those which have been refused by
the farm loan board are not ones that I
or hon. members of this House would make
loans to from their own private bank account.
I think we are not doing a service to the
young farmer when we encourage him to get
himself in debt by granting him a loan, unless
we are pretty sure that he intends to devote
his life to agriculture, and that he has suffici-
ent stock and equipment to get started.
One thing that does please me is the fact
that the federal government seems to be
showing more interest, from what one would
gather, in the federal farm loans, because I
believe that farm credit is a field which should
be taken care of by the federal government—
that is, farm loans and credit to farmers, not
for one province, but for Canada as a whole.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to dis-
cuss contract farming this afternoon. I do
not know anything about contract farming,
although I will say this to hon. members of
of the House, that we are arranging to make
our agricultural representatives conversant
with contract farming agreements across the
province of Ontario.
I remember many years ago that I signed
a contract to produce canning crops, and
after growing them for two years I did not
do too well. The third year, I took a good
look at the canning crop agreement which
I was about to sign, and after seeing all the
small print on it, I decided that I would
grow no more canning crops until that par-
ticular type of agreement was in larger type,
and a little more beneficial to the farmer
himself.
I think possibly that our agricultural rep-
resentatives can be of assistance to farmers
if they wish to consult them, as our repre-
sentatives become conversant with the various
agreements concerned in contract farming.
I imagine contract farming is here to stay
to some extent. I remember that, when I
was trying to get established on the farm,
many times I had a drover who supplied me
with pigs at weaning time, and I remember
a few years ago when I found it very helpful
to be able to go to a feed store and get credit
for feed.
I do not see too much difference between
some of the so-called contract farming agree-
ments we have at the present time and the
type of operations some of us carried on
years ago when we were trying to get estab-
lished on the farm.
I believe that the co-operatives are doing
a great job in this province in assisting farm-
ers to purchase feeds and supplies, and
there is a possibility that co-operatives them-
selves may get into contract farming to some
extent. But I still feel that farmers are in-
dividualists, and that unless circumstances
demand, they are going to operate on their
own, and finance their own operations, and
will keep as far removed from contract
farming as possible if for nothing else than
to preserve their independence.
There are hon. members in this House who
are doing contract farming, and they tell me
they have more of a sense of security than
they did when they were strictly on their
own. So this is a subject open to argument
and controversy, and I am not well enough
versed in it to be able to expound whether or
not it is a good thing. But hon. members have
only to read some of the United States farm
periodicals to realize that it is getting a
hold in the United States to such an extent
that, in some of the poor southeastern agri-
cultural states, contract farming is going over
in a big way. In fact, some of the more pros-
perous mid-western agricultural states are
wondering if they are not going to have to
adopt contract farming in order to keep pace
with this increasing production in the poorer
agricultural states along the Atlantic sea-
board.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend
to discuss marketing at this point. It is
important, but in my opinion no more
important than some of the other matters
which I have mentioned in connection with
agriculture in this province, namely research,
extensions, farm management production, and
quality.
In some of the matters which I mentioned
in my remarks to the House last year, in
bringing down the estimates of this depart-
ment, I was a bit critical of the federal gov-
ernment. I assure the hon. members it was
not for political purposes.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Is the hon. Minis-
ter still critical of them?
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North): Of
everybody but the farmers.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: There was a motion
before this House that we should set up a
950
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
price spread committee of inquiry. At that
time, I expressed the view that I felt, in
order to be effective, the only price spread
inquiry that could be carried on to any effect
would need to be Canada-wide.
I am pleased that the government that was
elected last June 10 has shared those views,
and has seen fit to set up such a committee
to inquire into the spread between what the
farmers receives and what the consumer pays,
because there is a spread there. One thing at
least that it will accomplish will be to point
out to the average consumer that the farmers
are not getting as much as these consumers
thought they were getting by the price they
had to pay at the supermarkets.
Another matter which I mentioned last
year was the need for realistic floor prices. I
notice that has also been taken care of.
Mr. Whicher: An awfully low floor.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I must say that I
have had some very favourable comments
from some of the farm organizations in this
province at the realistic way in which the
federal government is trying through legisla-
tion to assist the farmer through realistic
floor prices.
I might say at the present time the cheese
producers of this province are negotiating
with the federal government in connection
with securing deficiency payment on Ontario
cheese.
The hon. member for Stormont ( Mr.
Manley), last week, while speaking to the
House, pointed out that he felt the province
of Ontario should continue to make bank
guarantees on Ontario cheese. I feel the bank
guarantees we have made down through the
years have been very beneficial, not only to
the cheese industry but to the dairy industry
as a whole.
As I pointed out to the cheese producers
last September, it had reached a point where
unfortunately we were not only subsidizing
the cheese producers in the province of
Ontario, we were also subsidizing the cheese
producers of the province of Quebec. It is
not that we do not like to be big hearted
people up here, but it seems to me that any
programme in connection with any com-
modity, which is produced in more than one
province, should be supported by the federal
government.
As a matter of fact, the cheese producers
of the province of Quebec last year were able
to market all their cheese at approximately
the same price as the producers were receiv-
ing in the province of Ontario, because the
cheese producers in the province of Ontario
have a 1 cent per pound levy, something that
the cheese producers do not have to pay in
Quebec.
The result was that the processors picked
up all the cheese that was manufactured in
Quebec, and at the present time we have
some 15 million or 16 million pounds of good
Ontario cheddar cheese stored, and which the
government of this province is not worrying
about because it is good cheese. But we have
a bank guarantee of approximately $1.8
million at the present time.
I am very pleased to learn that the federal
government is trying to negotiate with the
cheese producers on a deficiency payment
plan, whereby they would be able to support
the cheese industry in the province of
Ontario.
I also mentioned last year that I felt that
something definitely had to be done to pro-
tect the primary producers in Canada.
There was dumping going on. We had a
country south of us that was in some type of
an agricultural programme where they had
one price for the goods consumed in the
United States and a fire sale price for surplus
which was exported to other countries. Our
farmers suffered in this country due to that
programme and it is indeed gratifying, having
the interest of agriculture at heart, to find
that this present federal government is taking
very definite steps to try to curtail this dump-
ing of farm products, especially those which
are in season in our own markets, to protect
our own producers at this particular time.
With these remarks, we will proceed with
the estimates, and I always feel that possibly
we get more information— and it is more
interesting— in discussing the estimates item
by item than by any cut-and-dried speech
that the Minister might try to make.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Before we proceed to an analysis of
the estimates themselves, I might be pardoned
if I make a few comments on the remarks of
the hon. Minister.
We are, in a measure at least, disarmed by
the hon. Minister's attitude and his record in
this Legislature. I have, as all hon. members
have, a very high regard for his administrative
ability— which may not go so far as to include
forward ideas— but so far as his administrative
ability is concerned, we are all at one in
recognizing it and commending it.
The hon. Minister has gone over the record
of The Department of Agriculture for the
last year, and in respect to some matters for
the future, he has pointed out, in the course
MARCH 18, 1958
951
of his remarks, two things that I want to talk
about for a moment or two.
He said in the first place that he considers
that The Department of Agriculture is a serv-
ice department. Now on that point, I would
say that I believe that The Department of
Agriculture, if it would serve the needs of
this basic industry, must be more than a
service department. It must also be a depart-
ment that is prepared to give leadership to
the farm people of this province in this
critical time through which they are passing.
The estimates themselves reveal that we
will be spending, in this department this
year, something less than 2 per cent, of the
total expenditure in the province.
Now agriculture has indeed slipped to a
very low place in the economy, and in the
opinion of the government, when we recog-
nize that less than 2 per cent, of the total
expenditure is devoted to the basic industry
of agriculture, and if we look at the estimates
for this year's operation, we will find that
there have been very nominal increases in
the amount of money to be devoted to this
department, and that most of these increases
are related to the agricultural colleges. I
think a perusal of the estimates will reveal
that.
It seems to me that we must recognize, as
the hon. Minister has said, that there is an
evolution taking place. So far as agriculture
is concerned, we are living in changing times,
and I want to make this flat statement out
of the depth of my conviction, in relation
to this matter, that many of the techniques
employed presently by The Department of
Agriculture belong to the horse-and-buggy
days. They have not kept and are not keep-
ing, and give no indication that they will
keep, pace with the need that exists for an
expanded programme and for a leadership
programme that will meet the challenging
times that we are passing through, so far as
agriculture is concerned.
We will be voting in a few minutes the
money to run the farm economics branch.
This, I would say, would be the branch
within the department that would have to
do with analyzing the situation in Ontario,
and with pointing the way, in a very realistic
manner, to the farm people of the province.
Well I do not know what they found out
in the economics branch, but I know this,
that whatever they found out they kept pretty
well to themselves. They have not dissem-
inated the information gathered for the good
of the farm people of this province. A branch
of economics that lives within itself, no mat-
ter how good or how far-reaching the results
of their examination may be, is practically
useless unless its findings are transmitted to
the farm people of this province. In respect
to this branch, I would say that although it
may be touching some of the farm people,
by and large it is not touching the great
cross-section of the farm people in Ontario.
My hon. friend has just talked about con-
tract farming, and we have the danger of
co-operative farming that I talked about a
few days ago. Now the hon. Minister has
said that contract farming is coming, so far
as this province is concerned, and by intima-
tion at least he has said that the farmer
may as well get ready for contract farming
because it is on the road.
But the hon. Minister, in almost the same
breath, said to the House this afternoon
that he is not sure of the merits of contract
farming. He is not sure whether it is a good
thing or a bad thing. Now that points up
and illustrates, Mr. Chairman, in a very
realistic way, what I am saying to the House
this afternoon. The farmers are concerned
about the inroads of contract farming, they
want to know from somebody in authority
what they have found out as to the assets
or the liabilities of contract farming, and
the hon. Minister, the head of the department,
was quite frank in saying that he is not
persuaded himself as to whether contract
farming is a good thing or a bad thing.
When I was home over the week end, I
read in the local press where the VLA con-
ducted open meetings in my particular riding,
telling the farmers the merits and the demerits
of contract farming. The speakers told the
farmers there what was good about contract
farming and what was bad about it, so that
the farmers could have some leadership and
could have some direction so far as this new
venture is concerned.
Now contract farming, of course, is not a
new thing. Many hon. farmer members in
the House have had contracts over the past
number of years. But what is happening now
is, as the hon. Minister quite well knows, that
it is moving into the hog and the cattle areas
where it has not been a factor in years
gone by.
And I would think, Mr. Chairman, that a
Department of Agriculture worthy of the
name would be able by now to tell the farmers
of this province, in public meetings, whether
or not, in their judgment, contract farming is
a good or a bad thing. I would think that is
part of the duty and the obligation of a
Department of Agriculture.
Then last fall, or some time, the hon.
Minister of Agriculture flew his famous kite.
952
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I did not speak on this particular point before,
but I want to say here and now that this was
a dangerous thing for the hon. Minister of
Agriculture of this province to do.
It came at a time, Mr. Chairman, when
farmers were upset to a degree about the
farm marketing legislation in general, and
here we had the hon. Minister of Agriculture
intimating rather strongly that he was getting
around to the place where he was going to
throw the management of these farm market-
ing schemes back to the farmers, and allow
the farmers to operate them.
I would say that the dissatisfaction and the
unrest that was prevalent among farmers, in
respect to farm marketing schemes, was
heightened and deepened by the hon. Min-
ister's words on that occasion, and the intima-
tion that he gave quite clearly that he was
thinking seriously about throwing this whole
thing back to farm organizations. Now I
want to say in a general way, that in my
judgment, for what it is worth, and hon.
members on the other side will say it is not
worth much—
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): May I
say to the hon. leader of the Opposition that
the hon. Minister of Agriculture did not say
anything about—
Mr. Oliver: Oh, I know exactly what the
hon. Minister said. It was carried very
thoroughly, and if there ever was a political
kite, that was one, and the hon. Prime Min-
ister has flown a few of them in his day, and
ought to know the qualities that are contained
therein. It was a political kite of the first
water, no question about that.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Well,
it flew well anyway.
Mr. Oliver: Now, the hon. member for
Renfrew South would not be able to fly any
farther than I can today, and that would not
be very far.
So far as the general picture is concerned,
I just want to say this, and to say it emphati-
cally, that I believe that The Department of
Agriculture, as far as their service department
is concerned, has moved in the right direction
—not far enough, mind you— but in the right
direction.
But so far as their leadership branch is
concerned, it has been woefully weak, and if
the farm people of this province are to be
given any leadership, the time for that lead-
ership is now. Up until this time, if there is
one great criticism of The Department of
Agriculture, it is that they have drifted and
allowed things to take their natural course,
they maintained the status quo, and they
have just sat back and allowed things to take
their course and allowed things to happen.
Now, in the critical stage through which
agriculture is passing, that is not good
enough, and that is my basic criticism of the
department and consequently of the estim-
ates that are before the House now.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there are quite a number of things
here that I would like to talk about this after-
noon, but I am going to leave them and con-
centrate on one, and that is the issue that
the hon. Minister has touched upon in various
of its facets, the basic problem of farm
income.
Last year, he used as an excuse for not
looking into that aspect of the problem of
farm income, involved in price spreads, that
this was more of a federal matter. Since a
very large percentage of the farm produce in
Ontario is marketed right in Ontario, I submit
that it could have been tackled here.
However, during the last year across the
province, and again in his estimates today, he
has spoken a number of times about the fact
that industry in Canada in the past has
received a degree of protection through
tariffs. Conceivably, that group in our
economy that now requires protection is the
agricultural group. He said such in Timmins,
in talking about the problem of a two-price
structure, and the difficulties of Canadian
farmers in coping with American dumping of
surpluses.
I think the hon. Minister has spoken of it
in relation to the problem, or perhaps the
necessity, of subsidizing Canadian farm
produce, in the same way that industrial
products have been subsidized indirectly by
the consumer through tariffs.
But when he expresses satisfaction with
what has been done by the federal govern-
ment in meeting this basic problem of farm
income, I think this is something which we
should take a look at for a moment.
Admittedly it is for the most part in the
federal jurisdiction, but it touches the agri-
cultural community very directly and is some-
thing in which the hon. Minister is extremely
interested.
Now, the basic point I would like to make
at the outset, Mr. Chairman, is this:
Farmers have been claiming for years
that their position in the economy is out
of parity with the rest of the economy, that
their costs have been going up, that their
income has been coming down, and there-
MARCH 18, 1958
953
fore that agriculture is not in a fair cost-price
relationship with regard to the rest of the
economy. It is caught in this cost-price
squeeze.
If agriculture ever achieved a fair cost-
price relationship within the last generation
or so, I submit they achieved it about the
year 1950, after years of planning during
the war and the post-war period, planning
which resulted in agricultural prices building
up to a point where conceivably— I am not
convinced, but conceivably— it could be said
that they had achieved something of a posi-
tion of parity.
The interesting thing is that, if we take
a look at the statistics that became available
because of the census in 1951, we find that
even when agriculture had achieved a degree
of parity— assuming that they did at that
time— agricultural communities were still in
a very unfavourable position with regard to
many other sectors of the economy, and our
society, in terms of modern amenities of life.
If we examine the statistics which became
available from the census in 1951, we find
that the percentage of farm homes without
bathtubs, without inside toilets, without
many of the other amenities of life, was
much larger than that of the rest of the
community.
In other words, even when they had parity,
there is a very strong case that they had not
had it long enough to be able to win a
position of equality in the Canadian economy.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: They improved
greatly though.
Mr. MacDonald: They improved greatly,
all right. Now since 1951, what has hap-
pened? Agricultural income has dropped
down to about 75 per cent, or 80 per cent,
of what it was in 1950 or 1951. In 1956
and 1957, it was roughly 75 per cent., and
perhaps I am putting the figure too high,
roughly 70 per cent, or 80 per cent, of what
it had been been at that peak period.
Mr. Nixon: Canada- wide?
Mr. MacDonald: Canada-wide. In the
province of Ontario, I do not know what the
exact figure would be. Now what is achieved
by this new legislation down at Ottawa that
the hon. Minister is so proud of? In the first
instance, it establishes a base period. The
government, to begin with, was going to make
this base period the last 3 years, and after
a great deal of pressuring they extended the
basis to the last 10 years.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, the net
result of that is that this agricultural stabiliza-
tion bill of the Tories is in effect stabilizing
agriculture at the depressed level to which it
has slipped in the last few years.
Admittedly, in putting it on a 10-year basis,
they may have improved it a bit over the 3-
year basis, but I draw to the attention of hon.
members that if we take the last 10 years,
7 of those 10 years were a period of declining
prices.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: That is what the
farmers asked for— 10 years.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not certain that the
farmers really wanted 10, but 10 is certainly
an improvement over 3.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: They objected to 3
years.
Mr. MacDonald: Having established a base
price, which was in fact stabilizing agriculture
at this depressed level, then they proceed to
what they call a guarantee price, which is 80
per cent, of this depressed price level. Since
the base price is itself one of 1950 or 1951,
and 80 per cent, of the 75 per cent, or 80
per cent, figure to which it has slipped, this
actually means that agriculture today is going
to have a guarantee price of something like
60 per cent, to 64 per cent, of what it was
getting in 1950 or 1951 when conceivably
the farming industry had a parity in the
economy.
How anybody can argue that, when the
farmer is getting 60 per cent, to 64 per cent,
of the income figure for the peak period of
1950-1951, this is providing a relief— this is
rescuing agriculture from the depression in
which it has slipped— is beyond my compre-
hension.
But the interesting thing is that even this
was achieved only by the Opposition at
Ottawa— and I am proud of the fact that, in
most instances, it was the CCF Opposition-
forcing upon the government amendment
after amendment.
As a matter of fact, the government's legis-
lation ended up with 9 amendments, so that
any resemblance between the final bill and
the one they originally introduced was purely
coincidental.
If it does do anything for the farmers, it is
going to do it because of the pounding of
the Opposition and the resulting changes.
But the final amendment which was made
by the government— and this shows just how
inadequate the Act had been to begin with—
is that, in addition to the base price of 10
years— the guaranteed price of 80 per cent, of
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that base— they then came up with a pre-
scribed price.
In other words, with the named products,
some 9 or 10 products that are named in the
bill, in the first 3 months of the year they
will take a look at the cost of production, and
they will prescribe a price which may be
110 per cent, of the guaranteed price and it
may be 80 per cent, of the guaranteed price,
in other words it may—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: It could be 100 per
cent.
Mr. MacDonald: It could be 100 per cent.
It may take into account something of the
cost of production. But this is not what the
Conservatives wanted in the bill in the first
place. This was what was forced upon them
by the Opposition.
I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that the hon.
member for York East (Mr. Beckett) is going
out, he is not interested in it anyway. When
he goes out perhaps he should not grunt
before he leaves.
Mr. Chairman, what I want to draw your
attention to is this, that I listened to the
Parliamentary assistant to the hon. Minister
of Finance speaking to the Ontario agricul-
tural council. He stated the farmers' union
is very happy with this bill. Now the Liberal
Opposition, as well as ourselves, have had
an opportunity to speak to the farmers' union
or to be visited by delegates from the farmers'
union-
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East): Mr. Chair-
man, just a minute.
Mr. MacDonald: A question of privilege?
Mr. Beckett: Yes, I would like a retraction
here. When I get a telephone call I have
to go out and answer it. I would like to
know what the hon. member for York South
is saying, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MacDonald: I heard the hon. mem-
ber groaning about what I was saying, as
I hear it sometimes—
Mr. Beckett: I was not groaning at all.
No, no.
Mr. MacDonald: If I have hurt the hon.
member's sensitivities, I am sorry. He may go
to his phone call, I will give him 50 apologies,
it makes no difference whether he is here or
not. ;
Mr. Beckett: Well, I think, Mr. Chairman,
that such a statement is uncalled for by an
hon. member of this House.
An hon. member: He knows as little about
agriculture as the hon. member for York East
does.
Mr. MacDonalld: Is that right? I would
like to see him milking a cow.
Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, just a minute.
Here the jack-of-all-trades, master of none,
stands up and talks on everything, he knows
it all, and he stands up and he knows every-
thing about everything, law and farming, and
everything else, and I have milked many a
cow if he is talking about milking cows.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. member
finished?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out that there is
great cause for rejoicing over here. This bill,
these floor prices and so on, were talked of
for years, but they did not become a fact
until we got a Tory government, and then
they became a fact.
Mr. MacDonald: Are the farmers happy
about it? All I am drawing to the attention
of the House is that the bill, as brought in
by the Conservative government, bears no
resemblance to the final one which had to
be amended 9 times to get within reaching
distance of doing something for the farmers.
And the final point that I wanted to make
—if I can get back to it now, Mr. Chairman
—is this: that the hon. Minister suggested
that the agricultural organizations in Canada
are happy with this bill. He did exactly the
same thing as Dick Bell, Parliamentary as-
sistant to the hon. Minister of Finance, did
in the Ontario agricultural council, when he
said that the farmers' union is content and
happy with the bill.
Now I was rather surprised by this, so
when the farmers' union delegation visited
our caucus, I asked them about this, and
one could have seen the steam rising from
under their collars at the proposition that
they should be credited with being happy
with this.
I will tell what happened, Mr. Chairman.
Many of the farmers' union representatives
from across the country converged on Ottawa
to do a bit of lobbying to get changes, and
they were wooed and dined personally by
Rt. hon. John Diefenbaker down at his home.
They were led to believe that there were
going to be amendments in the Act which
would bring in something to tie this whole
price structure to the cost of production in a
real fashion.
They were just a little hasty, as they now
conceded, in issuing a press release to the
effect that they were going to get this,
MARCH 18, 1958
955
because they never got it. I can assure hon.
members they are not happy with it and the
hon. Minister is misrepresenting the views of
farm organization to a degree, but not as
much as Mr. Bell did.
I have just overheard someone say that the
president of the farmers' union said last week
that the Tory bill is no good at all. I think
that is a fairly good description of this great
charter that the Tories have provided for the
farmers.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well, the past presi-
dent was on the Treasury board.
Mr. Whicher: No money in their pocket
anyway.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that all this
was discussed down in Elgin, and look what
happened.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: They did more than
groan down there.
Vote 101 agreed to.
On vote 102:
Mr. W. E. Johnston (Carleton): It is rather
interesting to listen to this chatter about this
farm bill. The hon. member for York South
is somewhat concerned about the bill being
amended and amended and amended, I
believe he said, 9 times.
I would just like to remind him that we
happen to have a government in Ottawa
which is not so arrogant that it will not
listen to suggestions. If he gets any credit
out of suggesting that the CCF made a great
contribution to the amending of the bill, all
well and good. I do not think that they did.
The other day the Social Credit people told
me that they should have all the credit. Now
what are we supposed to believe?
I do not mind telling the hon. member
that I sat in the House of Commons for two
afternoons and listened to the debate on this
bill, and it was simply a lot of nonsense.
Certainly the Conservative party did a lot
to-
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. member say-
ing that the farm organization programme is
nonsense?
Mr. Johnston: The farm organizations cer-
tainly took a look at this and worked with
the committee. The hon. member did not
remind this House that this bill is going to
be examined quite frequently by a group of
farmers— he did not tell the House that—
members of farm groups, members of farm
organizations and some farmers themselves.
Now this bill cannot be perfect from the
start, we all know that. We all know that
progress must come slowly. We all know
that a bill like this will take years to perfect.
It is a hard job to do.
Mr. Whicher: One hundred years.
Mr. Johnston: The point we want to make,
and the point we want to understand, is this,
that we have a government now which took
the job on, and they have at least made a
start, which has never been done before. All
this bickering that goes on by the Opposition
is only happening because it is hard to take.
Mr. Whicher: How much money did they
put in the farmer's pocket?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Twenty-two years of doing
nothing on the part of the Liberals.
Mr. Johnston: I would like to go a little
further. This farm products marketing bill
is one that has been pointed out by the hon.
Minister. It carries the building of a bill that
will supply security for farmers at 80 per
cent, minimum. That will be mandatory.
Mr. MacDonald: Eighty per cent, of 80
per cent.
Mr. Johnston: Eighty per cent, of the 10-
year average. What happens then? Does the
hon. member not, at least, give this group of
men— farmers themselves— credit for sitting in
with the cabinet and establishing a price each
year 12 months ahead of time?
Mr. Whicher: How much did they put the
price of beans up?
Mr. Johnston: Now the hon. member for
York South just a year ago made this state-
ment in the House. He advocated forward
pricing. Now, is he objecting to that? That
is in the bill.
Mr. MacDonald: There is a degree of
principle there.
Mr. Johnston: How much has the price of
milk gone up?
Mr. MacDonald: The Liberals talked about
health insurance for 38 years, and they never
got around to—
Mr. Johnston: Well, I am not talking about
health insurance now.
Mr. MacDonald: Paying lip service to the
principle.
<
Mr. Johnston: I want to go on if I may,
my hon. friends, and say this. The hon.
956
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister has raised a good many points here
today that I think we should give him
and his senior executive credit for including
the extension work in dairy herd improvement
plan and artificial insemination.
Also, they should be given credit for the
fact that this government has seen fit to create
a joint effort on brucellosis with the federal
government. The benefits of this will not be
felt for a number of years, but it is a forward
step in the direction of the health of animals,
for the province of Ontario.
In the years that lie ahead, I may say that,
if the full co-operation of all concerned is
given, the result of this operation will mean
that Ontario will have a market second to
none for the production of livestock and in
particular cattle, in this whole country of ours.
Mr. Whicher: Where are they going to
sell the cattle?
Mr. Johnston: We will find a market for
the cattle, if they are of the proper health
status.
Now this contract farming has been men-
tioned, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
say this. I hope the day never comes when
this country is forced into contract farming.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear!
Mr. Johnston: I say that advisedly. If
that day ever comes then farming has lost
its whole meaning in this country.
Farming is improving, as the hon. Minister
has said. The operation is improving. We
are told now that 80 per cent, of the pro-
duction of this country is produced by 20
per cent, of the producers, and on the other
hand, that 80 per cent, of the producers are
producing only the other 20 per cent.
That means one thing only, and if hon.
members could tell me, when that sort of
thing is going on at the present time, that
we will ever go to contract farming, I can-
not see it.
With all our mechanization, with all the
leadership given by this government in ex-
tension work, there is no doubt in my mind
that, in the years ahead, farming in this
province will have a great future.
Mr. J. Root ( Wellington-Duff erin): Mr.
Chairman, I just want to make one or two
comments. I have been listening to the
questions asked by some of the backyard
farmers from York South and places like that.
I do not think they realize that they are
discussing matters that they are not too
familiar with.
I do not think there has ever been a gov-
ernment in Ontario, and I said this the other
night, that has done as much for agriculture
as the present government. They mentioned
the lack of facilities. I do not know of any
government in Ontario that has ever put any
more facilities in the farm homes than the
present government did, through their rural
electrification programme.
I do not know of any government that has
done more to help our junior farmers get
established than this government, by their
loan assistance programme.
I could tell hon. members of the assistance
that The Department of Highways has given
to our farm people. In this year, I believe,
we are going to vote some $60 million to
assist in municipal roads. The whole highway
budget, I believe, back about 1943 was only
$17 million to pay the cost of all the roads
in the province.
Mr. Whicher: Where did this government
get the money?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: He thinks it grew on
trees.
Mr. Whicher: They took it from the
farmers.
Mr. Root: We have had, under this govern-
ment, one of the greatest development and
expansion programmes that has ever been
carried on in the province. We have attracted
1.75 million new people into this province,
and they are helping to contribute some of
the money for these roads and other things.
They have not only contributed money,
but they have established a great consuming
market for the products of our farms.
An hon. member: What time did the satel-
lite go up?
Mr. Root: Well, there may be another one
shot off one of these days. I want to say to
the hon. member for Bruce, who asked how
much money has this new government in
Ottawa put in the farmers' pockets, that he
must have left the other afternoon before I
completed my speech, because in that—
Mr. Whicher: A lot of other people did,
too.
Mr. Root: Mr. Chairman, I want to say
that, to enlighten people like the hon. mem-
ber for Bruce, who apparently has never
taken the time to inquire what is happening
to our farm prices, I pointed out that a year
ago top steers were selling on the Toronto
market at $20 per 100 pounds. That was
MARCH 18, 1958
957
on February 12, and on February 11, on the
same day of the same week this year, the
same grade of steers were selling for $23 per
100 pounds.
Mr. Whicher: Ten years ago they were
selling for $35, did the hon. member ever
bring that up?
Mr. Root: Yes, and in 1951 they were sell-
ing for $40, and under the government that
was defeated on June 10, the price was cut
in half down to $20, so let the hon. member
keep that in mind.
An hon. member: What government was
in power when it was $40?
Mr. Root: Mr. Chairman, let me go on and
tell you that is not just a price for top
steers, that carries right through the whole
range of heifers. A year ago, $17, this year
$20.
Cows a year ago were $11.50 per 100
pounds, this year $15.50 per 100 pounds.
That is $4 gained. The hon. member was
talking about bulls a minute ago. A year ago
they were selling at $13, and now they are
selling at $17.50, and that is the price for
bulls.
A year ago, veal calves were selling at 31
cents a pound, that is top veal, and this year
at 36 cents. A year ago, lambs were 22.25
cents, this year 24 cents.
A year ago, butter was 58 cents a pound,
this year 52.5 cents a pound. A year ago cream
was selling at 60 cents, and this year 64 cents.
Mr. Chairman, just to show I have not
picked a high week, I will give some of the
prices that were in this morning's Toronto
Globe and Mail, and there we will find the
top steers on Monday at the Toronto stock
yards sold not at $23 per 100 pounds, but at
$23.50, with sales up to $23.75, so the market
is still going up under trade policies that
are being carried out, and under the stabiliza-
tion policies that are in effect, in Ottawa
today.
The same is true of heifers. The prices I
quoted a year ago, $17 per 100 pounds, and
I said on February 11, 1958, they were $20
per 100 pounds. Last Monday they were
$21.50. Now that is the way this government
does business for the people, and puts the
money in the farmers' pockets. The hon.
member wanted to know.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would just remind
the hon. member for Bruce, since he is not
acquainted with what is happening in agri-
culture, that the total cattle population in
Canada last June was some 11.245 million.
If we take the average weight of 1,000
pounds— and the hon. member knows that
bulls weigh up to a ton— and I am not asking
the hon. member to take the top figure of
a gain of 5 cents per pound, we will just
say 3.25 cents a pound, and that puts $375
million in the farmers' pockets or credit in
the bank. That is the kind of money the
government is putting in their pockets.
This week the market has gone up an-
other $1 per hundred, and that is another
$110 million, and that makes $.5 billion
of money in the farmers' pockets, or credit
in the bank, in just less than a year.
Well, Mr. Chairman, all that I am trying
to say is that this government in Ontario
has done a good job for agriculture, and that
its overall policies have created a great con-
suming market for the products of our farms.
Also the policies of the government in Ottawa
have given us a little protection, and they
have found markets that did not exist before.
Not only in actual dollars and cents has
this government done a good job for the
farmers, but through research and in many
other ways. Last fall, I was up in Mani-
toulin Island and I saw some of the new
varieties of oats which yield 100 bushels an
acre. Think of the difference between a
threshing crop that yields 50 bushels per acre,
and one that yields 100 bushels per acre.
There are many ways in which this govern-
ment has done a great job for agriculture,
with the co-operation of the government in
Ottawa, and I think the farm people have
more sense of security today than they have
had for many years.
Vote 102 agreed to.
On vote 103:
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): On vote 103,
item No. 7, grants to agricultural societies
and other exhibition associations for capital
improvement: may I ask how many arenas
were constructed last year for capital im-
provement?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I am told that there
were grants on 10 arenas, and of course the
maximum is $5,000. Twenty-five per cent,
up to $20,000.
Vote 103 agreed to.
On vote 104:
Mr. Innes: On vote 104, item No. 7:
mention has been made by the hon. Minister
this afternoon on efficiency as regard to the
958
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
farmers. I understand that in the province
of Manitoba there are experiments being
run and efficiency experts being employed
by the government. I wonder if the hon.
Minister has had any intention of employing
any in his service for the benefit of the far-
mers, or for those who would like to ask
for that service? I do not feel that the
government should force it on the farmers,
but I feel that it should be available if the
farmers should want to come to the depart-
ment for it.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I do not know
about efficiency experts, we have lots of
specialists. I do not like the idea of having
experts, I would rather have the fellows
we now have.
Mr. Innes: I mean along farm manage-
ment lines, I mean the same as with farm
management loans—
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: As the hon. mem-
ber knows, we have those people working
on that, and helping the farmers with the
operation.
Mr. Nixon: On item No. 6, Mr. Chairman,
$50,000, grants and expenses in connection
with soil improvement and land use pro-
jects, could the hon. Minister give us some
idea how that is worked out?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I find that Brant
county last year received $700 of this. Last
year we had only $10,000. We intend to
expand it this year.
Mr. Nixon: There were cash prizes given,
as my hon. friend knows, for competitions
in various kinds of crops. Does that money
come out of this vote, or is that raised
locally?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: No, that comes
out of the agricultural societies' fund.
Votes 104 to 109, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask a question about these various
grants that are made to these associations.
Is this grant made outright to associations,
and can they spend it as they wish?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Yes, subject to an
auditor's report on their operation-
Mr. MacDonald: Coming back to the
department.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: That is right.
Mr. MacDonald: My attention has been
drawn to one and I would like to publicly
draw it to the attention of the hon. Minister.
That is in the instance of the cattle breeders*
association which gets a grant of $500.
I am informed that $125 of that $500 is
never received, as it is used for the buying of
a box at the Royal Winter Fair which is used
by officials of the department. How would
the hon. Minister explain that sort of thing?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I assure the hon.
member for York South I will look into it,
and if that is the case they will be getting
no grant to buy a box at the Royal Winter
Fair.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now, the box
was not bought by the cattle breeders' associa-
tion; it was bought by people in the depart-
ment, so that the association received the
$500 minus the $125.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Who used the box?
Mr. MacDonald: The departmental officials.
An hon. member: Did they offer the hon.
member any tickets?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: They should have.
Mr. MacDonald: That is not answering the
question. Just a minute now, the hon. Mini-
ster started out by saying that this $500 is
granted subject to an order. Now, here is one
instance, and I do not profess to know whether
this happens to others but I know in this
instance it did happen. They did not receive
the $500, because $125 was spent for a box
at the Royal Winter Fair, and the box was
used by departmental officials and their
friends.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I understand that an
official of the department was the secretary-
treasurer of the cattle breeders' association,
and the probabilities are that he secured this
box for the cattle breeders. I would not know
who used the box. But I would be glad to
look into it.
Mr. MacDonald: I think that—
Hon. Mr. Frost: It is not an objectionable
thing. After all, it is to help the Royal
Winter Fair, and it is really a farmers' show,
and they want these assistants. Why not?
Mr. Innes: On vote 110, item No. 4,
research: Last year, the department allotted
$50,000 for research, and I believe that only
$9,000 was used up. Now what happened
to the other $40,000 of research?
MARCH 18, 1958
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: The item was put
in there to take care of a vote on a marketing
plan on farm commodities, last year. It
was not used up. It might be that it is one
of those uncontrollable items, and it might
be more than that this year. It depends on
how many votes are left.
Mr. Innes: Yes, speaking on the vote
procedure, I have had several comments on
the different voting procedures on the mar-
keting schemes.
The fact has come to my mind that it
would be very beneficial to this government,
when the census is being taken, or when
statistics are being taken throughout the
province, if those in favour of a wheat voting
scheme, or a hog voting scheme, would
signify this when the census taker is going
along, or some other enumerating procedure
is taken.
I say this because it is quite evident that
there is a very hit-and-miss enumerating
scheme at the present time, especially in the
wheat vote, which has been brought to my
attention, and I think it would be well for
the hon. Minister to look into this.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Well I am inclined
to agree that we have to have a more sys-
tematic way of registering those who are
entitled to vote. I am not sure whether the
bureau of statistics would want to have the
census taken, or whether the local assessor
would want to do it. But I am hoping that,
with these amendments in The Farm Products
Marketing Act, we will be able to establish
a more orderly way of getting a registration
of those who are entitled to vote.
I must admit that on the wheat vote there
was not too much involved, there was not
too much opposition.
Down in my own county we have farmers
who might sell some fall wheat to a mill
this year and they would not sell any more
for 10 years. It just depends on whether
they wanted it for feed or if they had some
surplus. But in western Ontario fall wheat
is an important cash crop. We felt that
there should be a majority of those who
are eligible to vote up there, but in the rest
of the province a majority of those voting
was accepted. However, an overwhelming
vote for the plan was given across the prov-
ince.
Mr. J. Spence (Kent East): On vote 110,
Mr. Chairman, item No. 4: the hon. Minister
spent considerable time on the subject of
research this afternoon. I would like to ask
him if he has ever considered setting up a
research branch to try to find some by-
products out of these surplus agricultural
crops we have in Ontario? It has been
brought to my attention quite a number of
times that if The Department of Agriculture
would set up a research branch to discover
some by-products, it would be of great assist-
ance to agriculture in all parts of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I understand the
Ontario research foundation is doing a great
deal of work on what the hon. member men-
tioned, trying to find a use other than food
from the surplus farm commodities. I might
say that our people at the Ontario Agricul-
tural College have been doing a great deal
of work on this, jointly with the Ontario
research foundation, and I think that it is a
point well taken.
Mr. Nixon: May I ask the hon. Minister
in connection with these votes on projects,
if a farmer finds that his name is overlooked,
is there provision for him to vouch his own
name, and does he not have a vote by going
to the department, so that no one is put
in a position that he cannot vote, even if
his name is left off?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: He registers the day
he goes to vote. Now there has been some
consideration given as to whether we should
have a list prepared, the same as we have
for a municipal or a provincial election,
which gives a certain time to register at a
court of revision and that would be the
voters' list, but that is something that is
being only suggested.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister if there is any co-
relation between the hospital farms in the
province today? Some of their reports are
received by the department. Is there any
research programme laid out for the hospital
farms, that would benefit this particular
department? I would think that it would be
a step in the right direction, where there are
large herds and different livestock, to have
some experimental work in that direction.
Would it not be of benefit to the hon. Minis-
ter's department?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I understand that
our people have been using the herds and
the livestock and what-have-you to carry on
some experimental work on some of the
Ontario hospital farms. I think it is a good
idea to use them for experimental purposes.
Mr. Innes: Is the hon. Minister pushing the
point quite heavily? I mean, it seems like a
logical place to get a lot of information
960
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
where he has his own personnel there, and
he can pass such information along to other
branches.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I know they have
been working together in very close co-opera-
tion, as there is between our people and The
Department of Reform Institutions at Bur-
wash; this has been going on for some years.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister a question with
regard to the co-operative loan board. When
an application is made for a loan, why is it
not possible for the applicants to be informed
as to why they are not eligible or why they
do not get it? Now I have particular refer-
ence at the moment to an applicant who was
recently turned down in the case of the Quinte
district producers' and consumers' dairy
"co-op", which has the backing of some 400 or
500 people in a petition of farmers and con-
sumers. I know first hand of the difficulties
that were experienced for a time in the esta-
blishment of the co-op in Kenora two or three
years ago. But by information is that in the
Quinte instance they got a blank refusal with
no explanation.
Now what yardstick is used, and what are
the factors that are considered in deciding
whether or not in any particular case the
co-operative will get a loan?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Is the hon. member
speaking of the dairy in Kenora? They have
received a loan.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not so interested in
that, that is past.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I am not aware of
this application. Is it from the Quinte district
producers' and consumers' dairy co-operative?
An application was made, I think, about 3
or 4 years ago, as I recall it. That was during
the time there was a milk strike in Trenton
and Belleville, and two or three individuals-
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I have seen the peti-
tion. There are 300 or 400 names on it.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I would very much
like to see the petition because, as I recall it,
there was an application made, and I was
under the impression that somebody wanted
to start a dairy to take advantage of the other
dairies when they were on strike in Belle-
ville.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the yardstick, and
what are the factors, and why cannot the
applicant be informed as to why the loan
is turned down?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: As far as I know,
they are informed. I know I have had several
come in after they have been turned down
by the board, and they have asked to see me,
and I have explained to them very frankly
why the board did not think, in their judg-
ment, that they would be doing them a good
turn by making them a loan.
The board goes into these applications very
carefully, because there have been a very
great many small co-operatives fail in this
province. That is one of the duties of that
board. As a matter of fact, my predecessor
established the board in order to assist these
co-operatives by making sure they were on
a sound enough business basis to start opera-
tions before any loan was made. I may say
that some are turned down, and as far as I
am concerned, they were made fully aware
of why they did not qualify. I could name
3 or 4 cases wherein it was considered not
good business to make them a loan, actually in
their own business, because with their set-up
they could not expect to succeed.
Votes 110 to 116, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 117:
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: The hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon) was inquiring about
the enrolment at ths Ontario Agricultural
College. I understand there are 153 outside
of Ontario and 64 outside of Canada.
Mr. Innes: In item No. 8, I am glad to
see that the research amount has been raised
up by a considerable sum, from about
$85,000 to $225,000. Would the hon. Min-
ister care to say what that is going to be
used for, about $100,000 extra from last
year? I am glad to see it, but I just want
to know what it is for.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: As the hon. mem-
ber is no doubt aware, there is a very large
building programme going on at Guelph,
and this new research building is practically
completed. We intend to go all-out on ex-
panding research at the Veterinary College
at Guelph, not only for the training of stu-
dents, but also because a great job of work is
being done for the farmers across the province
of Ontario in helping to solve their live-
stock disease problems, and maybe we were
a little modest in putting in that amount.
Votes 117 to 119, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 120:
Mr. MacDonald: There is one question
that I would like to ask the hon. Minister
MARCH 18, 1958
961
about the telephone authority. There is one
aspect of its activities that puzzles me.
As I understand it, it was established, in
the first instance, in order to provide capital
for the expansion of these independent tele-
phone companies. And yet, as one observes
the disappearance of these independent
companies, it was because they were not
in a position to cope with capital require-
ments involved in expansion. So they were
taken over by the Bell Telephone Company.
Yet almost invariably, when they are taken
over by the Bell Telephone Company, the
rates go up, so that if the original indepen-
dent company had anything like the income
that comes in through the increased rates to
the Bell Telephone Company, they would
have been in at least a position to have
amortized their capital requirements.
If this is a correct assessment of what is
happening, it seems to me that the authority
is not fulfilling its original function. It does
not make the capital available in sufficient
quantities so these companies become ab-
sorbed by the Bell Telephone Company, then
that company increases the rates, and gets
enough money to expand further out of the
increased rates.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: It works both ways.
What happened to most of the independent
telephone companies in this province was
that they kept their rates too low. They did
not allow enough for depreciation and along
came a severe sleet storm or something and
they were completely ruined. They were
bankrupt and had nothing left.
As a matter of fact, in a great many in-
stances, the Bell Telephone Company would
be very pleased if these small companies
would get their old poles and wires out of
the way so that they could build a new
line, because the small companies have kept
their rates so low that they have not kept
their system up to a standard which they
should have to give good telephone service.
There is the matter of making loans. A
great many of these independent telephone
companies, at least, are too small to give
efficient operation today, they are too small
as separate units. They tell me that a tele-
phone company should have at least 1,000
or 1,200 subscribers to be able to afford to
have equipment and line men and what-
have-you to keep them in a good state of
repair, and to keep up their standard of
telephone communications.
We had hoped that they would amalga-
mate and merge, but a great many of them
do not want to take the risk of going into
debt by borrowing, and a great many others
—some of them are family affairs and others
are municipality projects— are sort of jealous
of one another.
Therefore they do not work together too
well, and this programme has not gone for-
ward. We had hoped that more of these
small independents would merge to a point
where they would have had a telephone
system they could have operated successfully,
and given good service, and taken care of
their financing.
I might say that there was one rural tele-
phone company, not too far from Toronto,
that had very few of what they call long
distance calls, that is from their switching
point to where it ties into the Bell Telephone
Company system for long distance purposes,
in other words they got very little long dis-
tance revenue. I understand that they bor-
rowed $90,000, at least the municipality bor-
rowed $90,000 for them, but after they got
$90,000 in debt, they found that their rates
were almost prohibitive. Therefore the matter
of telephone communications is a very com-
plicated business, unless they have had a lot
of experience and our people have tried to
guide them to the best of their ability.
Vote 120 agreed to.
On vote 121:
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the hon. Minister
would tell us something about the working
out of these loans in accordance with The
Co-operative Loans Act. That amount is
$750,000. How much of that-the hon. Minis-
ter must have some idea— will be asked for
this coming year? We are just now practically
starting in the new year, and reference has
been made to the new wheat marketing
project that is of particular interest to us in
western Ontario, because it is a very
important cash crop.
For many years, in the days of the old
threshing machine— which has now become
as scarce as the stallions which my hon. friend
has legislated out of business— the practice
was that every farmer stored his wheat.
It is no longer very convenient for most
farmers to store their own wheat from the
combine, and the practice has grown up with
those who have a very large acreage that the
wheat is taken directly from the combine to
the elevator.
In some sections of western Ontario, there
does not seem to be elevator capacity avail-
able for ordinary customs storage. For several
years now the difference in price paid at the
time the combines start until this time of the
962
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year is generally 30 cents or more a bushel,
which represents a very heavy loss to those
farmers who are in the position that they must
market their wheat from the combine.
If the department could give some research
to this problem, I think it might work out
very advantageously that, under the new
marketing scheme, the wheat should go on the
market in an orderly way— so many hundred
thousands bushels a month.
I think there are about 20 million bushels
altogether grown now, and I believe there
has never been any suggestion that there is
a surplus of fall wheat grown in the province
of Ontario.
There is always a market for it if the farmer
wants to accept the price, but I think there is
too great a fluctuation in the price between
harvesting time and, say, this time of the year,
, when it is 30 cents more than it was in August
and September.
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: I would say the hon.
member for Brant has taken the point very
well in connection with the farmers who might
very well consider building elevator space for
themselves on a co-operative basis.
I think, on the whole, the co-operatives
across this province have got themselves on
a sOund businesslike basis at the present
time, , and are doing an excellent job. Our
board which deals with them feels that they
have their financial house in order, and we
are really not too concerned about the vast
majority of the co-operatives of Ontario at
the present time.
I might say last year we loaned $842,000
to co-operatives in the province. We have at
the present time about $2 million or $3 million
in loans out to co-operatives.
Mr. Nixon: What are the terms in most
instances?
Hon. Mr. Goodfellow: Five per cent, on a
20-year basis. I might say that with Mr.
Brennan and Mr. Teasdale, we have two very
outstanding fellows who have taken a very
keen interest in co-operatives.
Mr. Teasdale has had a great deal of experi-
ence in operating the Elgin co-op, and the
services of these men are available at any
time to go out to and discuss and work with
any group of farmers considering establishing
a co-operative. I believe in co-operatives.
Vote 121 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee of
supply rise and report that it has come to
certain resolutions and begs leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report that it has come to certain
resolutions and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There are some second
readings here, a few that appear to be largely
routine matters. If they are not, I will post-
pone them if any hon. member has any objec-
tion.
THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS
ACT, 1956
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 147, "An Act to amend The Char-
itable Institutions Act, 1956."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TILE DRAINAGE ACT
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 118, "An Act to amend The
Tile Drainage Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 107, "An Act to amend The Train-
ing Schools Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, there are
orders 35, 36, and 37, The Public Commer-
cial Vehicles Act, and some other isolated
matters which would be discussed in com-
mittee if the House would give second read-
ing to those bills.
THE PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
ACT
Hon, J. N. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 149, "An Act to amend The Public
Commercial Vehicles Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC VEHICLES ACT
Hon. Mr. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 150, "An Act to amend The Public
Vehicles Act."
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
MARCH 18, 1958
963
THE ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT
BOARD ACT, 1955
Hon. Mr. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 151, "An Act to amend The Ontario
Highway Transport Board Act, 1955."
THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACT, 1954
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 164, "An Act to amend The
Financial Administration Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FEMALE REFUGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill No. 157, "An Act to amend The
Female Refuges Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves second reading
of Bill No. 159, "An Act to amend The
Vital Statistics Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Dunbar moves second reading of
Bill No. 162, "An Act to amend The Cor-
porations Act, 1953."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I did not
intend to call the next bill this afternoon. That
involves the extension of the municipal fran-
chise. The municipal committee is sitting
on Thursday, and it might be advanced on
this understanding, that it could go to the
committee on municipal bills and then when
it comes back it could have a whole dis-
cussion here, if that would be satisfactory,
and we would discuss both the principle
and the details of the bill when it comes
back here.
EXTENSION OF THE MUNICIPAL
FRANCHISE
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 160, "An Act to provide the
extension of the municipal franchise."
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE HOMES FOR THE AGED ACT, 1955
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading
of Bill No. 166, "An Act to amend The
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee; Mr. H. M. Allen in
the chair.
ST. PETER'S CHURCH, BROCKVILLE
House in committee on Bill No. 3, An Act
respecting St. Peter's Church, Brockville;
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 3 reported.
ST. MICHAEL'S COLLEGE
House in committee on Bill No. 25, An
Act respecting St. Michael's College.
Sections 1 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 25 reported.
SOCIETY OF DIRECTORS OF MUNI-
CIPAL RECREATION OF ONTARIO
House in committee on Bill No. 30, An Act
to incorporate the society of directors of
municipal recreation of Ontario.
Sections 1 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 30 reported.
964
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
TOWN OF ALMONTE
House in committee on Bill No. 37, An Act
respecting the town of Almonte.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 37 reported.
CITY OF HAMILTON
House in committee on Bill No. 41, An Act
respecting the city of Hamilton.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 41 reported.
THE CORONERS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 132, An
Act to amend The Coroners Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 132 reported.
THE POLICE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 133, An
Act to amend The Police Act.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 133 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS TAX ACT, 1957
House in committee on bill No. 138, An
Act to amend The Corporations Tax Act,
1957.
Sections 1 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 138 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the committee do rise
and report certain bills, and begs leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the committee of
the whole House begs to report certain bills
without amendment and begs leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, I would say
that tomorrow at 2 o'clock we will have the
estimates of The Department of Highways
and The Department of Transport. They
will follow in that order, and following that,
we will go on with the Throne and budget
debates. That can be handled in the order
that the hon. members want it. There would
then follow some bills on the order paper.
It might be possible tomorrow to call some
of the private members' orders, the public
bills and orders and resolutions. But it would
seem to me more likely, perhaps, that these
would be on Thursday.
We will see what we can do.
I would propose night sessions on Mon-
day, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week
as well. I think those will be necessary,
and if they are not, we will not have them
of course.
Mr. Nixon: May I ask the hon. Prime
Minister if there is any decision on the vote
on the speech from the Throne?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That has been set down
for Thursday afternoon. The wind-up
speeches will be made at that time, and
the vote will take place on Thursday.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.10 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 38
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
debates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 19, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev, A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 19, 1958
Final report, standing committee on legal bills, Mr. Myers 967
Final report, standing committee on education, Mr. Fishleigh 967
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953,
bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 967
Charging of tolls on certain bridges, bill to provide for, Mr. Allan, first reading 967
General welfare assistance to persons, bill to provide, Mr. Cecile, first reading 968
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 968
Ontario Fuel Board Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, first reading 969
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. Allan 971
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Allan 995
Recess, 6 o'clock 1004
967
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. M. Myers,
from the standing committee on legal bills,
presents the committee's second and final
report as follows:
Your committee begs to report the following
bills without amendment:
Bill No. 70, An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act.
Bill No. 87, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Bill No. 96, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Bill No. 115, The Private Investigators Act,
1958.
Bill No. 134, An Act to amend The Real
Estate and Business Brokers Act.
Your committee also begs to report the fol-
lowing bills with certain amendments.
Bill No. 61, An Act to amend The Mort-
gages Act.
Bill No. 65, An Act to amend The Land
Titles Act.
Bill No. Ill, An Act to amend The Admini-
stration of Justice Expenses Act.
Bill No. 114, The Libel and Slander Act,
1958.
Bill No. 135, An Act to amend The Registry
Act.
Bill No. 137, An Act to repeal The Law
Stamps Act.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. H. F. Fishleigh,
from the standing committee on education,
presents the committee's third and final report
as follows:
Your committee begs to report the following
bills without amendment:
Bill No. 145, An Act to amend The Univer-
sity of Toronto Act, 1947.
Wednesday, March 19, 1958
Bill No. 154, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLI-
TAN TORONTO ACT, 1953
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act,
1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a
few amendments in here, some with signi-
ficance and some not quite so significant, but
I might say that this bill is going to the
municipal law committee for full considera-
tion.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, are these amendments a result
of the recommendations of the commission
report?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): No, that will be embodied in
another bill, I think, Mr. Speaker.
CHARGING OF TOLLS ON CERTAIN
BRIDGES
Hon. J. N. Allan moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to provide for the
charging of tolls on certain bridges."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, in its
general terms, gives authority for tolling cer-
tain specific bridges— international bridges—
which would include very probably a new
toll bridge across the Niagara River, a bridge
at Sault Ste. Marie, and either or both at
Fort Frances and Rainy River. In the matter
of either erecting overhead bridges across
the Welland canal or tunnel, it would
seem that at least two or possibly three
bridges or tunnels will be required. Then
there are the skyway at the entrance to the
968
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hamilton harbour and the Fort Frances
causeway and bridge.
Now this programme, which is by no
means settled, is nevertheless, very approxi-
mate. There are presently discussions be-
tween Ontario and New York state relative to
a new bridge in the Queenston area, connect-
ing our highway system with the New York
thruway. To this there would be connections
from Niagara Falls, Ontario, and St.
Catharines.
We are also negotiating with the state of
Michigan relative to an overhead bridge or
skyway at Sault Ste. Marie, which would
connect the Ontario road system with that
of Michigan as in the case of the bridge at
Mackinac.
This bill is purely enabling, and I may say
that what will be done has not been settled,
nor is it possible to settle it until some of the
implications in connection with the pro-
gramme I have just mentioned become clear.
There have been discussions relative to
the tolling of the Burlington-Hamilton sky-
way. In the meantime, a deal has been made
with the federal government concerning the
construction of a modern lift bridge across
the canal, to probably combine the railway
bridge and a new highway bridge which
would always give free crossings to those
who desire to avail themselves of it, and
would connect the communities on both sides
of the present canal.
If the skyway were tolled, and likewise the
new overpasses and underpasses at the canal,
these would provide new sources of revenue
which would enable the extension of the
provincial highway system in that portion of
Ontario.
The possibilities I have mentioned involve
a very large sum of money, probably in the
neighbourhood of $100 million. This is over
and above any highway programme envisaged
in the province.
It is very obvious that if this programme is
to be proceeded with, of course, the principal
revenues would come from tolls. It is there-
fore desirable that there should be general
authority to proceed in the coming year if
the necessity arises.
All the pros and cons of these matters have
been carefully canvassed by a select commit-
tee of this House, and much of what is in
view has been considered. The government
is presendy negotiating with our own federal
government, the governments of New York
state and Michigan, and other areas and inter-
ests. This development can have immense
possibilities for Ontario, including the
development of the tourist industry.
The tying in of our system with the state
of New York, and the New York thruway
alone, has great possibilities. Likewise in
northwestern Ontario, there is, with all of
this, the development of the Quetico park
and that area.
GENERAL WELFARE ASSISTANCE
TO PERSONS
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to provide general
welfare assistance to persons."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this new Act will
replace The Unemployment Relief Act. It
contains 5 principal features. First, the expres-
sion "relief" as used in The Unemployment
Relief Act is replaced by the expression
"assistance." Provision is made for the
furnishing of assistance at the provincial
level and at the municipal level, including
the county level which is new.
Provision is made for agreements between
Canada and the province to share the cost
of assistance and the cost of public works
undertaken by either of them, to relieve
unemployment in Ontario or in any munici-
pality. Also, provision is made, along the
same lines, for agreements with the province
and the municipality.
THE LOAN AND TRUST
CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Loan
and Trust Corporations Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amending Act
allows a loan or trust company to invest in
short-term securities of one company, in
amount up to 20 per cent, of the paid-in
capital stock and reserve fund, and in addi-
tion up to 5 per cent, of the money borrowed.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
What is the purpose of that bill? I mean how
did it come about?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
It would be better to wait for the second
reading, I think, than get into a question
period now.
MARCH 19, 1958
969
THE ONTARIO FUEL BOARD ACT, 1954
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Ontario
Fuel Board Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, briefly the purpose
of this bill is to introduce new legislation
having to deal particularly with the establish-
ment of natural gas storage areas, and the
methods of establishing these storage areas,
and the method of providing compensation
when the owners of a storage area and a pipe
line company cannot by themselves complete
an agreement for that purpose.
The bill will provide a new method of
arriving at this compensation by the setting
up of a board of arbitration, the decisions of
which will be subject to appeal to the Ontario
municipal board and to the Ontario court of
appeal.
There is also another subsection dealing
with minor amendments to certain permits
that are required for the use of natural gas
for heating in industrial premises, and one of
the most important sections of the bill deals
with the validity of orders heretofore issued
by the fuel board with respect to designated
natural gas storage areas.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to extend a very warm welcome
to the students from Birchcliff Heights public
school, Scarborough; Oakridge public school,
Scarborough; Buchanan public school, Scar-
borough; Central school, Peterborough; and
Uxbridge public school.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I should
like to draw the attention of the House to
question No. 7 on the order paper in the
name of the hon. member for Kent East (Mr.
Spence).
The inquiry is this, "For the years 1955,
1956 and 1957, how many orders-in-council
were passed by the provincial government?"
I thought I would answer that verbally
for this reason, that an answer that would
possess any intelligence would have to be
an order for return, and I have not the
particulars here, but I think I can answer
the hon. member's question so he will under-
stand the situation.
First of all, it must be understood that an
order-in-council is the method by which the
executive council acts. It is comparable to the
resolution or the by-law of a municipal
council. It is the instrument by which it acts.
Now the reason I make that explanation is
this. Without any explanation, if the number
of orders-in-council were given it could be
used by persons who did not understand, to
say that this was government by order-in-
council.
Now with that, I point this out to the
hon. member. The orders are these: the
average orders-in-council in the provincial
administration run from 60 to 80 every week.
In 1955, the orders-in-council were 3,214, in
1956, 3,243, about the same; in 1957, 4,614.
Now the reason for the increase in 1957 was
the readjustment in the salaries of the staff.
If we take one or two departments here it
will illustrate what I mean.
In The Department of Highways, the
orders-in-council affecting staff amounted to
462. Orders-in-council— and remember this is
the way you act under a statute involving
rights-of-way and matters of that sort-
totalled 345. In fines and forfeitures, 49. In
regulations, 42; orders-in-council relative to
by-laws, 11; to mileage allowance, 1; motor
vehicle permits, 1; transfer of land, 6; proc-
lamation, 1; travelling expenses, 2; making
a total of 920 orders-in-council in that
department.
I have several others. In the year 1957,
there were very many orders-in-council relat-
ing to staff. I could show the hon. member
an agenda that is used in Cabinet each week.
I would be very glad to show it to any hon.
members in the House; they will find that the
great majority of orders-in-council involve the
changes of status of individuals in the public
service.
In the principal ones, in agriculture last
year, for instance, there were 206 orders-in-
council affecting staff. In health, which is
a big employment department, 424. In the
Attorney-General's Department which in-
volves provincial police and other matters
of that sort, changes such as, for instance,
the promotion of constable to corporal
involve an order-in-council. There were 305
orders-in-council in the Attorney-General's
Department concerning staff only.
I think that gives the explanation. I would
be very glad to show any of the hon. mem-
bers here a typical agenda for a Cabinet
council meeting. The executive arm of the
government and the executive arm provided
by any Act is mainly by order-in-council.
There are no resolutions and by-laws such
as in a municipal council. I think that
explains the point.
Mr. S. L. Hall (Halton): Before the orders
of the day, I would like to have the honour
of making a statement which I think should
be of interest to the hon. members of this
Assembly, especially after the hon. Minister
970
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow) gave his
estimates yesterday.
The junior farmer and junior women's
organizations of Halton county entered into
the provincial debating society 6 years ago
and the subject of the debate this year was
"Resolved that contract farming is in the
best interest of the Ontario farmers" and
I would like to say that the debating team
of Halton county won that championship
this year. I said that they entered the
debating society of junior farmers provin-
cially 6 years ago, for 4 of those years they
have won the championship and for the last
3 years they have taken it consecutively,
I think that is an honour, to which I wish
to pay tribute to our junior farmers and junior
women of Halton county.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Halton beat me to the draw. I
was going to ask the hon. Prime Minister
whether he would consider any questions to
the answers he made to the inquiry of the
hon. member for Kent East. The questions I
wanted to ask were: First, will you permit
me, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Certainly.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Firstly, are all orders-in-
council publicized? Is it public information?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, my recollection is
this: the order s-in-council are published on
the order board here, and are available at the
end of every week. But I would say to the
hon. member if there is any order-in-council
in which he is interested I would be very glad
to get full particulars.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I just wondered as a
matter of policy whether or not they are
published.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Every week, and the hon.
member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) could explain
the situation. They go to the Lieutenant-
Governor for signature — orders - in - council
relating to the executive acts of the govern-
ment which would run on an average between
60 and 80. Now it might be less than that
or it might be much more, sometimes it
might run to 100 order s-in-council.
I think he will agree that it is impossible
to take and publish those in detail, they are
very voluminous. Some of them are pages
long. To publish them in the sense that they
are published, no; but the passing of the
orders-in-council are first posted and very
often the press refers to them. I would be
very glad to give the hon. member details of
that. If he would speak to Mr. Mclntyre of
the Cabinet office he could explain that
situation to him.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Prime Minister
rather surprised me when he said the Cabinet
would pass on such a matter as the promo-
tion of a member of the Ontario provincial
police from a corporal's or constable's rank
to a higher rank, in relation to salary.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will show the hon.
member a copy of an agenda, and he can
see for himself.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is a matter of public
policy, I think, to know whether or not the
orders are all published and I do not know
that they should be, but on the other hand,
it just amazes me that the Cabinet would
pass on so many things involving individuals.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It used to be that there
was no Cabinet agenda. I imagine such was
the case in the days when the hon. member
for Brant was in, because I do not think
there was ever a Cabinet agenda before it
was introduced by this government a number
of years ago.
In any event that has been amplified, and
it would be clearly impossible. The whole
agenda is gone over, but the great majority
of items are self-explanatory and are not
questioned— otherwise one would be an in-
determinable time considering these matters.
We used to have no Cabinet secretary; that
was in the days of the hon. member for
Brant. We introduced that a number of
years ago because of the volume of work.
As I say, in some departments the orders-
in-council are very few, for instance in The
Department of the Prime Minister, I notice
last year, staff appointments concern 13
items; transfers of duties and powers, 8; pro-
clamations, 1— now that may have been a
proclamation of an Act, for instance; water
resources commission, 2—1 think those were
appointments of new personnel; warrants, 2
—no doubt having to do with some Treasury
board matter relating to perhaps the expen-
diture of money; St. Lawrence development
commission, 1— I think that was the appoint-
ment of members to the commission, and the
same with the Ontario parks board, also the
same with Ontario hospital services board;
by-election, 1; and matters relating to The
Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, 5
—now those would probably be in connection
with recommendations concerning loans and
matters of that sort; and Hungarian relief, 2.
This makes a total of 38 orders-in-council.
MARCH 19, 1958
971
Now, those matters are obviously pretty
routine.
In the Provincial Treasurer's Department
there were 146 orders-in-council, of which
86 related to matters of staff. Some of the
larger ones here: public welfare, there were
221 orders, 55 relating to staff; 35 to charit-
able institutions. I might say that probably
there was an order which had to be made
affecting each one of several charitable institu-
tions.
That is the ordinary routine of orders-in-
council.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Would the hon.
Prime Minister tell us if an order-in-council
is required for such a minor matter as, for
instance, the appointing of a new hon.
Cabinet Minister?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member knows
the procedure. The recommendation is made
to The Honourable Lieutenant - Governor
(Mr. MacKay) who, if he acquiesces, signs
the necessary forms and then the person is
appointed.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Did the
hon. Prime Minister need an order-in-council
when the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Dunlop) announced just before the last elec-
tion that The Department of Education of
this province would meet 50 per cent of
the cost of milk for the children in the
schools?
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
Mr. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Chairman, in rising to present the esti-
mates of The Department of Highways again,
I am reminded of the growth of the estimates
since my term of office as Minister. This is
only the fourth time that I have presented the
estimates, and so as a matter of interest, I
did ascertain the size of each estimate that
I have presented.
May I say that in connection with King's
highways the estimate for capital construction
was $47,965,000 for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1955. The first estimates which
I presented provided $70,000,000 for new
construction in 1955-1956. For 1956-1957
the similar figure was $77,800,000; for 1957-
1958 it was $121,734,000 and now it is
$135,200,000 for 1958-1959. This gives some
indication of the great increase in the capital
construction programme of The Department
of Highways.
CONSTRUCTION
AND OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS
COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES (NET)
Year Ending
March 31 Estimates Actual
$ $
1955 47,965,000 38,320,000
1956 70,000,000 68,262,000
1957 77,800,000 102,775,000
1958 121,734,000
1959 135,200,000
Note: Last four years would start from March 31,.
1956.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not recollect that.
I would say that, obviously, this is a hypo-
thetical question.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and that the House
resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply, Mr. H. M. Allen in the chair.
Our estimates for subsidies has increased
over that time as well. Our total estimates
for the payment of subsidies on capital work
for municipalities, in 1955-1956 was $31
million. In 1956-1957, $35 million, and in
1957-1958 it was $36 million. The present
estimates are $44.4 million. This is an
increase of practically 50 per cent., in the
assistance, by way of subsidy on capital
grants to the municipalities:
ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL BRANCH, DHO
Fiscal Year Ending March 31
1955 - 1956 1956 - 1957 1957 - 1958 1958 - 1959
Capital $ $ $ $
Municipal Subsidies 25,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 37,000,000
Development Roads 5,000,000 5,000,000 6,100,000 7,000,000
Unincorporated Twps 1,000,000 400,000 600,000 400,000
Total Capital $31,000,000 $35,400,000 $36,700,000 $44,400,000
Ordinary
Municipal Subsidies 17,000,000 20,000,000 22,000,000 23,000,000
Development Roads 750,000 350,000 500,000 500,000
Unincorporated Twps 750,000 600,000 750,000 1,000,000
Total Ordinary $18,500,000 $20,950,000 $23,250,000 $24,500,000
Note: Actual subsidy payments, capital and ordinary, are shown on the bottom of page 8 under vote 602.
972
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to review a record of the
progress in the year nearing its end, and out-
line some of our objectives for next year.
We are now well under way on a planned
programme of highway construction of such
extent as this province has never known.
Since it takes some 4 years of planning, pre-
engineering, and actual construction before
a modern highway can be completed for use,
the work of many engineering specialists,
which has been in progress for the past two
or three years, will result in new highways to
be completed in 1958, and work will continue
or start on further highways to be constructed
in the following years. I mention this because
the progress made in any one year cannot be
judged solely on the mileage of highways
completed in that year, even though that
mileage is as substantial as it has been.
Just a year ago, "A Plan for Ontario High-
ways" was completed and made public, in
which it was estimated that it would cost over
$2.7 billion to construct new highways and
reconstruct old highways to the modern stan-
dards, which would provide for the great
increase in motor vehicle traffic which is
expected over the next 20 years. This plan
was based on sound engineering and economic
studies, which took into account the present
condition of all King's highways and second-
ary highways, provided a classification of
highways and new highway standards suited
to future requirements, and included an
estimate of the total cost. I might say that
while this report was prepared by extremely
competent engineers in the department, we
had the co-operation of Canadian authorities
and retained the services of the automotive
safety foundation, Washington, considered the
outstanding authority in the United States.
Our plan for Ontario highways is a
practical functional plan designed to meet
Ontario's highways needs. The past con-
struction year has seen this plan in action,
and our programme for 1958-1959 provides
for another year of progress, towards our
goal of bringing every King's highway up to
the high standard that is, or will be, required
to serve some 4 million registered motor
vehicles expected in the province in the
next 20 years. When this goal is achieved,
one-quarter of our King's highway mileage
will be composed of dual-lane highways. The
balance, where necessary, will have been
entirely constructed with better alignment,
adequate sight distances, and moderate grades.
At the rate that we have planned for our
work for 1958-1959, it is estimated that we
can complete our planned programme in
very little more than 10 years. To do this
would depend, of course, on being able to
maintain expenditures at the 1958-1959 level,
and that the purchasing power of our high-
way dollar would remain unchanged.
Data on which our plan for Ontario
highways is based is constantly being supple-
mented by continuing studies which keep
the plan up to date in the face of changing
conditions. We also have under way a study
of municipal rural roads and urban streets
to which I will refer in more detail later
on. This study should be completed late in
1958, and at that time we will have a
comprehensive picture of the entire network
of some 83,600 miles of King's highways,
secondary highways, rural municipal roads
and urban streets which carry all of the
motor vehicle traffic throughout the province.
Responsibilities of the department
Just as a matter of record I should say that
The Department of Highways has two main
functions. The department is responsible for
the planning, design, construction and main-
tenance of some 11,200 miles of King's high-
ways and secondary highways which are the
full responsibility of the province. Then,
through our municipal branch we administer
subsidies paid by the province to assist some
1,000 organized municipalities, to construct
and maintain the rural roads and urban
streets, for which the municipalities are
responsible. The municipal branch also
finances the construction of development
roads, and provides assistance to some 430
statute labour boards and groups of settlers
in unorganized districts.
I will discuss the operations of, and
estimates for, each of these departmental
activities separately as I proceed in these
remarks. But, of our total estimated require-
ments for 1958-1959, three-quarters will be
expended on the King's highway and second-
ary highway system and one-quarter will be
distributed by our municipal branch. The
motor vehicles branch, which has been part
of The Department of Highways since the
latter was organized in 1916, was transferred
to the new Department of Transport as of
July 1, 1957, so I will not deal with the
report of estimates of this branch at this
time.
Progress of the department 1957-1958
Before I outline our proposed 1958-1959
programme, I would like to review the work
of the department in the fiscal year 1957-
1958. We started off the year last April 1
with the largest appropriation and the most
important programme of capital work in our
MARCH 19, 1958
973
history. We accomplished what we set out
do to and— in some directions— a little bit
more. Now we are prepared to carry out
an even more extensive programme in the
coming year as another step forward in our
long-term plan.
Net expenditure in the current year is
$230,038,000 which closely approximates our
estimate for the year. Of that total $64,185,-
000 was expended in subsidies by our muni-
cipal roads branch and $165,853,000 was
the net expenditure on the King's highways
system. However, actual total expenditure
on the King's highway system was $176,-
278,000 which was reduced to the net figure
by refunds under the trans-Canada highway
agreement and the St. Lawrence seaway.
For purposes of comparison the net
estimated total expenditure, in the fiscal
year 1958-1959, is $252,844,000 of which
$68,935,000 will be paid in subsidies to
municipalities. This leaves a net expenditure
on account of King's highways of
$183,909,000. However, the actual cost of
administration, construction and maintenance
of the King's highways system will be
$198,909,000, which is reduced to the net
figure by refunds estimated at $15,000,000
which will be recoverable under the trans-
Canada highway agreement and payments
from the St. Lawrence seaway.
Contracts completed in 1957
Some 234 capital contracts were completed
in 1957, including contracts covering 395
miles of paving, 93 structures and 420 miles
of grading. The department also completed
some 152 ordinary expenditure contracts for
maintenance including 40.6 miles of resur-
facing and 308 miles of surface treatment.
Some of these completed contracts had been
let in prior years, while others were awarded
and completed in 1957. During 1957 the
department awarded some 241 contracts for
capital works, including 470 miles of grading,
337 miles of paving, and 82 structures. In
addition, 155 ordinary expenditure contracts
for maintenance work were awarded.
Contracts to a value of over $30 million
were let during the winter months in order
to enable the successful bidders to plan ahead
and get off to an early start with the opening
of the construction year. This volume of
winter tender calls, which was a few million
only a few years ago, indicates how our
planning and pre-engineering have been
advanced.
While highway construction work still
remains largely seasonal in character, the
effect of winter tender calls has been that
contractors retain more staff over the winter
months and get off to an earlier start in the
spring. In addition, more winter work is
being done on structures as the result of
improved techniques. The net result is that
there is substantially more winter employ-
ment in the highway construction industry
than was possible before.
We have, as you know, a number of great
projects in progress such as highway No.
401, the trans-Canada highway, the reloca-
tion of highways around the St. Lawrence
seaway area, the Ottawa Queensway and last,
but not least, the Burlington Beach skyway
and the transformation of the Queen Eliza-
beth Way to a fully controlled-access high-
way. I intend to outline the progress that
has been made on each of these major
projects, but first I might give some of the
highlights of our construction programme
during 1957 by various regions throughout
the province.
In the southwestern part of the province
the 38 miles of the London by-pass section
of highway No. 401 was officially opened
to the public in May, 1957, and the paving
contract for the Windsor entrance of the
Windsor-Tilbury section of highway No. 401
v/as completed and will be officially opened
early this year. Contracts were awarded for
the grading and paving of Highway No. 20
for 7.2 miles up the Hamilton mountain from
near Stoney Creek to the Lincoln county line.
In the central region two grading con-
tracts were completed for 5.5 miles on high-
way No. 401 between highway No. 27 and
highway No. 10, which enabled paving con-
tracts to be called in 1957 ahead of schedule,
and this paving will be completed in 1958.
Two grading contracts were called for the
13 miles of highway No. 401 between high-
way No. 10 and highway No. 25, in addi-
tion to which there were 5 structures called.
During 1958, work on this section will be
going on for 19 miles west of highway
No. 27.
The bridge over the Humber river at the
west entrance of Toronto was completed and
other contracts were called to complete the
department section of this Toronto entrance
in 1958.
Highway No. 11 was widened to 36 feet
and 48 feet from Orillia to Washago and
grading and paving were completed.
The first contract was let for the widening
of the Queen Elizabeth Way to a 6-lane
highway just west of Toronto as far as
highway No. 27 to take care of the large
volume of traffic using this highway. Good
974
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
progress was made on structures, grading
and paving for interchanges at Kerr street,
Oakville, and Mississauga road on the Queen
Elizabeth Way.
Important structure contracts were called
to accelerate completion of the trans-Canada
highway between Waubaushene and Footes
Bay.
I should repeat that these are only the
highlights in our capital construction pro-
gramme during the past year, and that a
great deal of other capital and maintenance
work has been done in each region which I
mention.
In the eastern region along highway No.
401 grading was completed for 13.3 miles
from Belleville, which enabled paving con-
tracts to be called in 1957, and 4 asphalt
paving contracts were called for some 24
miles to complete the paving of the Trenton
and Belleville by-passes from highway No. 33
in the west to approximately Marysville in
the east.
Late in the year two grading contracts
were let for some 12.5 miles to extend high-
way No. 401 easterly from its present terminus
near Newcastle.
In the Kingston district alone 13 structures
on highway No. 401 were completed, includ-
ing the Cataraqui River bridge. The Kingston
by-pass was paved from highway No. 38 to
highway No. 15 and was officially opened to
the public, while work was started on the
east end of the by-pass between highway No.
15 and the Joyceville sideroad.
Adjacent to the St. Lawrence seaway 4
paving contracts were completed on highway
No. 401, and early this summer will see the
completion of relocated highway No. 2 to
by-pass the proposed seaway flooded area
from Iroquois to Cornwall, a distance of
39 miles.
I regret that my hon. friend from
Stormont (Mr. Manley) is not here. I would
like to remind him of his statement the
other day in the House that we had done
no work in his area. I am sure that many hon.
members would be delighted to have one
stretch of 39 miles of fine new highway in
their constituency.
A grading contract for nearly 5 miles was
called in the further expansion of the Bicroft
uranium mines area and this was completed
on scheduled time under the first contract
with a liquidated damages clause.
In the north, 3 grading contracts were
completed for approximately 26 miles and
two paving contracts were completed on
the Quirke Lake road from highway No. 17
to the Elliot Lake townsite. This road was not
even a trail 4 years ago, and we are told now
that it is one of the busy highways of the prov-
ince.
I am delighted to say that I followed with
interest the service that was rendered the
uranium mines during the winter. I inquired
as to whether this road had ever been blocked
during the winter, and was informed that
it had not been at any time. Of course, this
makes possible the transportation of these
very heavy truckloads of sulphuric acid from
Cutler to the mines at Quirke Lake and that
the entire operation during the winter had
been satisfactory.
Highway No. 11 from 10 miles east to 10
miles west of Smooth Rock Falls was paved
and good progress was made on the large
bridge over the Mattagami River at Smooth
Rock Falls. While this bridge is being
completed we have a large Bailey bridge in
operation. Further south, the new location
of highway No. 11 was completed and paved
over some 13 miles from the Big East river
north of Huntsville to Emsdale.
Along the trans-Canada highway in this
region the principal work is to close the
Gap north of the Agawa river to Marathon
on which all clearing has been done and
grading has been started. East from Marathon
some 60 miles of the Gap has been completed
to date, of which some will be ready for
paving contract calls in 1958. The little Pic
River bridge, which is one of the largest
structures on the Ontario section of the trans-
Canada highway, is now nearing completion.
The grading and structures were called for
the 3.5 miles of the Thessalon by-pass.
In the northwestern section of the province
approximately 31 miles of the trans-Canada
highway were completed and paved in 1957,
while contracts were called for 31 miles of
grading in the vicinity of Borups Corners,
highway No. 105 and 6 miles east of the
Manitoba boundary. Two paving contracts
were called for approximately 29 miles to
complete the paving of highway No. 120 from
Atikokan to its start at highway No. 17. The
initial contract was called on the Rainy Lake
causeway, east of Fort Frances.
Maintenance operations
During 1957 maintenance operations were
carried out on 8,681 miles of King's high-
ways and 2,040 miles of secondary highways.
This includes a large number of operations
ranging from repairs and improvements on
highway and road surfaces to bridge repairs,
winter maintenance, safety measures— such as
MARCH 19, 1958
975
zone painting, the installation of traffic sig-
nals, production and installation of signs and
the planting of 150,000 trees and shrubs.
I think perhaps I should repeat that
because we often receive complaints when we
cut a tree down. I am not sure that everyone
realizes that we plant a great many more
trees than we cut, and so I say again, the
planting of 150,000 trees and shrubs, seeding
and maintenance of highway right-of-ways
and the operation of weigh-scales to ensure
that trucks are being operated in accordance
with The Highway Traffic Act.
The work of winter maintenance is in itself
a large operation to carry on over 12,400
miles of highway and roads including town-
ship roads and mining access roads, from
which the cost of plowing is recovered by
the department. This work involves the use
of a large fleet of plows, trucks, graders,
snow-blowers, tractors and power sand and
salt spreaders, in order that the highways can
be kept open for traffic regardless of weather
conditions.
To take the place of sodding of highway
right-of-ways the department has developed
a hydraulic seeding-mulch blower method of
seeding grass which is now being used exten-
tively at a substantial saving.
Progress on highway No. 401
During 1957, a further 36 miles of high-
way No. 401 were put into operation and
the total now opened to traffic is 175 miles.
We have stepped up the work on this high-
way and another 50 miles should be com-
pleted in 1958 to relieve the critical sec-
tions of highways Nos. 2, 5, 7, and the
Queen Elizabeth Way. The sections to be
completed this year include the Windsor
entrance, and from highway No. 27 to high-
way No. 10.
We are rather proud of the opening of
this highway which we hope will be late in
the summer. The highway will be opened
in a period of less than two years from the
time that the first contract was let, and we
are proud of the speed with which this work
is being completed. Then, too, we will also
complete highway No. 401 from highway
No. 30 to highway No. 33, highway No. 33
to the sideroad west of Marysville, and high-
way No. 15 to the Joyceville sideroad.
In addition to the work now in progress,
we intend to call contracts for paving 23
miles of 4-lane divided highway which in-
cludes new sections from Gananoque to the
Kingston by-pass, from Brighton to Marys-
ville and from highway No. 27 to highway No.
10. We will also pave 12 miles of two-lane
highway east from Gananoque. We will start
grading on 45 miles of dual-lane highway
of which 33 miles are from Brighton to Port
Hope, and 12 miles are from highway No.
25 to highway No. 6. We will also do 24
miles of two-lane grading in the Ottawa
district as the first stage of construction
where the full 4-lane highway is not as yet
warranted.
In summary, we expect to call new con-
tracts for paving or grading over 106 miles
of highway No. 401 together with contracts
for construction of some 44 structures. This,
of course, is in addition to work that has been
called during 1957 or within recent months
and which is now under way. The new
contracts to be called on highway No. 401
this year have an estimated value of $25.4
million and our estimated expenditure will
be $22,800,000 as compared with an expen-
diture of $17,800,000 in the year just ending.
Progress on the trans-Canada highway
Work along the 1,440 miles of the Ontario
section of the trans-Canada highway is well
up to schedule for completion by the end of
1960, as provided in our agreement with the
federal government. The total cost of this
work up to the end of 1960 is estimated at
$170 million, on most of which we will be
reimbursed to the extent of 50 per cent,
except for 136 miles of the section known
as the Gap on which we will receive 90 per
cent, from the federal government. By the
end of this fiscal year we will have received
a total of $40 million, and expect to receive
another $14 million in 1958-1959.
"The Gap" consists of the section between
the Agawa river, north of Sault Ste. Marie,
and Marathon, a distance of 165 miles. By
June, 1958, all grading contracts will have
been awarded and it is also proposed to
award paving contracts for 45 miles before
the end of the year. This work is all through
virgin country and many difficulties have had
to be surmounted by our highway engineers.
To date $10,537,000 has been spent on the
Gap, and another $12,133,000 will be spent
this year. Elsewhere the work consists
essentially of bringing existing highways up
to trans-Canada standards (or better where
traffic demand so warrants) with construction
on new location where a more direct route
or a by-pass is warranted. Work on the
by-passes at Carleton Place, Peterborough,
Lindsay, Orillia, Coldwater, and Thessalon is
included.
976
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Proposed new contracts on the trans-
Canada highway for the coming year include
314 miles of paving and grading and 36
structures. The expenditure proposed on
these contracts, and on work carried forward
from this year, is over $28,000,000, an
increase of some $5,500,000 over the expendi-
ture in the past year. This does not include
work on the Ottawa Queensway which comes
under a special construction agreement.
Ottawa Queensway
As I reported a year ago The Department
of Highways has undertaken a joint responsi-
bility for the construction of the Queensway
section of the trans-Canada highway at
Ottawa. This is a joint agreement with the
federal government, the federal district com-
mission and the city of Ottawa. The Queens-
way is a controlled-access highway which will
pass through the centre of Ottawa and it
will be completed in 4 stages.
Work was started during 1957, and during
1958-1959 we will call further contracts to
an estimated value of $3,700,000 on which
estimated expenditures will be $2,480,000
Under agreement the province will pay the
usual 50 per cent, of the cost of the Queens-
way and the balance will be met by the
federal government and the city of Ottawa.
St. Lawrence seaway project
The St. Lawrence seaway project has en-
tailed the relocation of highway No. 2 for a
distance of approximately 35 miles. At present
17 miles of highway No. 401 are paved and
open to traffic from the new townsite of
Iroquois to north of Aultsville and contracts
have been awarded for the 15 miles of high-
way No. 2 between these two points.
This section of highway No. 401 is being
used while the new section of highway No.
401, on the old railroad line, is being built. It
is expected that all work on highway No. 2 will
be completed by July 31, 1958. The Ontario
Hydro Electric Power Commission has agreed
to pay all costs of relocating highway No. 2
and half of the cost of connecting roads
between highway No. 2 and highway No.
401. By the end of the current year we shall
have received some $5 million from the com-
mission to pay for this work.
Burlington skyway bridge
The Burlington skyway bridge is now well
advanced and should be completed by next
September. The gap over the canal has been
closed and while some work still remains
to be done on the superstructure the main
work to be done during the construction
season is the deck including the pavement,
lighting and the balance of the work on the
approaches. Expenditure on the skyway in
1958 will be $3,300,000 as compared with
$7,400,000 in 1957-1958.
Queen Elizabeth Way
New work proposed for the Queen Eliza-
beth Way will continue the work already done
to change this heavily travelled highway by
securing full control of access which will in-
crease the capacity, facilitate the flow of
traffic and reduce accidents. New contracts
to a value of $3,400,000 will be called in
1958-1959 for interchanges, service roads and
structures.
On the first section, as I mentioned before
last year, we added a lane from the Humber
river to highway No. 27, which became our
first 6-lane highway in the province. It is
really with a great deal of satisfaction that
we observe the traffic on that 6-lane highway
this year and note how nicely it is handled
and how well behaved the traffic is.
Contracts
Now a word about contracts.
All of our capital construction on King's
highways and secondary highways is done
under contract with the department supply-
ing most of the materials. Some of our main-
tenance work is done under contract, but the
greater part is done by the district staffs
under the direction of the district engineers.
During the past year we have had most
satisfactory relations with the large number of
contractors upon whom we depend for the
excellence and speed of the work on our
major construction contracts.
As I reported in some detail a year ago,
the department has introduced a series of
revised or new procedures designed to ensure
that the great volume of contract work will
be handled in a most business-like manner,
both from the standpoint of the individual
contractor and the department. These new
procedures have continued to work to the
satisfaction of everyone during the past year
and we see no reason why they will not con-
tinue to do so.
Only a little more than a year ago we
introduced a "liquidated damage" clause in
some of our contracts and this clause was
applied to 30 capital contracts and 92 main-
tenance projects during the current year.
Most of the capital contracts have yet to be
completed, but on gravel contracts the
general experience was that the work was
done by the stipulated time and where the
contractor failed to complete his work on
r
MARCH 19, 1958
977
schedule we have collected damages. It is
our intention to apply liquidated damages to
more capital contracts and to all maintenance
contracts in the coming year.
The qualification of contractors, which was
announced a year ago, was given further
study and introduced late last October. To
date, some 18 qualified contracts have been
awarded or have been announced and the
results have been more than satisfactory both
as to the number of tenders received and the
bids on which the contracts have been
awarded. Applications for ratings have been
received from 130 contractors and an average
of 11 bids have been received on the con-
tracts containing the qualification clause
which have been awarded to date. This com-
pares with an average of 7 bids per contract
for all other contracts awarded in the period
from April 1, 1957 to January 31, 1958.
During the 1958 construction year all
contracts on highway No. 401 and most
projects of larger size will be awarded on
the qualified basis.
I might perhaps offer a word of explanation
concerning the number of bids on these
two types of contracts. It is, of course, only
the larger contracts that are awarded on the
qualified basis and that is the reason, or may
be the reason, for the greater number of bids
on the qualified contracts than on those that
were not qualified.
We have recently completed revising our
"general conditions of the contract" which
will become effective with the first contracts
awarded in the fiscal year starting April 1.
This revision will clarify various points for
the mutual benefit of both the department
and the contractors.
The public opening of tenders which is
held each week is now attended by up to
60 contractors or their representatives which
indicates a keen interest in the outcome of the
current bidding. It is interesting to note
that the general trend of contract unit prices
has been down during 1957 and that the
average is 14.2 per cent, lower than in 1956-
1957, although it still remains 5.2 per cent,
higher than 1955-1956. On the other hand
the cost of major materials used in construc-
tion contracts and supplied by the department
has increased during the past year, and it is
estimated that the cost of these materials in
1958-1959 will be approximately 15 per cent,
higher than similar materials purchased in
1955-1956.
That was the base year referred to by the
"needs study" and that is the reason for
making the comparisons with 1955 and 1956.
DHO staff
I would like to take this occasion to pay
tribute to the excellent services rendered by
the staff of the department under the direc-
tion of Mr. W. J. Fulton, our Deputy Minister,
and senior officials of the department includ-
ing the district engineers in each of our 18
districts throughout the province. The
extremely high standard of our King's high-
way system is generally recognized not only
by visitors to this province but also by other
highway authorities. I believe that we have
every reason to be proud of the organization
that makes this possible. I might also add
that Ontario is unique in the winter main-
tenance of our highways which permits their
use in winter as well as in summer, frequently
under most adverse weather conditions.
During 1957, we were able to secure more
professional engineers and in February, 1958,
we had 328 graduate engineers on our staff
as compared with 272 a year ago. This
improvement is partly due to the fact that we
went to the British Isles late in 1956 in order
to secure technically trained staff which was
needed very badly at that time. In addition,
there has been some relaxation in the general
demand for Canadian engineers and we have
been able to secure more recent graduates
from engineering schools.
We have organized the training of new
engineering personnel in order to give each
man some experience in each phase of high-
way engineering. Within recent weeks we
had 11 engineers taking this induction course.
This is in addition to the numerous training
courses which are conducted by the depart-
ment and which were attended by 825 em-
ployees during the past year.
We are continuing to streamline our or-
ganization so that we can make the greatest
possible use of the engineering skills that
we now have. Where it is possible to relieve
engineering personnel of administrative and
other work which can be done equally well
by others we are endeavouring to do so.
An example of this is the use that we
are now making of electronic computers. This
has included cut and fill computations and
analysis of traffic data and equipment costs.
Early this year we established a special
section to handle this work which will be
extended to other applications in the field
of highway engineering and administration.
Capital construction programme
The proposed capital construction pro-
gramme of the department for the fiscal
year 1958-1959 entails an expenditure of
978
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$150,200,000 which compares with an esti-
mated expenditure of $132,200,000 in the
year just ending and $109,300,000 in the
year ended March 31, 1957. Of the pro-
posed expenditure, $15,000,000 will be pro-
vided by recovery on work done under the
trans-Canada highway agreement and on the
St. Lawrence seaway project. Of the balance,
$77,700,000 will be provided by vote for
construction and $57,500,000 will come from
highway construction account.
The increase in the value of work results
principally from our effort to reduce the
backlog of work on hand while at the same
time we are pushing new projects to com-
pletion. The work consists of construction
of roads and bridges, surveying and acquisi-
tion of rights-of-way, construction of district
buildings and engineering.
The various projects which are now in
progress and which are scheduled to start
in 1958-1959 are shown in some detail in
the "Capital programme for the King's high-
ways and secondary highways for the fiscal
year 1958-1959," a copy of which will be
given to each hon. member. I might say
that something new has been added this
year in the district maps which show the
location of proposed new work. I only wish
that it were possible to show in addition
the work that is actually in progress in each
district as well as the work that has been
completed in recent years. In every case it
is a very substantial volume, I can assure
hon. members.
Time does not permit me to go into details
of this programme but I can state that for
every new project there is good reason, and
that the work that is now in progress, or is to
be called in 1958-1959, fits into our long-
term plan. I will refer only to the general
outline of the programme and the major
classifications of expenditure since I have
dealt with our largest projects earlier in
these remarks.
Very briefly, we will start the new year
with work under contract or in progress to
the amount of $80,100,000. On this carry-
over we will spend $70,400,000 during the
coming year. We will call tenders on new
projects with an estimated value of $134,-
325,000 on which we will spend $78,275,000.
Including contracts which will not be called
until next winter, we expect to have a carry-
over of $65,750,000 at March 31, 1959.
If I may restate these figures in a dif-
ferent way, we will have work to a total
value of $214,425,000 in some stage of pro-
gress during the coming year, and of that
total we will pay for $148,675,000, or nearly
70 per cent., as it is completed during the
year.
Municipal roads
Now I would like to deal with some of
the responsibilities of our municipal branch.
Every municipal corporation in the province
receives subsidy from the province on expendi-
tures that are properly chargeable to road
improvement. The rates of subsidy vary
accordingly to the classification of the muni-
cipality and are set forth in The Highway
Improvement Act, but the total of subsidy
payments is very close to half of the total
amount spent by more than 1,000 organized
municipalities on the construction and main-
tenance of urban streets and rural municipal
roads.
Of the total of 83,600 miles of highways,
roads and streets in the province, some 60,000
are rural roads in organized municipalities,
such as counties and townships, while over
7,900 miles are urban streets.
In order to estimate the total of municipal
subsidies that the department may be called
upon to authorize, it is necessary to estimate
the reasonable requirements of the municipali-
ties for normal construction and maintenance
for the calendar year. Each of the organized
municipalities is then given a separate allot-
ment for construction and for maintenance
work, and it is on the basis of these allotments,
together with a provision for expenditures on
special capital projects under supplemental
by-laws, that our estimates of total subsidy
payments are based.
During 1958, we estimate that the organized
municipalities throughout the province will
spend $116,000,000 on the construction
and maintenance of rural roads and urban
streets, and that subsidies on that total to be
administered by our municipal roads branch
will total $60,000,000.
We suggest to the municipalities that they
do good construction work of a permanent
nature rather than maintenance work of more
temporary character when they set out to
improve their road surfaces. This policy tends
to greater economy in the long run and it
is for this reason that subsidies for capital
construction work now total $37,000,000, or
nearly two-thirds of the total subsidies to be
paid in our new fiscal year.
In addition to municipal subsidies, assistance
is provided to statute labour boards and
groups of settlers in unorganized areas served
by some 5,000 miles of road. Assistance may
also be given on individual roads which are
designated as development roads.
MARCH 19, 1958
979
As in previous years, each hon. member
will receive a copy of the municipal roads
programme for 1958-1959, which shows for
each municipality in the province the depart-
ment's estimates of the reasonable require-
ments of the municipality, which is the only
basis that we have for the amount of subsidy
which may be paid. This programme is broken
down by counties and territorial districts for
ready reference.
In summary, we are asking for $68,935,000
for municipal roads, of which $60,000,000 is
for subsidies to organized municipalities,
$7,500,000 is for development roads and
$1,400,000 is for assistance on roads in
unincorporated areas.
Municipal needs study
During the past year the department has
undertaken a study of rural roads and urban
streets which are under municipal jurisdic-
tion. This study is complementary to the
report that has been made on the King's
highways and secondary highways so that
when the work is completed late this year
we will have the fullest possible knowledge
of all the highways, roads and streets in the
province.
The municipal needs study is being carried
out with the co-operation of the municipal
authorities who are represented on two
advisory committees— one dealing with urban
needs and the other with rural needs. Out of
this study we expect to secure an up-to-date
report on both the existing and anticipated
needs so that the Legislature and the muni-
cipalities can take whatever action is neces-
sary. We also hope the report will stimulate
long-term planning by counties and town-
ships, cities and towns, because without such
planning an adequate and economical road
or street system cannot be developed.
As I have mentioned previously, the
information that we already have on the
King's highways and secondary highways is be-
ing kept up-to-date. This will be consolidated
with the results of the municipal needs study
and a full report should be available for con-
sideration by the Legislature early in 1959.
I might add that we are also making special
studies of the future highway needs of urban
and suburban areas, which are expanding
rapidly, while other studies are being made
or are planned for areas where there is very
low density of population. This has particu-
larly to do with traffic.
Planning and constructing our provincial
highways and municipal roads and streets to
meet the constantly increasing traffic demands
over the next 20 years is a job that requires a
great deal of engineering skill, judgment and
foresight. It also requires an appreciation by
the hon. members of this House of the import-
ance of a modern and adequate system of
highways to the future growth of this
province.
We are now well started toward the
achievement of our objective, and the estim-
ates which I am prepared to discuss in some
detail will provide for another year of planned
effort on the part of the department for the
benefit, convenience and increased safety of
those who use our highways.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, might I point out to the hon.
members of the House that this year, The
Department of Highways and The Depart-
ment of Transport are separate and the hon.
Minister is going to deal with transport
when that order is called. That would avoid
duplications in questions and answers.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to make
a few remarks of some general application
rather than specific reference to any parti-
cular item?
At the outset, I think I should compliment
the hon. Minister for his very personable and
capable explanation of the roads programme
for the next year. I think on the other hand,
that it is the duty of the hon. members of
the Opposition to probe the programme that
has been enunciated to determine its sound-
ness. In that spirit, I approach this particular
subject.
Mr. Chairman, you will well recall that a
year ago, considerable publicity attended the
presentation of the estimates in this House.
At that time, we were told that we had a
new, elaborate, sound engineering-wise and
sound financial-wise programme, for the next
20 years.
I was much surprised, therefore, when the
hon. Minister told us a few minutes ago, that
that programme devised in the best engineer-
ing manner, devised with the best scientific
advice that could be obtained, can be speeded
up to a point where within 10 years, we will
carry out what we intended to do in 20 years.
Normally it is a good thing to speed up
a programme. It is normally a complimentary
thing to accomplish in 10 years what you
planned to do in 20. But in this instance, I ask
the hon. Minister whether it is a good thing,
or whether it demonstrates, in graphic and
realistic fashion, the exact criticism that the
Opposition made a year ago, that the plan
in effect, was nothing more than an elabora-
980
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tion of the drawing boards of the department
at that time.
Sure we know, basically, what roads we
are going to extend. Sure we know, basic-
ally, what costs we are going to encounter
in the repairs of our existing roads, and. I
suggest to the hon. Minister that the plan
was nothing more than a demonstration on
expensive paper, and in graphic form, of what
has been on the boards in that department for
some years past.
I ask the hon. Minister whether or not
that plan was the one greatly acclaimed to
be a super effort, on the part of the depart-
ment, to once and for all allay the criticisms
of hon. Opposition members, and those who
feel that our programme is not a far-sighted
one. Now we are told, after the elapse of
one year, that this great plan had been so
under-estimated that, by virtue of spending
the amount of money that was spent last
year and in the next ensuing 20 years— pro-
vided we relate that dollar to the then
prevailing dollar— we will accomplish the
programme in 10 years.
Now, I say the engineers in this depart-
ment are good men; the planners are good
men. They would not be out by 10 years.
They knew very well last year that the pro-
gramme would not take, or could not take
20 years— or in the alternative— they were
telling us something that was not true. I
cannot for one moment believe that they so
under-estimated the work to be done; that
they so under-estimated their planning, that
they were out by 10 years on a 20-year pro-
gramme, after the expiration of one year.
Now if this statement was made 9 years
from now, or if the statement was made 10,
or 11, or 12 years from now, I could accept
it. But a year after the super plan is pre-
sented to this House, we are told, lo and
behold, we can now accomplish everything
that we intended to do, in 20 years, in 10
short years.
I know that this government feels it has
accomplished the impossible many times, but
I suggest that what it has done is that it has
accomplished the impossible physically, it
has done the impossible intellectually, because
it is logically impossible that a capable,
scientific man would sit down and say it is
going to take me 20 years to do this, and a
year later tell me it will only take 10.
That is one of my criticisms and for that
reason I ask these specific questions:
Other than the extension of the existing
roads, other than the repair of existing roads,
what in the world are we going to do in
this next 20 years? How many roads com-
parable—I do not know the terminology— but
comparable to highway No. 401 and the
Queen Elizabeth Way and highway No. 400
are we going to build? Does the 20-year
programme include a road to the north, of the
nature of highway No. 401 and how far— to
James Bay, Hudson Bay, or half-way there?
Does it include a dual or multi-dual road
between St. Godfrey's and Cornwall, a road
north of the existing highway No. 401 at the
present time?
These are the specific questions that the
hon. members of the Opposition want to know,
and in addition we want to know what
progress has been made in respect to these
specific undertakings.
Now then, the second criticism that I have
of this programme is one of finance.
One will recall that the hon. Minister said
that given the amount of money that he has
at the present time he can undertake his
programme very easily in the course of the
next 20 years, now he says 10 years. I would
remind hon. members at the present time, that
he is receiving from the people of Ontario
approximately $145 million in the form of
gasoline tax, motor vehicle licences and the
like. In other words his department has an
income of about $145 million to $150 million.
On the other hand, the hon. Minister tells us
that he is expending in the nature, last year,
of $230 million and the year thereafter, I
think, $252 million— therefore next year he
will be $100 million short of his goal, at least
$100 million short of his revenue.
What programme does he have over the
next ensuing either 10, or 20 years? In this
respect I hope it is 10. To finance this effort,
we need highways— of course we need them
—but surely to goodness this department
now represents one-third of our total expendi-
tures and increasingly represents not only
more of our expenditures dollar-wise but
actually encroaches more in our general
revenue.
A department that is going into the hole
at the rate of $120 million next year should
have some fiscal programme, should have
some plan, as to how that indebtedness is
going to be repaid. Does the hon. Minister
expect that the increased number of motor
\ehicles in the next ensuing 10 years will
be of such that the revenue of gasoline tax
and motor vehicle licences will make up
this difference and if not, how does he intend
make it up?
It seems to me that these are the things
that the people of Ontario want to know
about. I, for one, feel that it is time that
MARCH 19, 1958
981
we really seriously got down to the business
of planning, in a long-range fashion, our
physical development highway-wise.
Moreover, we should plan our fiscal pro-
gramme to pay for that work in a realistic
practical manner, because I frankly believe
that 10 years from now, or even 20 years
from now, we will be doing exactly what
we are doing now.
By this I mean we are doing what appears
necessary to everybody, without any relation-
ship to how it is going to De paid, hoping to
goodness that we are not going to hurt the
motorist, or hurt the people's feelings, with
respect to the sources of revenue that we
are to tap, in an effort to pay for this pro-
gramme.
In fact, we are being a little bit political
about it, to the extent that we do not want
to tell the whole story and be responsible for
paying for the undertakings in the good things
that we think we are going to do, that is
build these highways we are overdoing.
But emphatically the government has a
responsibility of saying how it is going to
pay for them.
I say this government has no conception
in the world what its revenue is going to
be over the course of the next 20 years,
related to the payment of the programme that
it introduced as a mammoth super programme
a year ago, and now says that it still is a
super programme, but in terms of super
government this will be accomplished within
a matter of 10 years.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Super super programme.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Super super programme,
that is what it is, and the more super it gets
the less logical it gets. That is just about
the size of it.
Mr. Chairman, the second point that I
want to make is a little bit technical. I would
ask or invite the assistance of the hon. Minis-
ter in its presentation.
The hon. Minister knows that I, on various
occasions, have criticized the highway reserve
fund. Now I am not going to direct a super
super super criticism of the highway reserve
fund this afternoon, but I am going to ask
this specific question.
The hon. Minister told us a few minutes
ago that he spent $230 million last year, now
let him accept that. At least last year he told
us, at the time he presented his estimates,
that of that $230 million he intended to spend,
the government would receive $20 million
from the highway reserve fund, now let us
accept that. In fact, I say—
Hon. Mr. Allan: Pardon me, I do not think
I said that. No, was there not $37.5 million
already in that fund?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, all I have to do
to establish my point is to refer to the
1958 estimates, that is the estimates of a year
ago. Now on page 51: certainly vote 603,
highway reserve accounts, was $20 million.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That was putting it in.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh exactly, but that is
very true, but that is the amount. The hon.
Minister said the government was going to
spend $230 million. He sanctified his position
by saying: "I did that, I said I was going to
pay $230 million, and in fact I did it."
Part of that proposition is related to the
fact that the hon. Minister said a year ago
the government was going to receive $20 mil-
lion from the highway reserve fund, in fact I
say that the government received $57.5 million
from that same fund— at least that is what the
hon. Provincial Treasurer said when he pre-
sented his budget a few weeks ago. On page
A5 of that budgetary report hon. members
will note that the capital receipts related to
highway construction fund is shown as fol-
lows—and I do not want to bore hon. mem-
bers with all the details— but it is $37 million
plus $57 million, less $37.5 million or a net
of $57.5 million expenditures as far as high-
ways are concerned.
Now my simple question is this: where is
the $37 million? Did the department spend
$37.5 million more than the $230 million
the hon. Minister talks about or $37.5 million
less; or if the $230 million includes every-
thing, where in the world is the $37 million
that was anticipated for specific expenditure
by the department?
Now I am not going to identify any fur-
ther questions at this particular time, but
in a specific way I would like this discussion
to get under way with the answer to these
several problems. I hope that the highway
reserve problem will not be treated firstly,
because I think that in terms of reality it
is a technical problem. In terms of reality
the big problems are these: what is the de-
partment's programme? Why is the depart-
ment accomplishing in 10 years what it said
it would take 20 years to do?
Is the department going to build any more
"401's" between the great lakes and, say,
Cornwall north of highway No. 401? What
is going to be done about extending high-
way No. 400 into the northland and other
major plans that the department has, and
secondly what is going to be done about
982
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
financing this project— desirable and neces-
sary as it is— in a manner that the people of
Ontario feel responsible for?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I must
say that when the hon. member said I did
not know what question the hon. members
of the Opposition were going to raise, that
was an understatement. If I take these
questions, one at a time, I would refer my
hon. friend to the plan that he refers to on
page 49, which I hope he has read instead
of putting on a shelf during the year. Table
7 at the right-hand corner says, province
controlled routes, annual cost of the alter-
nate programmes in thousands of dollars.
Below that the catch-up period. An expen-
diture of $183,433,000 will complete the
programme in 10 years, an expenditure of
$153,618,000 will complete it in 15 years,
an expenditure of $136,922,000-this is King's
highway expenditures— will complete it in 20
years.
Now there has been no change to the
plan whatsoever. The only change has been
in the amount of money that has been
budgeted for the roads construction for the
coming year. The thing that puzzles me,
past all my possible imagination, is that when
we prepared our programme this year, and
it was a great one— Ontario is a big area and
every area must be looked after reasonably—
the question which arose, and which had to
be decided upon as a result of the budget
which was before us, and which indicated
that if we spend the money in the rest of the
province as we did last year— and the same
amount that we did last year— we would
have to remove from our programme sections
of highway No. 401.
Well, realizing that the hon. member was
at Kitchener and he wanted highway No.
401 built so badly, I went to the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer and he, recognizing the
need as well, decided that we would spend
more money.
There was a question of unemployment.
There was a question of providing work, and
highway No. 401, as we consider highway
No. 401, is a very large undertaking. I think
it is generally conceded that most of the
money for highway No. 401 will need to be
borrowed. We had the contractors in a posi-
tion to do the work. The prices that were
being bid were reasonably lower than they
were last year, and especially having in mind
the great desire of our hon. member to get a
road to Kitchener, we increased the amount
of money for our highway expenditure just to
please him and then he comes to me today
and he says, "Why did you ever do that?"
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): That is nonsense,
ridiculous nonsense. There is a lot of water
in that milk.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I have not had any experi-
ence with water in milk. I really, and I say
this quite sincerely, listened to the hon. mem-
ber's mention of building a 4-lane road some-
where in the north. Now the very basis of
this road study was to make a study of the
traffic, and build roads that were adequate to
handle the traffic and build them where they
were needed.
Mr. Whicher: Before they were needed, or
after?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I think some of them will
be built after they are needed, because it is
not possible to build them everywhere at the
same time. I think my hon, friend can see
this map from across the House, and he can
see, or I can tell him, that green and the
widths of the line indicate the amount of
traffic. Now, is it reasonable to say that we
will build our 4-lane highways in this area,
on the basis of the amount of traffic that is
there, and we will not build these roads here?
Now I mean what would be the use of
making a study if we were not going to pay
any attention to the study after it has been
made?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Where does the hon.
Minister want the people to be 20 years from
now?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I am going to leave
that. I am not going to undertake placing
the people in the province. That is not part
of The Department of Highways' duties.
Now, on highway construction, I listened to
the hon. member say that our debt is increas-
ing too much. We are borrowing too much
money.
I am tempted to say what I intended to
say tomorrow, possibly, but I attended the
opening of a social centre in one of the local
parishes on Sunday, and I thought how wise
the reverend father was in that parish and
I thought that it would be wonderful if some
of our hon. friends on the opposite side could
have heard what he said, speaking of that
social centre.
He said: "Now, my people, I want to tell
you one thing. I never want any one of you
to ever mention the word 'debt' in connection
with the amount of this expenditure that has
MARCH 19, 1958
983
not been paid. I want you to recognize that
it is an investment."
These roads are an investment.
Now, in connection with the highway con-
struction account, there is nothing curious
about that nor is there anything that cannot
be understood. All that happens is, we do
what is suggested we should do, and then
when we do it, the hon. members of the
Opposition complain about it. That is the
part we cannot understand. They suggest to
us that we should pay for some of our high-
ways from current revenue, and so—
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right, but in what
proportion?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, it is right there.
An amount of $57.5 million was taken out of
current revenue and placed in the highway
construction account. That will be spent for
capital work. Now it is as simple as that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well then, if it is as
simple as that, how much is the hon. Minister
going to spend next year? How much is the
hon. Minister going to borrow next year, and
how much is the hon. Minister going to pay
from ordinary revenue?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I have already stated
that we are going to spend $57.5 million
from the highway construction account next
year.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, that is highway, but
over and above that the hon. Minister is still
going to be in deficit. Now what portion over
the 20 years? Is it 50 per cent, that the
department is going to finance above?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member knows
very well that the money is spent from the
consolidated revenue fund, and that the
revenue goes into the consolidated revenue
fund— the amount that is paid off on debt.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I know that.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is not required to
pay off debt.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It is not done in a
deliberate fashion.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Certainly it is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to my hon.
friend that he ought to look at the record of
the past 15 years. Sixty-six per cent, has been
paid in cash. My hon. friend ought to be well
pleased with a record like that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: And next year, 33 per
cent.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We are modest. We speak
only of our deeds— what we have done.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Be careful, the hon. member for Bruce has
got another book to see how much water he
is putting in the milk up there.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I might say
that I am not going to be quite so lenient in
my remarks as the hon. member for Water-
loo North, because when he started his
remarks this afternoon, he at least acknowl-
edged to the hon. Minister of Highways that
there was a plan, a 20-year plan. As far as I
am concerned, there is no plan whatsoever.
May I tell the hon. Minister of Highways
that I have read this manuscript with just
ordinary printing, of course, the same as any-
thing else with pictures of cars and trucks,
and some of it coloured green, some black,
and so forth.
I have read it from cover to cover, and I
am quite willing to acknowledge this, that
it is a plan to this extent. It is a plan of the
present. It tells us about the population of
the province of Ontario.
Now obviously we need better highways
where there is a large population, and where
there is more traffic, and in the northern
areas we do not need so many roads. It
explains that, when we have a great amount
of traffic, we need thicker road beds, and in
other places we do not need anything at
all except a little bit of gravel.
As regards a future plan of the highways of
the province of Ontario, I defy the hon.
Minister to tell me, in any page in this book,
where the future highways of this province
are going. That information simply is not
there, and as far as I am concerned this
manuscript was simply an answer to the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver) —
an attempted answer to the criticism that he
has given for many years, asking this province
to tell us where the roads of the future are
going to be laid.
I remember when I brought this matter up
last year, the hon. Minister of Highways said
that it was impossible to say where the
highways were going to be, for this reason
that immediately one said a highway was
going through a certain area, land values
increased, and because such needed land had
to be bought by The Department of High-
ways, why of course, we would not be able
to afford it.
May I point out to the hon. Minister, in
his estimates today, in this the capital
programme for the fiscal year 1958-1959, that
he has said— I only picked out two instances—
984
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
there is going to be an acquisition of land
for highway work. Now this land has not
been purchased at the present time, and I
suggest this to him, that it is just as easy to
put it down in a book that you are going to
acquire land 5 years from now, as it is next
summer, because the land value is going to
go up between now and next summer—
Hon. Mr. Allan: May I ask my hon. friend
a question?
Mr. Whicher: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I do not think the hon.
member intends to be unreasonable.
Mr. Whicher: Not the least bit.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I think my hon. friend
knows that when we proceed to buy land
along a highway, we file a plan on that
highway and that those people who have land
there are anxious that the operation be
carried out quickly, from the time it is
undertaken until the time it is finished.
Now I think I should correct the impression
the hon. member may have created when he
said that I said, last year, that if we were to
state the definite location of roads that were
to be taken over, it would provide an oppor-
tunity for land speculation. That is very true,
and it has been the experience within our
department, that some persons have a great
faculty for being able to sense where a road
is going to go.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask a question.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Now, just wait a minute,
The statement that I made was that we did
not want to definitely pinpoint the route of
that road.
Now, in this plan which the hon. member
says he cannot understand, we thought that
he could really read the pictures, if he could
not understand the—
Mr. Whicher: That is one of the hon.
Minister's brighter remarks.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member for
Stormont (Mr. Manley), the other day,
pointed out that we had said we were going
to build a road because there is a road from
Stormont in the northerly direction, and there
has been no indication of where that road will
be, which particular route it will follow.
In areas where it was indicated that there
should be additions, proposed roads are
marked on that map.
Mr. Whicher: How will I answer that
question? I just want to say this, that when
the hon Minister says there is speculation in
land values, I point out and not the least bit
unreasonably, there is no more speculation
in land values, if he will tell us where those
roads are going to be over a 10-year period,
than there will be in the next 6-month period,
for example, in my own area.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Will the hon. member tell
me any advantage in stating that something is
going to be done 5 years from now?
Mr. Whicher: Absolutely, there is an ad-
vantage.
Hon. Mr. Allan: What is the advantage?
Mr. Whicher: There is a great advantage.
Now just one minute. The hon. Minister has
said that in the Owen Sound area, he is going
to acquire property from Miller Lake south-
erly up for 7.8 miles, and in the Stratford
division, he has said that from Thamesford
northerly he is going to acquire 5 miles. The
speculation on that road will start as soon
as this hits the streets.
Hon. Mr. Allan: It is not in a position to
start.
Mr. Whicher: It is not in a position! Why
not?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, because we have ar-
ranged that it is not.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I want to know why. It
certainly is not in the plan.
He has also said that from Gait westerly
he is going to acquire 10 miles. Well now,
if he is going to acquire that road from Miller
Lake south, then last year he knew he was
going to do it. Regarding this plan, which is
supposed to tell us what is to be done for
20 years, obviously the hon. Minister knew
last year he was going to purchase that land,
because according to a 20-year plan, he is
supposed to know what land he is going to
purchase for the next 20 years. What we
want to know is this. Why does he not let us
know?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Why does the hon. member
want to know? Does he want to buy some
of the land?
Mr. Whicher: I do not want to buy any of
the land at all, but I will tell what I want to
do.
An hon. member: He is putting the water
in the milk.
Mr. Whicher: The thing that is going to
develop this province, more than anything
MARCH 19, 1958
985
else, is a system of modern highways criss-
crossing this province. It is a system of
modern highways not put there after the
population has already arrived, like we have
in the city of Toronto, and he is surrounding
the city and putting beautiful highways in
here which is only going to bring more people
here. What we need is a plan that tells us
where roads are going to go in the outlying
localities and areas of this province, so that
some of the people will know that, if they
move to the town of Chesley, or the town of
Thamesford, or wherever it might be, in a
year or so there is going to be a good road
there.
Now we know, under this programme, that
there is not going to be one, because in
many of the areas of this province, they have
not had good roads and we do not know if
there is going to be one or not.
Surely, if he has a 20-year plan, this plan
which he is so proud of, and he knows where
these roads are going to be, why does he not
tell us right now?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why does my hon. friend
not look at this blue book? It will tell him
all about it for this year.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, I know when I did look
at it and I have already done so, but the
situation is simply this. He has not—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Is the hon. member not
getting a pretty square deal up in his part of
the country?
Mr. Whicher: They have not got a plan.
I will tell them that they will not make it any
squarer than they have to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh yes, we will. I would
say to the hon. leader of the Opposition he
has had quite a lot of work done up there.
Mr. Oliver: Who? Me? Heavens, I will
have to look into that.
Mr. Whicher: The people in my area, in
the Bruce Peninsula, have had people up
there spending thousands and thousands of
dollars. They have been making surveys for
the past 10 years. Everybody knows that
sooner or later there is going to be a road
go through there. Now if the hon. Minister
had a plan, why did he not say so?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, we have the plan,
we are getting ready to build a road in the
hon. member's area. Is he opposed to it?
Mr. Whicher: No, I certainly am not.
Mr. Nixon: Is the hon. Minister going to
start this afternoon?
Mr. Whicher: Maybe they have already
started. The only thing he has put in here
are the costs, and what he is going to build
the roads of when the time comes. What we
want to know is where the roads are going
to be, and I think the people of this province
should know.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I think the
hon. member is reasonable enough to under-
stand that, with a road programme such as
we have, with some of the problems we have
had when there was a shortage of skilled
staff, that we are doing very well— we con-
sider so— to do enough engineering and study
to prepare a programme such as we are
presenting today. We are very proud to be
able to do that.
Now, would the hon. member rather, in-
stead of coming along with this programme,
really building roads— last year we had a
certain amount of money budgeted, we
spent it, we did not over-spend it— would he
rather that we start a study where we would
build roads for the next 20 years than not
build any?
Mr. Oliver: No-
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, may I say
this, like my colleague from Waterloo North
(Mr. Wintermey er ) , that as far as this pro-
gramme is concerned, we have not had time
to study it at all, and I have every reason
to expect that it is a very fine programme
as far as this year is concerned. Obviously,
the hon. Minister can do only so much paving,
build only so many roads with so much
money.
But the situation is this: There are en-
gineers in the department who obviously
know where the roads are going to be 5
years from now, they are drawing plans on
the boards all the time, and in the hon.
Minister's address this afternoon he said he
had been successful in getting more engin-
eers in the department.
Now then, if he has more engineers, I
suggest that he let us know where these
roads are going to be. It is the only way
that we will have any type of decentraliza-
tion in the province, the only way. We
have to have roads, and unless the hon.
Minister tells us where they are going to be,
the people do not know where to go, be-
cause obviously they are not going to go
to "Hayfork Centre" where there are no
roads at all, they will stay down in the met-
ropolitan area.
Let us know where the roads are, and
that is one way, if he believes in decentrali-
zation—
986
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Allan: But I wonder if the
people would go up to the area of the hon.
member?
Mr. Whicher: Well, I do not know. The
hon. Minister was there last year but he did
not call on me.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member was
away.
Mr. Whicher: I was not away. The hon.
Minister was in good company, I might say.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I was with the members
of the Bruce county council.
Mr. Whicher: I know, I know all about
that. I know what has happened in Bruce
county with these development roads and
all that sort of thing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Are not development roads
a great thing?
Mr. Whicher: It was a small thing perhaps
when the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) brings out that wreaths are given
on Armistice Day by defeated Conservative
members, but when we have development
roads that are announced by defeated Con-
servative members, when we have develop-
ment roads that are announced by federal
Conservative members, I think that is going
pretty far, pretty far indeed.
I want to conclude by simply saying this,
surely every hon. member in this House be-
lieves that some form of decentralization
should take place. Obviously we cannot
shove industry out in the country. But by
giving them roads they will at least have
more likelihood of moving out than they will
at the present time.
The hon. Minister cannot build the roads
today, he can build only one year's pro-
gramme at one time, but he can tell us where
he intends to build them 5 years from now.
Surely it is a legitimate request. Any plan
that just tells how to build highways and
how much they are going to cost, without
telling where they are going to go, is simply
no good.
Hon. Mr. Frost: As hon. members know,
experience is a great teacher. If the hon.
Minister were to say to the people of some
riding: "Now we are going to build this
road, but it is going to be 5 years from now,"
I guess the hon. member for Bruce would be
down about the next week to say: "We are
not going to get a road for 5 years, but the
people south of here are going to get one
3 years from now."
Now I ask the hon. member, does he
recollect the great speech the hon. leader of
the Opposition made on highway No. 401?
He said highway No. 401 is not going to
be completed for 20 years.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I tried to please them.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right. When we
double it up and it is cut in two, the hon.
member for Waterloo North is dissatisfied
with that. I point out it is very difficult to
satisfy the hon. members opposite.
Regarding the amount of money we are
spending, last year at this time they talked
about tight money and sound money. There
is a great difference between tight money
and sound money, according to these econ-
omists, but no difference that ordinary human
beings can find. The hon. member for Water-
loo North ought to recognize that, since we
discussed this a year ago, there has been a
change in policy, tight money or sound money
has become easier money for people, and
it has been possible for us to give greater
employment. Our policy is one of develop-
ment, stimulating employment, opening up
this province, extending roads to the most
remote parts.
I say to the hon. member for Waterloo
North that it was an awful statement for
him to make— surely he did not mean it—
when he said we are "going into the hole"
building roads. I agree with that parish
priest who said he did not want to hear
the talk about the debt on that parish hall,
that it was an investment. The building of
these great roads, revenue-producing assets,
is a great asset for this province. That is
not going into the hole. I would like him
to cheer up and smile about these things.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Now, Mr. Chairman,
of course the hon. Prime Minister rises in
this fashion and picks at specific statements
that were made, but is the hon. Prime Min-
ister in favour of deficits in financing as far
as the roads are concerned?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I do not count
that a deficit in financing.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, now listen.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It is an investment.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Surely this House has
not reduced itself to a point where logic no
longer prevails. What the hon. Prime Minis-
ter is saying is, of course, that there is no
rhyme nor reason to payment of obligations.
Some day he has to pay for this, and how
is he going to do it? What is his plan?
MARCH 19, 1958
987
He has none. He is married to one poli-
tical philosophy, as I said the other day,
and that is the simple elementary fact that
most people do not interest themselves in
responsible financial policies because they do
not care particularly.
But he is a responsible man, and yet he
gets himself into the position where he knows
that spending is all important, that the
responsibility of how one is going to pay for
a programme is unimportant politically.
But it is important, as far as the people
of this province are concerned. They have
put their trust in the hon. Prime Minister,
they think he is a good administrator.
There is the hon. member for Wentworth
(Mr. Child) pounding his desk; he works
for the great Steel Company of Canada, I
understand. What would happen if they
undertook a programme, not knowing where
the revenue to pay for the programme came?
They would be thrown out of their directorate
within a matter of hours. Yet the hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario rises before this House,
saying: "All I am interested in is develop-
ment, all I am interested in is building roads."
He is not interested in how they are paid
for, he does not care. Somebody else will
take care of that afterwards.
Well, I would say somebody else has to
take care of it, of course.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Did
the hon. member ever try to get a new road?
See if the people care whether he has the
money or not.
Mr. Wintermeyer: As the hon. member for
Bruce said—
Hon. Mr. Allan: We are not told of those
things.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, he is not? Let
the hon. Minister go and try to get one.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member knows
more about that than I do.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, in all
fairness, the hon. Minister has appeared on
our local television station, he has appeared
before several local county roads groups, he
has been invited innumerable times, and
they begged on each occasion for an exact
elaboration of when the road will go through.
Mr. Chairman, in all fairness I say to you
today that the people of the district originally
anticipated that road would be built by now,
and they had every reason to think so. And
they are slightly disappointed, now that the
hon. Minister suggests that it will be several
years before the programme is complete.
Now I am not going to say 10 years, I think
those are the words used at one time which
caused great consternation in the district. In
terms of the over-all programme I think those
are the words used.
But what I am concerned about is this:
Surely to goodness we have not reduced our-
selves to a status in this House where logic
bears no resemblance to debate.
I would suppose if the hon. Prime Minister
rose and told me that he was desirous of
building a road to the moon, there might be
some justification in terms of idealism. But
my goodness, in terms of logic, in terms of
reality, there is not, and likewise I say that
his statement that he is not interested in how
the roads are paid for, all he is interested in
is developing them, is certainly illogical.
I am surprised that a person of his responsi-
bility would take advantage of the obvious
opportunity that he has in challenging me in
this respect.
I am asking the hon. Prime Minister to be
responsible for his actions in a financial
respect, and I tell him right now, that he
does not know, and no hon. member over
there knows, how he is going to pay for
either his 10-, 15- or 20-year programme. All
he is going to do is hope to goodness that
the people of Ontario will be generous to him.
But as far as leading them, and directing
them are concerned, he will make no effort,
because it is as obvious as 1 and 1 are 2, that
it is not politically good, expedient, or desir-
able to enforce the responsibility of a roads
programme on people. Better by far to build
them and leave the responsibility to somebody
else, and that is all he is doing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, if in the
few and adequate words that I am going to
address to the hon member, I can correct
his point of view, I will indeed count it as
a great achievement.
I would point out to the hon. member that
I did answer his question before, but I am
going to endeavour to answer it again in a
few words.
He asked if logic has a part in debate. Yes,
I say very strongly and I underline it, that
it has a great part in debate.
The second thing is this, the hon. member
uses this expression that we are financing
here on the basis that we hope to goodness
things come out all right in the end, I think
that is his statement.
The great trouble with the hon. member for
Waterloo North is that he has been brought
988
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up in that hope-to-goodness environment.
That is the trouble with him. He has been
reared as a member of his party, and as the
supporter of a government which has been
reared in that atmosphere.
Now let me give him, just by way of
explanation, these two very understandable
examples of logic in debate, and I would say
logic in action.
First, the government that he supported,
the fragment of which still remains in the
front benches there after many years, the
fragment of that party that he supports and
the fragment of the government that was in
power here for 9 years, in their day built
$196 million of public works, a trifle more.
In round figures, for the purposes of easy
explanation, they did $196 million of work,
and they charged the whole works to debt,
every bit of it.
Now, that is the atmosphere that the hon.
member was brought up in. That is where
the hope-to-goodness attitude comes from,
that the hon. member speaks of.
Here is where logic counts. I am speaking
not only of logic in debate, because it is
not a question of logic in what we say, it is
the logic in what we do.
Mr. Chairman, this government has spent
$1,000 million in public works, one of the
great assets that this province has, and instead
of charging $1,000 million to debt, we have
paid, in hard cash, $667 million. We charged
about a third, some $300 million, to debt;
and I would say to the hon. member that we
have set up adequate sinking funds to provide
for the retirement or payment of that debt.
This was a mighty programme, which must
cheer the hearts of the hon. members of this
House, if not the Opposition. They live in
an atmosphere, as I say, of encircling gloom,
as is evidenced by their talk about going into
the hole*.
When we spend $1,000 million, and pay
right out of our pocket $667 million, I would
say to the hon. member opposite that is a great
record, and that it has logic in action. That
is my answer to the hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, of course, that
was supposed to be the final speech. The
hands came out and we were in great style
there.
But I want to remind the hon. Prime Mini-
ster that the halo he had over his head last
night at the press dinner is not over him now,
as far as we are concerned, and if I had my
way I would tear it right off, it has no right to
be there at any time, even at a press gallery
dinner.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order. The hon.
member is supposed to be speaking about the
estimates.
Mr. Whicher: I was speaking about the
estimates.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member was not.
He was talking about last night.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister
talks about the great works this government
has done, and about the fact that they have
spent $1,000 million on public works which
they have given to the people.
I have said this before, and I remind him
once more, that every nickel of that $1,000
million was taken away first from the tax-
payers of this province, every nickel of it,
and the hon. Prime Minister did not give
them anything. They gave the money to him,
that is what happened.
Mr. Child: Is the hon. member just finding
that out?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Who gave the federal
government their money?
Mr. Whicher: I did not hear the hon. mem-
ber for Wentworth talking so much when the
hon. member for Waterloo North asked him
what the Steel Company of Canada was
doing. Hon. members should read what the
personnel manager of that plant, in his
speech the other day, said about the deficit
financing around this place.
Mr. Child: I told them I have news for the
hon. member. I do not work for the Steel
Company.
Mr. Whicher: If the hon. member for Went-
worth had told me he does not work, it
would not be news.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this, that
the hon. Prime Minister says that to retire this
capital debt that they have, they have ade-
quate sinking lunds. Well, I would like to
know just what those adequate sinking funds
are. How much money is he paying off on
this every year? Is it right that he pays two-
thirds one year and then this year he is
going to pay one-third and next year he does
not know how much he is going to pay?
I suggest that if he really wants to do his
duty to the people of the province of Ontario,
he will tell them how much he is going to pay
off every year, how much he is going to spend
every year, within reason.
Inasmuch as the hon. Minister of Highways
has said that this plan is completely out of
date now, and that they are going to throw
it aside, and do in 10 years what—
MARCH 19, 1958
989
Hon. Mr. Allan: Let us be fair.
Mr. Whicher: Inasmuch as he said it is
completely out of date, what about giving us
a new one? Let him tell us where the high-
ways of Ontario are going to be at least 10
years from now.
Vote 601 agreed to.
On vote 602:
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the
point I wanted to raise might come under item
No. 4. I listened with great interest this
afternoon to our 20-year plan, ranging all
across the province, and I want to narrow the
attention of the House for a moment to one
little area, and one little project.
Last fall I happened to be visiting northern
Ontario-
Mr. Wardrope: Oh, no.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, not too far from the
hon. member's spot, either.
Mr. Wardrope: Let the hon. member stay
out of there.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, we went in and did
a bit of a job in his area last June, and we
will maybe clean it up sometime too.
Mr. Wardrope: That is what he thinks. We
will clean him up.
Mr. MacDonald: I spent a little time in the
town of Hornpayne. Now, we hear about
places that are getting 4-lane highways, and
so on, but Hornpayne has no road at all. No
road at all, only the railroad connection.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Where is that— Hornpayne?
Mr. MacDonald: Where is Hornepayne? I
will address that question to the people of
the town the next time. I will quote it out of
Hansard: "Where is Hornepayne?" asks the
hon. Prime Minister.
In fact right in their little local paper of
last November 17—
Hon. Mr. Frost: What I said, is: "Is he
referring to Hornpayne?" He asked: "Where
is it?"
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
said: "Where is it?" Last November 17—
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I did not.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, he did.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I did not mean it.
Mr. MacDonald: He has to talk quickly to
cover that one up. On last November 17—
Hon. Mr. Frost: What I meant to say-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, he meant what he
said.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What I meant to say was
"Is he referring to Hornepayne?"
Mr. MacDonald: Now, what did he think I
was referring to— Whiskey Gap, Saskatchewan,
or what? I said Hornepayne.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, all right.
Mr. MacDonald: Now let us get back to
the road problem in Hornepayne because this
is a very interesting story.
Mr. Wardrope: Tell the hon. Prime Minister
where it is.
Mr. MacDonald: Hornepayne started to get
its roads, or rather, started to get promises
of its roads, about 30 or 40 years ago, back
when there were other Conservative govern-
ments, as a matter of fact.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The people who do it are
ourselves. We are building the roads though.
Mr. MacDonald: They may have to do it
themselves if they are ever to get the roads.
Mr. Wardrope: Let the hon. member come
on, and I will talk afterwards.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a little out of his
territory.
Mr. Wardrope: The station platform, re-
member. The hon. member for York South
has never been any farther.
Mr. MacDonald: I will just tell the hon.
member how wrong he is on that. Back in
1927, they first started to build a road out of
Hornepayne, south towards White River.
They went out about 5 miles into the bush,
and it stopped there, and for 30 years the
good people of Hornepayne have been driv-
ing out to this dead end in the bush and
coming back. I do not remember whether it
is lovers' lane or what it is, but at least
they have had this 5 miles out to nowhere.
Then in 1932 they started to build a
second road out of Hornepayne, northeast
towards Hearst. They went out about 12
miles this time, and came to an end. The
latter end of this road is used only by fores-
ters, but as a public road, it runs only about
6 or 7 miles. For 25 years they have been
driving out to this dead-end in the bush,
and coming back.
990
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Then about 4 or 5 years ago this govern-
ment, with its scattering broadcast of prom-
ises across the province-
Mr. Wardrope: That area is not built.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
made a promise that they were going to build
a road into Hornpayne. Last fall, after 4
years, they had built only 9 miles. As a
matter of fact, in 1956 they built only 4
miles of this road, and the excuse given was
that it was a very wet season.
This past year we had a pretty dry season;
it was a good construction season, and as a
result, do hon. members know how much
they built? They built one mile last year.
In all they have built 9 miles, out into the
bush. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that this little venture is not a serious
road project at all. It is a little local pork
barrel— a little local pork barrel in which
friends of the Conservative party, who have
trucks, are playing around while the people
are indignantly waiting for the road!
They have a right to get indignant, be-
cause, Mr. Chairman, the astounding thing
about Hornepayne is this: they have 1,700
population, and yet are without a single
road to get out— they have to put their auto-
mobile on a flat car and take it out until
they get to the highway at Longlac— they
have 500 cars registered in Hornepayne.
In other words, they have as many cars
per capita as they have in the rest of the
province, although they cannot drive them
anywhere, except into the dead ends in the
bush.
What this government has done is to lead
the people of Hornepayne out into the mus-
keg and leave them bogged down there.
There are two questions I want to ask.
I have looked with great care for the Horne-
payne road among the projects listed in the
department's programme for this year, and
I cannot find it.
I have here a letter from the hon. Prime
Minister, dated last November 7, after the
indignation had reached a peak in Horne-
payne, and letters of protest had been ad-
dressed to him. The hon. Prime Minister
wrote, pacifying them, and in his suave way,
assured them that work on the road would
be stepped up. Yet, here is the programme
for next year, and it is not in there.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Sure enough.
Mr. MacDonald: Is it in there?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Sure enough.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, we will let the
hon. Minister explain, but the two questions
I want to ask the hon. Minister are these:
In the 4 years of toying with this project
—because I repeat, it has been just a little
local pork barrel, not a highway project— in
the 4 years of playing around with these 9"
miles, how much money has been spent?
My second question is: What is the gov-
ernment's programme for completing this
road?
Mr. Whicher: It is like the 20-year plan
they have not got there.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, I think
the interest of the hon. member of the people
from Hornepayne is certainly warranted. They
have for years lived on this railroad section,
and I am glad that the hon. member has the
milk of human kindness in his veins.
Mr. MacDonald: I spent 36 hours there^
I learned a lot.
Hon. Mr. Allan: May I say to the hon.
member that he can cease to worry about
the welfare of the people of Hornepayne.
The reason it is not in the programme is that
this was undertaken by the mining and
access roads committee, and financed out of
the mining and access roads fund, which is a
small grant, and it was only possible to have
have a small amount of money each year.
But we too are interested in the people
of Hornepayne, and last fall the staff of the
Ontario Department of Highways, who paved
in that section last year some 72 miles of
highway with their own equipment, began
at highway No. 11 and are working now
toward Hornepayne. They have been work-
ing there all winter, and we will have the
road into Hornepayne before the fall, and
I hope that the hon. member will be one of
those who will go up and use it.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the other
question now? How much money has been
spent in 4 years in building 9 miles?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Not very much, but I
think the hon. member understands that I
do not have the figures here.
Mr. MacDonald: The people up there are
inconvenienced. What has been going on is
$40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 a mile for
what the pulp and paper companies built
for $10,000 or $15,000.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The weakness has been
that there was not sufficient money to do a
job, and at the same time the fact that this
MARCH 19, 1958
991
time we are working from highway No. 11,
where we can get plenty of equipment. The
difficulty before was that the equipment had
to be shipped in on flat cars, and it was not
available quickly.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Minister would
go up and watch how they work—
Hon. Mr. Allan: I am going up there to go
fishing. They say they have wonderful fishing
in that area.
Mr. MacDonald: Sure they have.
Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman might I be
entitled to say a few words, seeing this is
my riding. When the hon. leader of the
CCF makes a remark like he has made this
afternoon, it certainly brings home to me
quite forcibly that old saying that "where
ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise." The
only thing he knows about that road is what
some of his CCF friends told him from the
station platform.
Mr. MacDonald: I drove over every mile
of it.
Mr. Wardrope: Now let me tell the hon.
members something about the roads in that
district. The Nakina-Geraldton road is com-
pleted, the Black Sturgeon road— 120 miles—
to Armstrong, another point in that area, will
be completed at the end of this summer. The
Seagram-Caramat road is completed. The
only place left in that whole area where
people cannot get out to a main highway is
Hornepayne, the place that the hon. member
is talking about.
Now 4 years ago a contract was let to
Mr. Kouvan. He did considerable work but
unfortunately he was killed by a bulldozer,
which stopped the work, and the bonding
company had to take over which caused
further delay to the road the hon. member is
talking about.
Now, let the hon. member for York South
get information aright, because he never does.
This road originally was a lumber company
road which was built years ago. The govern-
ment had nothing to do with it. Now our
government has taken over the lumber com-
pany road that goes over to highway No.
11 from Hornepayne. The hon. member
should go up there and get his facts straight.
Mr. MacDonald: I have my facts straight.
Mr. Wardrope: Now then, regarding this
Hornepayne road. When he says there are
9 miles built, it shows his ignorance. The
fact is there are 10 miles built from the north
end, 10 miles from the south end going
north, and there is not a great deal of road to
be finished in the middle.
Let the hon. member now wait until I
tell him more. That road will be completed
at the end of this summer. I was at Horne-
payne last Saturday night, and I talked to
people there, and they are very well pleased
with the progress made on that road, and he
will find that out in a tangible way when the
vote is counted on March 31.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask a question?
Mr. Wardrope: Do not get up and talk, just
sit down.
When the hon. member gets up and spouts
in this House he talks about things in the
north he knows nothing about. He has been
there on the train, and has gone right through,
and let him not forget he is now a little
fearful of coming up there, he knows from
certain things he has said that he is not too
welcome.
When he makes statements like he has
made today for Hansard record, and the press,
nobody in the north appreciates it, and he is
not telling the truth or the facts, he is making
statements that he thinks might be handy to
use up in that area at election time.
This government has done a tremendous
job, and the people are very well satisfied,
and when that Hornepayne road is finished
the people of every one of those towns in
the north line of the Canadian National Rail-
ways, who have never had a road since that
railroad was built, will have access roads
out to main highways— even Pickle Crow, the
mine farthest north in that whole area.
By the end of this summer they will have
an outlet to the city of New York, yet the
hon. member says nothing has been done
there. Let him go up there and spend some
time, if anybody will have him, and look
around and get some information that is
helpful and worthwhile.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?
Mr. Wardrope: He certainly can.
Mr. MacDonald: Is Hornepayne in his
riding?
Mr. Wardrope: Federally it is. Provin-
cially it is not.
Mr. MacDonald: A-ha, a-ha. I just wanted
to correct this little point-
Mr. Wardrope: Well, I consider federally
it is my riding too.
992
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Oh yes? It is not.
Mr. Wardrope: Absolutely, because there
is an Opposition member there. Naturally,
it is.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister about item No.
2: the matter of $2.8 million for repaying
present roads. Now this vote has decreased
in the last two years, and inasmuch as most
of them have increased, I would like to have
some explanation.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The decrease in this
vote is in line with our general policy.
We have been trying to influence municipali-
ties, particularly rural municipalities, to make
sure that there is a good foundation before
there is a top put on a road. And with that
in mind, we are taking a great deal more
care with our policy of resurfacing than we
had formerly.
For instance, before a road is resurfaced,
soil tests are made to be sure that the surface
will stand, and as a result of these tests, some
roads that it was intended to resurface are
being rebuilt instead.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, on the subsidies to the different muni-
cipalities, we know that the road subsidies
to the cities is 33 J/3 per cent, and then on
townships it is 33 Yz per cent, to 80 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, 50 per cent.
Mr. Thomas: Fifty? Well, what did he
say here, then? Road subsidy— roads.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Municipal subsidy-
townships.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, I know, but there is
33 Yz per cent to 80 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Where does the hon.
member see that?
Mr. Thomas: On page 1 of this—
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, if it is, it is a
misprint.
Mr. Wardrope: Some go to 80 per cent,
—well, I know that.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The 80 per cent, is right,
but the 333/3" per cent is not.
Mr. Thomas: Well, it says here definitely—
An hon. member: That is a bridge he is
looking at.
Mr. Thomas: No, not the bridge at all. He
is thinking about the bridge he lost. I am not
talking about that one.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, it should be 50 per
cent. It is a misprint.
Mr. Thomas: Well, if it is 50 per cent, to
80 per cent., how does the hon. Minister
arrive at whether it should be 60 per cent.,
65 per cent., 70 per cent, or 75 per cent.?
What basis has he for calculating the per-
centage between 50 and 80? Is it at the whim
of the hon. Minister, or because of the repre-
sentation in the local area, or what is the
basis for the grant?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, Mr. Chairman, that
is a very natural question. May I say first
that the Minister does not do anything by
whims. I will relieve the hon. member's
mind of that worry.
The percentage of subsidy is decided after
a study of the tax revenue, and the greater
than 50 per cent, subsidies apply only in
those areas where the possibility for taxation
is low, where assessment is low.
For instance, the increase would apply in
the area around Timmins or the area in some
sections around North Bay, certain parts of
Renfrew county, the northern sections of
Hastings, Lennox and Addington and some of
those counties. Even one or two of the town-
ships in Bruce county are favoured a little
higher than the 50 per cent, assessment. Fifty
per cent, subsidy is general throughout
southern Ontario.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask the hon. Minister a question?
I do not know whether it comes under this
heading or not, but I believe in one of the
counties, this year, he handed some provincial
highways back to the county to take care of.
I wonder if this is being carried out in other
counties as well? I believe that is in Elgin.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is hardly correct, is
it? I think the hon. member knows of the
circumstance there. It applied to the town-
ship of Romney— was it? It was a question of
taking the short piece of highway that was
built from highway No. 3 over to those
sections. It was a highway about 3 miles
long in one instance and 5 in the other. And
it has been said that it was built because of a
very great interest on the part of some, and
we were anxious to improve our highway
system, so we made an agreement with the
county of Elgin whereby we assumed a sec-
tion of highway in the place of those.
MARCH 19, 1958
993
I do not think that has been completed yet,
because we are very careful that the county
would not be harmed. And it is our intention
to put the roads in good condition before
they are finally turned back. It was a case of
a switch of roads. They were being reverted
to the county, and we were assuming a
section past West Lawrence to make it part
of a highway system.
Votes 602 and 603 agreed to.
On vote 604:
Mr. Whicher: On Item No. 2, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister something about
the policy in connection with development
roads. What makes the department all of a
sudden decide that it is going to put a
development road in some particular area?
Is this at the complete discretion of the hon.
Minister, or are these development roads in
this plan of his too, or how does he arrive at
them?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Has the hon. member any
up in his country that he disagrees with—
that he-
Mr. Whicher: Oh, no! I just want the in-
formation. I am trying to be reasonable like
the hon. Prime Minister.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, there are various
factors that are considered in the taking over
of a certain road as a development road
which, in reality, means that funds are sup-
plied for the rebuilding of a road which
always belongs to the municipality, and which
belongs to the municipality after its has been
approved.
Most of the development roads are taken
on in areas where, for some reason, there is
great difficulty in getting them built. Now, in
some instances it may be town lines. We find
that county councils in some cases are human,
and it is very hard to get a road that happens
to be a town line between two counties to be
built, that is, to get the counties to decide to
do it.
Now, in some cases, that might be taken
over. The mileage that a county has is given
consideration, and it is the purpose of the
thing to help those, in many instances, who
could not undertake such a project. The ex-
penditure is too great for the local municipal-
ity to undertake.
It can be the straightening, the rock work
in some of our northern areas, where the town-
ship, with probably attached revenue of
$4,000, could never get enough funds to im-
prove a township road.
Likewise, we endeavour to try to help those
counties which have some particular road
where the traffic is heavy.
I think anyone recognizes that there is a
great demand always for the assumption of
roads. The hon. leader of the Opposition, I
know, has impressed that upon us many times.
It is felt that, until we improve our present
roads to a reasonable standard we can-
not generally undertake such a policy. In
some cases, a road that has a good deal of
travel is given consideration, and taken over
as a development road which, if it were
possible to assume as a highway, might be
assumed.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, under the
same vote in the supplementary question about
development roads, under what line of thought
would the hon. Minister put such a thing as
a development road under a "capital" pay-
ment? Because obviously, he is just going to
fix it up here— fix these roads up to $7 million
worth— and then he is going to turn them back
to the counties concerned. I do not see
how the hon. Minister can charge that up to
"capital". It is money that has just gone for
the betterment of the county. But certainly
it is not even in his system of roads.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, of course, it is a
definite construction job, something that will
be permanently useful.
Mr. Whicher: Well, that is true, but I do
not think it should be capital.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say
a word in respect to development roads. Our
difficulty up there, may I say to the hon.
Prime Minister, is not that we want to give
any back, but the difficulty is in being able
to stabilize the position in relation to these
development roads. We have telegrams com-
ing every few days from the hon. Prime
Minister or the hon. Minister of Highways,
saying that this or that road is now being
taken over. And what we want to know, of
course, is whether or not these are "true"
statements. We want to know exactly where
we are at.
Now, in an effort—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let me see, I never sent
any wires.
Mr. Oliver: Last fall, the hon. federal mem-
ber picked up a piece of paper, supposedly
coming from the hon. Prime Minister, saying
that a certain county road was to be taken
over as a development road. I remember that
quite clearly, and just lately a new announce-
ment came. Strange thing— they do not come
994
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from the defeated provincial candidate at all.
They come from the federal Conservative
member and candidate, which puts a new
light on the new politics of this government
in relation to roads.
Now, what I want to ask the hon. Minis-
ter, seriously, is: Can we find out, from this
book, just what roads are taken over in a
certain area by an agreement with the county,
and are classed as development roads? Are
they included in this book?
Hon. Mr. Allan: None of the municipal
roads.
Mr. Oliver: This I want to know for my
own information, just what roads he is pre-
pared to take over, in co-operation with the
county and build— and that he has already
notified the county that he is prepared to do
—in the Owen Sound area, or Owen Sound
division, whatever the hon. Minister wants to
call it?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
procedure designating a road as a develop-
ment road is that the county council passes
a resolution requesting that a certain road
be taken over as a development road. Our
arrangements are entirely with the county
council.
I suggest that perhaps the only place where
that is definitely set out is in the county
council minutes.
Now, he mentioned— I do not know who
talks in the Greys. The man I spoke to in the
Greys was the county engineer up there, Mr.
Beatty, who called me one day and asked
me if it was true that we were likely to
designate the road from Flesherton to Sing-
hampton as a development road— because the
county road committee was sitting, and this
matter had a bearing on the county road pro-
gramme for the summer.
I advised Mr. Beatty that this was our
intention. I had remembered how important
the hon. leader of the Opposition said that
road was.
So, let him not say things to me if he does
not believe them, because I really pay atten-
tion to his representations.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Minister had mentioned in his report
that the London by-pass of highway No. 401
had been opened, which we are very happy
to have go through Oxford.
However, my question is regarding the
overpasses from the roads which have not
been closed there. There seems to be some
misunderstanding, and as the hon. Minister
knows, although it is supposed to be a non-
access road, there are several roads that are
open at the moment. I would like to know,
from the hon. Minister, when they intend to
close these roads, or if they have any inten-
tion of closing them?
My second question concerns the signs on
highway No. 401. Now, the new signs were
put up and the boards of trade and some of
the other interested parties in the cities and
villages were not too happy with their names
being left off the designated signs. After
some trouble, and some delegations coming
to Toronto, I understand that they did get
some signs pointing to Woodstock.
However, there are other villages and
towns there at the present time that have
contacted me with regard to signs pointing
to their particular town.
I think it is quite fair to assume that these
towns and villages should be mentioned on
the signs on the highway. I do not think that
it is fair to these citizens, when a big 4-lane
highway goes past the north or south of their
town, that they are not designated.
I think that it is very important that they
should be. They are taxpayers and if we are
to continue to keep them happy, we should
recognize them as being taxpayers, and they
should be designated as to the route where
they can be connected, not just by saying this
is route No. 74, or that this is the Swedberg
road, or some other particular road.
Some of these complaints have been at-
tended to and the extra signs have been put
on, but there are still some more to do. I
would like the hon. Minister to comment on
those two questions.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I might say in connec-
tion with that road that there may be come
turnarounds at the end of the road to be
completed yet, and that is the reason. But
the road will be an entirely controlled access
road and all roads will be closed.
Regarding the signs, I am not familiar
enough with the individual instances there
to say anything about it. We have very little
difficulty, as a matter of fact. Our signing
is pretty well— I think that we are perhaps
a little more generous with signs than we
used to be. Generally the boards of trade
and other people are satisfied.
Mr. Innes: Did the hon. Minister know
that no towns or villages were put on these
signs at all on highway No. 401? Was that
an original policy? Has it been corrected
since? I just wondered.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is right.
MARCH 19, 1958
995
Mr. Thomas: I am quite sure that the hon.
Minister is concerned about the use of our
highways by trucks that are overloaded, and
this last year I think he put a weigh station
in between Pickering and Ajax, on the south
side of highway No. 401. I wonder if he
built in—
Hon. Mr. Allan: I would be very pleased
to go into that, but I deal with weigh scales
in The Department of Transport estimates
when I come to them, and they are handled
by The Department of Transport.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman,
before we leave the departmental estimates,
does the hon. Minister have the figures
available on the question I asked with regard
to that short stretch of road out from Horne-
payne? I am not talking about the northern
one down from the highway, but out from
Hornepayne. Could he get that?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I will be glad to.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
On vote 2,001:
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, this will be the first time that
estimates for a Department of Transport
have been introduced in the Ontario Legis-
lature. As a result, it will be difficult to
make comparisons with previous years, ex-
cept for the motor vehicles branch and the
Ontario highway transport board.
In the first case, the work of the motor
vehicles branch has been greatly enlarged
because of new programmes of driver ex-
amination, motor vehicle inspection, and im-
provements in procedures which have
involved expansion of activities.
The Act to constitute a Department of
Transport was passed at the last session of
the Legislature, and accordingly on July 1,
1957, the department was established.
The main part of the department remains
the motor vehicles branch under the very
able registrar, Mr. Allan G. MacNab. He
has continued to carry the increasing res-
ponsibilities of that office, and he is widely
regarded as one of the outstanding motor
vehicle administrators in America.
It should be of interest to the hon. mem-
bers of the House for me to explain the
development of the department, and the pro-
grammes it has undertaken since last July.
Under the Deputy Minister, Mr. D. J.
Collins, who commenced duty with the de-
partment at its inception, a motor vehicles
branch, a highway safety branch, a research
branch, and administrative divisions form
the department.
We were indeed fortunate in obtaining Mr.
Walter B. Reynolds as commissioner for
highway safety, with Mr. Arthur Rowan act-
ing as assistant commissioner. '
After consultation with my advisors, it
was decided that the most basic programme
required to improve our accident picture
was one involving more strict and complete
driver examination. Accordingly, plans were
drafted early in August to develop driver
examination centres in the major cities across
the province.
One centre was operating at Spadina
avenue, and since that time a centre has been
opened in north Toronto, near highway No.
401 and Keele street. Centres have also been
opened in London, Hamilton and Port Credit.
This programme will be expanded across
Ontario, and the choice of these centres will
be made having in mind the fact that these
shall form also the district headquarters for
the department.
Issuing will be carried out at some of the
centres as well as safety promotion. That is
the issuing of prospective drivers' licences for
those persons who have passed their driver's
examination.
To explain the purpose of driver examina-
tion centres, and the need for establishing
these on a civil service basis, I would like
to point out that the obtaining of a driver's
licence, in this present day of complex traf-
fic conditions, involves more than the mere
passing of a minimum driving test. A full
and complete driving skills examination, plus
eye examination for visual acuity, depth
perception, and the ability to read and iden-
tify signs, and a successful completion of
a written examination, are basic to the new
test.
As a consequence, in the 3 centres, Toronto,
Downsview and London, since January 1 of
this year, of 3,813 tests conducted, 1,031
were failures on the road test alone, or 27
per cent., and of the 4,161 inside tests con-
ducted 1,295 failed, or 31.1 per cent.
The figures for each of these centres show
a remarkable similarity, with London being
higher on the road test but with an insuf-
ficient sampling to show actual trend.
Of those who passed the road test, approxi-
mately 50 per cent, passed the inside test
on their first attempt. In Downsview, over
61 per cent, passed the inside test.
996
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. members will see that, when we have
approximately 46 per cent, failures on first
attempt, that this form of examination is
much more complete than the one previously
existing on a fee basis.
This does not reflect on the examiner on a
fee basis, except to show that he has not
the time, the' facilities, nor the number of
tests necessary to conduct a complete
examination.
As people become prepared to study the
rules of the road, and develop better driving
practices, the number of failures decrease.
Those who take courses in high school, or in
the driver clinics conducted by the police in
such centres as Hamilton and London, meet
with much greater success.
To be properly equipped, mentally and
physically, to take a modern car out in
present-day traffic conditions requires ade-
quate preparation. We feel that this pro-
gramme alone will be a great strength, in
our highway safety programme.
With this programme in full swing, there
remains the necessity of having, in our files,
complete driving records of those who are
now licenced. The introduction of legisla-
tion to amend section 49 of the Act, to require
that convictions be registered against the
operator of a motor vehicle for moving
violations, will provide such complete records.
The assessment of a point system, assigning
demerits to those who carry convicitions on
their record with the points assigned, having
in mind the severity of the offence, will
enable us to identify accident-prone people
through bad driving records.
Through a system of warning, and with the
accumulation of more points, eventual suspen-
sion plus a re-examination, we feel that a
small percentage of our drivers who build
up bad operating records will be given
disciplinary attention, and corrective mea-
sures will be taken.
It is not our wish to remove the privilege to
drive from any persoon who shows evidence
of the right attitude and behaviour in regard
to that privilege. Rather only those who
through their behaviour show a disregard
for the rights and interests of others will
be dealt with.
Accordingly, it has been necessary to
increase the estimates of the branch to
provide for the appointment of driver
examiners and the opening of new offices.
An expansion programme has also been
carried out in the appointment of inspectors
under the public commercial vehicles division.
These inspectors are responsible, not only for
the checking of movement of public com-
mercial vehicles on the highways, but also
an examination of their licences to see if they
are properly licenced for the goods that
they are hauling in the area in which they
are operating.
The vehicle is checked to see that it con-
forms with legal requirements, and these
inspectors also are responsible for the
weighing programme and our highway weigh
scales.
The increase in vote 2,004, item No. 3, of
$129,000, is occasioned because of the
expansion in driver examination centres, the
purchase of vehicles for public commercial
vehicle inspectors, the purchase of scales and
vehicles in connection with the weighing
programme, and miscellaneous operating
costs.
At the present time, there are 43 inspectors
on staff, this represents an increase of 18
men since April 1, 1957.
Present plans call for a further increase
of 50 inspectors and weigh-men in the year
1958-1959. This increase of staff is required
so that the weigh-houses in operation now,
21— and under construction, 6— will be manned
as well as 6 portable weigh scales.
The big advantage of this programme is
not only in the checking of licences and
operating behaviour, but also in the admini-
stration of The Highway Traffic Act regulating
permissive weights of vehicles. Overloaded
vehicles seriously and adversely affect high-
ways and lead to expensive maintenance.
I would like to acknowledge the fine
support of the transport industry in this
programme, in fact they are the main
promoters of a fair and strict enforcement
programme.
It is our intention to have these uniformed
inspectors given full training in the admini-
stration of The Highway Traffic Act, so that
breaches of the Act, in regard to licencing,
both by public commercial vehicles, public
vehicles, and passenger cars will be checked.
This will be done in co-operation with the
Ontario provincial police and other police
forces.
We have from time to time received sug-
gestions concerning the issuing of licences,
and so the firm of Price- Waterhouse was re-
tained to investigate the licencing procedure
presently in effect, and to make recommenda-
tions on the procedure to be followed. I
wish to report that this study has now been
completed. This firm was commissioned in
February, 1957, to survey the present practices
of the motor vehicles branch.
MARCH 19, 1958
997
The most important recommendation in-
volves the issuing of licences and permits, and
the keeping of records by fully mechanized
procedures. The estimated cost of initial
conversion to such a system is reported to be
$1,500,000, although a saving of approxi-
mately $800,000 a year is suggested, when
this system is in full operation, as compared
with a system carried out manually.
The report recommends a "Soundex" cod-
ing system whereby each driver in the prov-
ince would be assigned a permanent code
number, which is determined through such
things as his name and age. This makes use
of the mechanized procedures in positive and
immediate identification of licences and own-
ers of vehicles.
The report is in favour of a demerit point
system, and made particular mention of the
necessity that convictions be recorded against
the driver's record rather than the owner's.
Another main recommendation, which sup-
ports the present policy of the department, is
that driver examination centres should be
established on a district basis throughout the
province, with the examiners being properly
trained and qualified civil servants.
Under the main office of the department
are the following branches: accounts, person-
nel, legal and research.
The research branch has been assigned the
responsibility of investigation into such mat-
ters as highway taxation, insurance coverage,
rate filing, special permits and several statis-
tical studies, particularly in regard to highway
accident statistics. A new library will be
developed, containing these studies conducted
by other jurisdictions in this fast-developing
field of motor transport. We expect that this
branch will form the hub of the department,
and will guide our future activities on sound
scientific lines.
In the field of highway safety, the funda-
mentally new approach to this problem has
been initiated through a newly constituted
traffic safety committee of the Ontario govern-
ment. This is composed of representatives
of the departments of the Attorney-General,
Education, Highways and Transport, with
the commissioner for highway safety as the
chairman.
The hope in appointing this committee is
to correlate the thinking and the understand-
ing of these 4 departments, all of which
are concerned with highway safety.
I am pleased to announce that the depart-
ment has taken steps to constitute a research
advisory committee. This committee is com-
posed of eminent men in the fields of
psychiatry, psychology and sociology. The
committee will be given complete freedom to
consider research studies into the causes of
highway accidents, the identification of acci-
dent-prone persons, and the treatment neces-
sary to correct improved behaviour and
attitude.
This is an extremely involved question, and
it is expected that the research studies ap-
proved by the committee • may show new
methods of dealing with the chronic violator.
The policies of the department will be de-
signed to take into consideration the facts
discovered by the research studies.
The members of the research advisory com-
mittee are as follows:
John D. Armstrong, M.D., medical director,
alcoholism research foundation, associate
professor of psychiatry, University of Toronto.
S. Delbert Clark, M.A., Ph.D., professor of
sociology, University of Toronto.
C. Roger Myers, M.A. Ph.D., professor
and chairman of the department of psychol-
ogy, associate dean, humanities and social
sciences, school of graduate studies, University
of Toronto.
Percy L. Newbigging, M.A., Ph.D., assist-
ant professor of psychology, McMaster Uni-
versity, Hamilton.
Brother Roger Phillip, F.S.C., M.A., Ph.D.,
professor of psychology, Assumption Univer-
sity, Windsor.
J. Allan Walters, B.A., M.D., D.P.M., neuro-
psychiatrist, assistant professor of medicine,
University of Toronto.
It was encouraging to find that these men
were really interested in the problem of
highway safety and were willing to contribute
of their time, knowledge and experience in
endeavouring to help to solve this problem
which gives everyone a great deal of worry.
The safety promotion division of this
branch, which will eventually be made up
of one supervisor and 3 officers, has the
following responsibilities :
1. The stimulation in assisting of traffic
accident prevention through local safety
councils;
2. Encouraging communities to develop
safety programmes;
3. Working with educational authorities
and setting up school safety programmes in-
volving safety patrols, high school driver
education courses, and safety courses in the
schools generally.
We are convinced that if any success is
to come to this highway safety programme,
it must be firmly established at the local
level. That is, it is everyone's problem, and
998
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we are endeavouring to exert every possible
effort to create an interest by using the efforts
of as many persons as may be found
interested.
These officers will speak to interested
groups, and I may say that there are plans
to develop motion picture films, which will
be made in Ontario and be suited to Ontario
conditions. In this programme, we will work
closely with the Attorney-General's Depart-
ment in plans to promote safety programmes
at the municipal level.
I am pleased to report that a women's
activity officer, Mrs. Ethel McLellan, has
been added to the staff, and already she
has distinguished herself as a capable pro-
moter of proper driving behaviour, and as
an able speaker in developing local support.
The highway safety publicity campaign,
carried out in previous years, will be further
developed and carried out with the same
budget that the motor vehicles branch car-
ried last year. Direct mail will be used to
a greater extent to develop interest in the
traffic accident prevention programme, with
improved and more attractive reports sent
forward. Advertising in the daily and weekly
newspapers and other publications, as well
as radio and television, will be carried out.
Several major campaigns, involving moral
responsibility in April, vehicle safety checks
in May, and appropriate safety campaigns
in later months, will be given widespread
publicity.
I would like to announce that there will
be an Ontario highway safety conference
held later in the year, to provide an oppor-
tunity for delegates from municipalities, and
from public and private agencies, to make
recommendations and exchange views on the
best means of solving the present traffic
accident problems. I find that there is an
increasing interest on the part of the people
in correcting the bad accident records of
previous years. That this is true is borne
out by the fact that, in the present-day
situation, our fatality rate is about half of
that which existed in the 1930's.
I doubt that anyone would suspect that
that was correct because, of course, there
are so many more persons injured and killed
today than there were in the 1930's, but
considering the number of miles driven, our
traffic accident record is twice as good today
as it was in 1930.
Our drivers are greatly improved, and there
is no reason why this trend should not con-
tinue. We shall take a vigorous hand in
encouraging any programme which will have
the effect of cutting down accidents on the
highways.
The administration of the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund, insofar as The Department of
Transport is concerned, comes under the
financial responsibility division of the motor
vehicles branch. As the hon. members of
the House are aware, we have taken certain
steps to encourage all motorists to carry
insurance coverage for public liability and
property damage. We have published adver-
tisements in all of the newspapers, pointing
out the risks of driving without proper
insurance.
The response to this, and to the additional
charge of $5 on the uninsured, has been
most encouraging. It is widely reported that
more motorists have purchased adequate
insurance than ever before. One large insur-
ance agency reported that, in the month of
January, every policy included public liability
and property damage coverage, whereas their
earlier experience had been that a certain
proportion— 60 persons in their case— would
have been content with fire, theft and
collision.
There are a number of people who have
realized, perhaps for the first time, that they
were not fully insured when the agent
reported that their insurance lacked liability
coverage.
Although our aim is complete insurance
coverage, there will still be some who will
take the risks of driving without insurance,
and perhaps not be able to satisfy a judgment
if they are the responsible parties in an
accident.
The insured motorist in Ontario has pro-
tected himself against this to the limits of
his coverage, and if struck by an uninsured
motorist may collect from the unsatisfied
judgment fund. He is in as good a position
in Ontario as he would be in New York
state with compulsory insurance. The limits
are exactly the same. The unsatisfied judg-
ment fund would still be required, even with
compulsory insurance, to satisfy judgments
arising out of such accidents as the following:
1. Hit and run;
2. Those involving out of the province
vehicles not required to be insured;
3. Those involving owners who have with,
intent cancelled their insurance;
4. Those involving stolen vehicles;
5. Those involving farm vehicles.
The hon. members of the Legislature,
particularly those who sat on the highway
safety committee which reported in 1955, will
MARCH 19, 1958
999
be interested to learn that— and I bring this
especially to the attention of the hon. member
for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) who was very
interested in this— that, of the 77 recommenda-
tions put forward by that committee, 58 have
been adopted in full and 7 in part. That, I
believe, is an enviable record for any com-
mittee report.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): One would
say a good record.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I would like to say a few
words about the Ontario highway transport
board, which was transferred last July from
The Department of Municipal Affairs to The
Department of Transport, with Mr. S. H. S.
Hughes, Q.C., as its chairman. In 1955, the
board was established to take over from the
Ontario municipal board the jurisdiction, ex-
ercised by the latter, over the provision of
certificates of public necessity and conveni-
ence to the Minister of Transport, with refer-
ence to highway passenger carriers under The
Public Vehicles Act and highway freight car-
riers under The Public Commercial Vehicles
Act.
From the first, it was the policy of the
board to conduct public hearings in all those
cases where new operating rights were being
applied for, to take evidence in the usual way.
I think I should mention that the board now
has 4 members, and since it has the panels
of 2, the board has gone out into the province
and has held hearings in towns and cities,
which has proven to be a great convenience to
those who wished to appear before it. Hear-
ings have been held in Fort William, and
London, I believe, and several of the cities
and towns throughout the province.
Now that, Mr. Chairman, is a brief outline
of the new Department of Transport.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
would the hon. Minister tell us what they do
in New York state, with the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund? I mean, he said that the unsatis-
fied judgment fund would still be necessary
to cover hit-and-run drivers, for example, or
out of province motorists.
Hon. Mr. Allan: They have an unsatis-
fied judgment fund in New York state, do
they not?
Mr. Whicher: No, they do not. Well if
it is not necessary there, why would it be
necessary here?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, of course, it is a
question of whether it is desirable or not,
and I think that it is generally conceded
that an unsatisfied judgment fund is desir-
able in any jurisdiction, regardless of whether
one has compulsory insurance or not, for
the reason that I have mentioned— that is a
hit-and-run driver. One never finds out who
the driver was and if there was no unsatis-
fied judgment fund, naturally there would
be no compensation for the person who was
injured.
I am told that the state of New York is
introducing an unsatisfied judgment bill in
the House this year. That does not necessarily
mean that it will become law.
Vote 2,001 agreed to.
On vote 2,002:
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask one or two questions of the hon. Min-
ister respecting the weigh stations.
Perhaps I should have put a question on
the order paper. The one in my own riding,
as he knows, is on highway No. 401.
How many hours a day is the station open
and how many days a week? What is the
procedure for getting trucks in there? Are
they ordered in, or do they go in on their
own accord, or what? How do they go in
and get weighed?
Hon. Mr. Allan: When the stations are
open, all trucks must proceed over the scales.
Mr. Thomas: Are they open 5 days a
week?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, we do not begin to
have sufficient staff to man all stations all
of the time. That work has been taken over,
as I pointed out to the hon. member, by
the staff of The Department of Transport,
relieving the police for other duties. As the
staff increases the stations will be kept open
a greater percentage of the time. I do not
believe I have the information as to just
what percentage of time they are open.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Is it
considered necessary to keep them open all
the time?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, I would hardly think
so. Our experience has been that this is
not necessary in those areas where there is
a general check. It states here that in a
typical week Cooksville was open 10 hours,
Gravenhurst, 79 hours, Winona, 9 hours,
Bowmanville, 42.5 hours, Pickering, 40 hours.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, further to
that question. In the last couple of days I
have noticed two heavily laden trailers just
east of the weigh station, trucks with rein-
forcing steel— I suppose for cement work— and
1000
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they have been on the side of the highway
there. I was wondering how many trucks
have been found to be overloaded during the
period the station has been in operation and
how many have been taken into court or
summoned? There must be some corrective
measure to bring them to—
Hon. Mr. Allan: This report covers almost
a year and the number of convictions in all
stations was 3,164. The experience is that
the percentage of convictions is very small.
That was out of a total of 243,559 vehicles
checked. The experience is that when it
is known the scales are open there are a
very small percentage of infractions.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, when we
were discussing this question in the toll roads
committee— I think it was at a very early stage
when it may have been a mobile rather than
a permanent weigh scale— there was a sugges-
tion in the first two or three weeks or month
that the scale paid for itself because of the
convictions. I presume the number of con-
victions would drop off if drivers knew they
were going to be made to go on the scale?
What has been the experience in that connec-
tion over a longer period?
Hon. Mr. Allan: When scales are put in
a new area there is quite a percentage of
convictions then it gradually drops off. I
might say for the information of the House
that we are becoming more and more
interested in axle loads. That is, we find that
the gross load can be improperly divided
and that the real damage comes to the
highways from the axle loads, and as a matter
of fact, it is our intention in our weighing,
to take a great deal more interest in axle loads
than we have. For instance, in some gross
weights, it is impossible to get the gross
weight on the vehicle, without overloading
one of the axles. I might say that the fines
collected last year, or this year so far, are
$124,872.
Mr. MacDonald: What has been the outlay
for the weigh stations?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The Department of High-
ways build the weigh stations and I do not
have those figures now. Our outlay is the
salary of the staff.
Vote 2,002 agreed to.
On Vote 2,003:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I just have
one question on this item. In the report of
the select committee on highway safety, there
was one recommendation which said that
separate examination provisions be established
under the director— that the driver examiners
be appointed as civil servants and the
application of a driver examiner be required
to pass a qualifying examination, consisting
in part of appropriate written and practical
tests. Now has anything been done about
this?
Hon. Mr. Allan: That programme is under
way. We have a qualification standard for
appointment of those examiners. All the
examiners now in the metropolitan area are
civil servants who have passed those examina-
tions. We have 3 stations here: one on Spadina
avenue, one at Port Credit, and one at Downs-
view, up on highway No. 401. We have estab-
lished such a station in London— or, rather
such a centre— and also in Hamilton. We are
making arrangements to establish one in Ot-
tawa, and are planning now to establish them
in the smaller places, where we try to work
out some plan which makes it economical—
that is, reasonably economical.
It is not very economical to establish an
office for one examiner. We are trying to
formulate some plan which will permit us to
have these examiners, and it will cost a good
deal more— there is no doubt about that—
but that would b. — 3, district basis. We have
not as yet established any plan for the exam-
iners to go out and visit a town, say once a
week, or something like that, and make
examinations by appointment, but we intend
to extend it in that line.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): To go back to vote 2,002 for a
moment, I want to ask the hon. Minister this
question: Has he lawyers attached to this
transport board paid by the transport board?
Hon. Mr. Allan: In what way does the hon.
leader of the Opposition mean? Does he mean
do we have counsel for the board?
Mr. Oliver: In the public accounts, there
is the name of one lawyer who receives
$2,800. What would that be for? Rappaport,
or something, the name is.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I think that was before
the board came under The Department of
Transport, and I am not sure what it was,
but at the time we were endeavouring to set
up some kind of interprovincial arrangements.
Mr. Oliver: Was he at the same time ap-
pearing before the board on clients' behalf?
I just wondered.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I might be able to find
that out. As I say, this occurred before it was
under The Department of Transport, and I
MARCH 19, 1958
1001
will get it for the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. Oliver: It is rather an odd position to
be in.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, there was an effort
made by Mr. Hughes, and I attended a couple
of the meetings. I know very well when it
was— I was still wearing a cast— about a year
ago last fall, and there was an effort made to
try to get some uniformity in the regulations
in the various provinces. Mr. Rappaport was
engaged to advise them in that interprovincial
plan and he did not appear before the board
while he was so employed.
Mr. Oliver: He did not?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No.
Vote 2,003 agreed to.
On vote 2,004:
Mr. G. E. Jackson (London South): Before
vote 2,004, I wonder if I could ask the hon.
Minister a question about vote 2,003, and the
driving centres that are established. Do these
centres recognize any licence from any other
state or any other area?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, if they are to be
licenced here, they have to be examined. I
think that will be found in every jurisdiction.
What I wondered when the hon. member first
asked the question— a licence from another
jurisdiction is recognized here for a certain
period, 6 months. If anyone comes from
another jurisdiction they can drive on that
licence for 6 months, but if they want to get
an Ontario licence, they have to be examined
here.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): May I ask the
hon. Minister of Transport on vote 2,004, and
possibly vote 2,005: some of the municipalities
around the province— I do not know how
many— but London, incidentally, did extend
their date a couple of days longer for obtain-
ing their licences. Is this going to be a regular
procedure in the province, that any muni-
cipality or city has a right— do they get the
permission from the hon. Minister— to extend
it?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I have never been
able to have any influence with the police
of this province, and if the police at London
say they will not lay an information for
certain things at certain times, that is entirely
within their own jurisdiction. If there is
a deadline for licence plates, it is the same
in London as it is any place else. It is just
a question of what the police decide to do.
Mr. Oliver: Has the hon. Minister given
any thought to a different method of getting
these licence plates out? I mean each year
it seems to become worse.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I am firmly con-
vinced that what my hon. friend says is cor-
rect, and I am firmly convinced that the mat-
ter of extension was making it worse each
year. By having it definitely known that there
will be no extension, I would expect that in
another year, we will not have the same dif-
ficulty. Really, the issuing of these licences
has been given a great deal of thought by
our department, without having achieved very
much in the way of improving it.
These agencies who issue the licences
have to keep a staff, and this year during
the month of February those offices were
very, very slack. Yet it is not possible to
set up any sort of an organization that can
issue the licences for the province in a period
of two weeks.
We do accept applications by mail and
we were able this year to send out every
night, and to complete every day, any
application that we received that day, so that
each one could have his licence, but a great
many people did not realize that they could
do that.
But that is really not the intention of
the procedure that should be followed be-
cause the mechanics of the operation of the
persons who issue licences, and keep an
office the year round, has to be given some
consideration. It is just impossible to expect
these agencies to issue the great number
that was wanted at the time it was available
at the last period this year.
I am certain that our people, if they rea-
lize that when a date is set, that is the final
date, they will accommodate themselves to
it, and we will not have the experience we
had this year. This matter of issuing
drivers' licences, we realize, must be given
consideration because of the great many
influences that affect a driver's licence. That
is our thought in finally setting up a machine
or a mechanized issue of drivers' licences.
Once the man or the woman is set up in
that device, it is continued, and I think we
will overcome a good deal of the difficulty.
A number of jurisdictions issue drivers'
licences on a longer term. Now that can be
given consideration. They issue them on the
month of their birthday and that spreads
the issue of the driver's licence over the
whole year. All those things will be given
consideration in the hope that some plan will
be more satisfactory than it was this year.
1002
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Innes: May I ask the lion. Minister if
any effort is being made by the department
to make a type of lieence plate that is not
quite as corrosive as the one that is now in
operation? Some of these, by the end of the
year, are not very visible to the police officers
and I think that there should be a study made
along this line. I would like to obtain some
if there are some.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We recognize that would
be desirable and we are hopeful that— I
might ask the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond) if the plates this
year were made in Guelph or Millbrook? I
mean the plates we are selling.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: At Guelph.
Hon. Mr. Allan: At Guelph, The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions makes the plates,
I understand, and perhaps the hon. Minister
would give an explanation, that the plant that
is now in operation at Millbrook is a very
modern plant and that, in all probability, the
licences will be of a better quality.
We did try last year. We had some made
on galvanized iron and they turned out
exceptionally well, but they are more expens-
ive than the plates made on iron. We are
hopeful with this new process that the iron
will be cleaned better, and the paint will
go on when the iron is in a better condition.
I think it is likely that the plates will be of
better quality when the plates are made at
Millbrook.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I was
interested in listening to the hon. Minister
tell us that it was possible to get licence
plates by mail. I did not know that at all.
Did the hon. Minister advertrise that fact
and how do we do it? Do we have to pay
the postage and other expenses?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, just send in the
cheque and you get your licence. The marker
is mailed out. We have not publicized it
terrifically. These issuers of licences perform
a service in the community and a convenience
for the people in the community and they
do not get a large fee for the issuing of
licences.
Mr. Thomas: What is the commission they
get?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Thirty-five cents.
Mr. Thomas: On each licence?
Hon. Mr. Allan: On each permit, that is
each plate— well, on the set of plates; and
10 cents for a driver's licence.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): I was
just going to ask, on the mailing of licences,
what happens if a driver is stopped by a
provincial officer and asked for his licence
while it is away to the department? His
driver's licence?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): He
should have asked a little sooner.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I do not know what
happens, but I have never heard of any
difficulty.
Mr. A. G. Frost (Bracondale): Mr. Chair-
man, I would say that we have secured our
licences that way for 20 years and we have
never been stopped and never had any diffi-
culty or trouble. It has always been very
convenient. We would mail a blank cheque
and they would fill the cheque in and send
us the licences. We have done that for 20
years.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, that is an
indication of the confidence that some people
have in The Department of Transport.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Minister give
us his personal opinion with respect to a
policy of stricter cancellation of licences on
infractions of highway traffic regulations?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I think, Mr. Chair-
man, the demerit system which is contained
in the amendment to The Highway Traffic
Act will— well, it really provides for a man
writing his own suspension. It is intended that
a set of points will be established. That is
quite an undertaking. We endeavoured, the
other morning, in the highway safety com-
mittee, to establish what might be considered
a reasonable valuation of the demerit points
for various offences. There was a great differ-
ence of opinion, and the view was expressed
that it might need to be tried, so it was
finally agreed that the Act would provide for
the setting up of those points by regulations.
The Act provides for suspension by the
magistrate for most offences. I know the hon.
member is probably thinking of speeding, and
although that is not provided in the Act, a
series of speeding offences would create the
accumulation of a number of points in this
demerit system whereby the licence would
automatically be suspended.
The whole thought behind this plan is that
when so many points are accumulated— so
many demerit points— a letter would be written
to the operator warning him that so many
points had accumulated. The next offence
would require him to discuss the matter with
MARCH 19, 1958
1003
someone from the department. Following
that, if there are still more points, it would
mean— of course that has not definitely been
decided— very likely an automatic suspension.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to labour this point too long, but
would the hon. Minister agree with me that
in terms of common sense, the way to get at
this is to be strict about it and cancel their
licence as they do in Connecticut? I realize
that it is politically dangerous to do it. It
requires a good administrator and I hope that
the hon. Minister is such. But I think, if
somebody will really take this in hand, and
be definite about it, there is no substitute for
automatic suspension of licence.
As I said the other day, it seems to me
that people will not slow up to save their
lives, but they will to save their licences,
and I think it is the licence that we have
to use as a vehicle to reduce the number
of accidents.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, of course, under the
Act at the present time, magistrates can
suspend a licence for a second offence. I
recognize the sincerity of the hon. member's
thinking and I suppose that we are all entitled
to have our own line of thinking in that direc-
tion. I must say that it is my personal opinion
that if we are going to do a job, then we
should have the co-operation and the support
of the drivers throughout the province. We
should try every possible reasonable means
of influencing those drivers first.
Now I have never been convinced that
punishment really will cure misdemeanors.
That is, it is the fear of something I think,
that keeps the people in line perhaps more,
and while if a licence were to be suspended
for speeding on the first offence, in some
instances it would create a very great hard-
ship. There are a great many men who make
their living by driving motor vehicles of some
type, and one could understand that, the
other day, when the deadline for the licences
came up.
Any person could do without his car for
one day, and it was no difficulty to get the
licence the other day, but it indicated how
the motor vehicle has become a part of so
many people's lives. I have quite a bit of
faith in the people of this province and I
hope that we can get the drivers of the
province to go with us on a programme of
good driving. However, if there is not co-
operation, then hardship and suffering comes,
and I think that, when our plan is set up,
it will come much sooner for some of those
people than they would anticipate in the
beginning, because when one has a convic-
tion for careless driving, he has a number
of points against his record which certainly
must demand some consideration if he is
at all anxious about his licence.
I agree with the hon. member that the
licence is perhaps one of the good ways of
encouraging good driving.
Mr. Whicher: Will the hon. Minister
change this point system every year?
Hon. Mr. Allan: As I say now, I am just
speaking without having come to a conclu-
sion, and I would not like the hon. member
to hold me to what I say, because we are
making a very great study. As a matter of
fact, two of our people are going down to
New York state this weekend to sit in on
a conference in connection with the Univer-
sity of North Carolina, who have been con-
ducting a study in this particular point sys-
tem. They have been investigating, I think,
60,000 drivers.
Our present thinking is that the point sys-
tem would extend over a period of two years
and, at the end of two years, if one has
a conviction for speeding, on the third anni-
versary—that would be at the end of two
years— those points would be deleted from
one's record.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, some time last
year the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) said
that he favoured compulsory automobile
insurance. Is that the hon. Minister's view
too? What does the hon. Minister think about
that statement?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, I think the hon.
Prime Minister has stated his feelings in
that connection. Everyone is anxious to
have every person driving a motor vehicle
insured. I think that is unanimous. As a
result of the policy we have in effect this
year we will know at the end of the year
how many persons have insurance— the num-
ber who have it and the number who do
not have it.
It is really quite a problem to consider
because the question arises then as to who
must be given insurance.
Mr. Whicher: Let the insurance companies
tell him, it is their business.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, we would like to
get our licencing good enough so that when
the department said the driver of a motor
vehicle could drive a motor vehicle, he should
be able to get insurance. Now I do not know
whether we can arrive there. We hope we
can. That is the first place we would like to
1004
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
arrive, because if compulsory insurance is
in effect and insurance companies are re-
quired, by their licence, to insure every person
who is going to drive an automobile, it really
creates a situation that is not desirable.
I have a list of the rates of insurance here
in a number of jurisdictions. Massachusetts,
of course, has had compulsory insurance for
a great many years. They have a 40-mile
speed limit. Their number of accidents is
much greater than ours. That seems impos-
sible, one can hardly realize that it could
be true. The insurance rate— and this is per-
sonal injury, personal damage, preferred risk
for 10/20/5— now in Boston, the premium for
that is $167.10. By comparison, Toronto is
$32. Buffalo is $76, New York city, $124,
Montreal is $58, and rural Massachusetts is
$54.70— in comparison to Ontario's $23.
Mr. Whicher: That example of New York
city and Boston, that is a fair comparison,
and it is $124 without compulsory, and
Boston is only what— $130 or something?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, of course, they have
compulsory insurance in New York but the
rates have not changed. There is an applica-
tion before the supreme court to have the
rates raised.
Mr. Whicher: Well, our companies do not
have to get an application, they just raise
them.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Oh, yes, they have to get
permission to raise them.
Mr. Whicher: Automobile rates? They do
not.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Oh, certainly.
Mr. Whicher: No, they do not. It is a
private enterprise.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: There is a provision in
the Act which could be brought into effect,
but it actually has never been proclaimed.
Votes 2,004 and 2,005 agreed to.
Mr. Oliver: I want to ask the hon. Minister
a general question before his estimates are
through, having to do with the diesel fuel
tax. I was quite interested in that last year, as
I am sure the government must have been
when they increased the tax so definitely
in respect to that fuel.
I do not think the government felt they
had all the facts in their possession when they
put the impost tax on last year, and I was
not surprised that the intimation is that
during the recess they had an examination
made of this whole matter, and that the
Ontario research foundation has been called
in, and in co-operation with the automotive
transport association they have conducted, as
I understand it, certain tests and a report has
been made. I presume it is in the possession
of the hon. Minister and before his estimates
are finally passed tonight, it would be interest-
ing to find out from the hon. Minister, if he
would tell the House, and I think he should—
if he has the report— just what the results of
that investigation were.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, Mr. Chairman, we
made that investigation for The Treasury De-
partment and any information we have has
been turned over to The Treasury Department
and, of course, as is known, the collection
of diesel fuel tax is the responsibility of The
Treasury Department.
Mr. Oliver: Who has this report now?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The Treasury Department
has it.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Chairman, I move the committee do now rise
and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex South): Mr.
Speaker, the committee of supply begs to
report certain resolutions and begs leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: We were going to call
order No. 15, but if the hon. Speaker might
see fit, as it is 6 o'clock, the House might ad-
journ until 8 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: It being now 6 of the clock,
I do now—
Mr. Oliver: May I ask the hon. Attorney-
General, is it debate tonight?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Resumed debate on the
speech from the Throne.
Mr. Oliver: Speech from the Throne?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, I think perhaps
we may then go over to the budget debate
as well. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, I
believe there are two speakers to follow on
the resumed debate on the speech from the
Throne and that it will be wound up tomor-
row, I believe, by the hon. Minister con-
cerned. After the two have finished tonight,
it is the intention to go on to the budget
debate.
It being 6.00 of the clock, the House took
recess.
No. 39
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Beoate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 19, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
S*5
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 19, 1958
Resumption of debate on the speech from the Throne, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cass 1007
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Allan, agreed to 1019
Resumption of debate on the budget, Mr. W. A. Stewart, Mr. McCue 1019
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Rankin 1029
St. Peter's Church, Brockville, bill respecting, third reading 1029
St. Michael's College, bill respecting, third reading 1029
Society of directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario, bill to incorporate, third reading 1029
Town of Almonte, bill respecting, third reading 1029
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, third reading 1029
Coroners Act, bill to amend, third reading 1029
Police Act, bill to amend, third reading 1029
Corporations Tax Act, 1957, bill to amend, third reading 1029
Succession Duty Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1029
Racing Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1029
County Judges Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1032
Raising of money on credit of the consolidated revenue fund, bill to authorize,
Mr. Roberts, second reading 1033
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 1033
1007
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to take part in the debate of this present
session I would, as all hon. members have
done, pay respects to the fine service you
render in your honourable position in this
House as Speaker. Your friendly manner
and personality really do wonders.
I would also like to congratulate the
Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for
Middlesex South (Mr. Allen), as well as the
new hon. members, namely the hon. member
for Lanark (Mr. McCue); the hon. member
for Glengarry (Mr. (Guindon) who seconded
the speech from the Throne in such an
able manner; the hon. member for Middle-
sex North (Mr. W. A. Stewart); and the
hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), who
have been elected since the last sitting of
the House as supporters of the Frost
government.
I would also like to pay tribute to 3 very
good friends and esteemed members of this
Legislature who have passed on: Tom Pryde,
Huron; Tom Patrick, Middlesex North, and
T. S. Thomas, Elgin.
There have been other changes in this
house— I refer to the absence of Mr. George
Doucette of Lanark, former Minister; O.
Villeneuve of Glengarry; and Mr. S. J. Hunt,
Renfrew North, who have entered the federal
field, and I am sure we all wish them well.
The moving of the speech from the Throne
by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy)
was especially interesting and made us all
realize how much we owe to our pioneer
members, and what a contribution they have
made to progress in Ontario.
I would like briefly to discuss some of the
problems in the riding of Perth, which I
have the honour to represent. No doubt some
of these problems exist also in other ridings.
Perth riding is about 840 square miles in
extent— and has an assessment of $62.25
million, and includes the town of Palmerston
where I live.
Wednesday, March 19, 1958
There are some new industrial expansions
there, and at this time I would like to pay
tribute to The Department of Municipal
Affairs which co-operated in every detail
in concluding the arrangements which
brought these industries to that community.
It is, I would say, the centre of western
Ontario, and borders on 5 other ridings.
It has Stratford on the Avon, which is
the county seat and a city of approximately
20,000. Stratford is a railway division point
on the Canadian National Railways, and a
city of much diversified industry, not to
mention being the home of the Shakespearian
Festival which has brought to Ontario and
Canada more publicity and fame than any
other single event over the last 5 years.
Other communities, besides the townships,
include St. Marys, a beautiful town on the
Thames river and on highway No. 7, which a
short time ago provided a home for a new
industry— the Hinde & Dauch paper com-
pany; Mitchell on highways Nos. 23 and 8;
L,istowel on highways Nos. 23 and 86;
Milverton on highway No. 19; and Palmer-
ston, a railroad junction point on highway
No. 23.
All these towns feel very strongly that a
policy of decentralization would tend to
bring more industry and manufacturing plants
to settle within their boundaries. As well-
established towns they have every public
facility to offer, as well as good schools,
churches, modern hospitals, and recreation
facilities. In these places there are no hour-
long rides on buses or cars to work, no line-
ups of any account to get a meal or to check
out of a shopping centre. In other words,
they are good places to live— where possibly
more people reach the ages of 90 and even
100 than in most other areas. Many of the
communities have already celebrated tlieir
centennials having been parts of the Huron
tract development.
As far
county is
highways
National
lines. In
way runs
Goderich.
as transportation is concerned, Perth
well provided, not only with good
and county roads, but with Canadian
Railways service on its many branch
addition, the Canadian Pacific Rail-
through Milverton and Monkton to
I would like to make a few observations
relating to problems affecting the railway per-
1008
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sonnel in my area. There has been for some
years past a deliberate and planned effort to
reduce branch line services.
Stratford is a railroad centre, and the large
shops there have already felt the effect of the
switch to dieselization, yet we cannot stop
progress, and that is one of the things they
have to contend with.
There has apparently been for some years
a deliberate and planned effort to reduce
branch line services all over Canada, I am
told.
Since last year, we have seen the Stratford-
Goderich line reduced to one passenger train
a day each way. On account of hauling larger
trains, diesel power has also had the effect
of removing some of the crews. Further, for
some years, the Canadian Pacific Railway have
been using trucks for their express movements.
Mail cars as combination cars (express and
mail) on most of the lines on Canadian Na-
tional Railways, are still being carried on
the trains— yet the mail is going by trucks.
Why? Can you think of anything more ridicu-
lous?
The Canadian National Railways officials
had apparently informed the postal authorities
that the services would not be available— yet
the mail cars are still running while the mail
is being carried by truck. This meant a loss
of revenue to the Canadian National Railways
and a slight decrease in cost to the postal
authorities.
How? Yearly contracts were made with
truckers to carry the mails. All carriers from
stations to the post offices were out of a job,
and they were, no doubt, men in their senior
years to whom the small earning meant con-
siderable. Mail clerks living at Goderich,
Southampton and Kincardine were retired and
not replaced.
Yet Trans-Canada Air Lines can be sub-
sidized several million dollars to carry mails
at the regular rates.
I realize this is federal business, yet I con-
sider anything that affects those residing in
Perth is of interest to me as their representa-
tive—and jobs are jobs.
The passenger traffic is definitely increasing,
and no doubt will increase further, but only
if improved service is provided.
We have in our area, particularly north of
us and some of the neighbouring ridings, some
of the finest resort places in the province of
Ontario. The railways take the passengers
up on Friday and Saturday nights, and leave
them to get back the best way they can on
Sunday to be here for work Monday morning.
I do think that there should be a Sunday
service in that area to serve those who would
want to resort to recreation parks and lakes.
As traffic on our roads in Metropolitan
Toronto increases, parking fees are quite ex-
pensive—in fact profits from the city auto
parks prove that they amount to considerable.
We must never forget that primarily the
railways were built in large part by the com-
munities they serve, 75 to 100 years ago— also
the Canadian Pacific Railway— and the Cana-
dian National Railways or the former Grand
Trunk Railway and Canadian Northern— re-
ceived large tracts of lands from governments.
Then we have had increased charges— and
more are being asked for by our railways.
These rates must be competitive and while
we know railways are hampered in their
efforts to increase business by a federal board
of rate commissioners who rule on their rates,
they no doubt would get much more business
if these rates were reduced and cars kept
loaded, and the men working.
They might take a look at the large store
operator, who when business is down, adver-
tises more, reduces prices and creates busi-
ness. I feel very strongly that such unbusi-
nesslike practices are detrimental to the pro-
gress of the province of Ontario, and that a
very strong representation should be made
to the Dominion government in connection
with this important matter.
Regarding the effects of trucking on the
rail industry, and those affiliated therewith,
it is my opinion that the large truck box
cars should be off the highways. Steel, cement,
and heavy logs should be back on the rails—
which were built to carry them. It would
relieve our highways and distribute the econ-
omy more evenly.
The past has proven the value of railways,
and it is my hope they continue to play then-
part in the future— not merely as operators
of hotels— but to give service to every part
of our province.
We talked about decentralization which
has not come as yet. It should be realized
that our population is growing in all our
centres, and to leave any one centre having
only one means of transportation is certainly
not good for progress. They should even
be persuaded to provide a more adequate
commuter service in this particular metropo-
litan area of Toronto.
Mr. Whicher: That is what we said this
afternoon.
Mr. Edwards: Regarding our level cross-
ings—I am quite in accord with what was
MARCH 19, 1958
1009
said by the hon. member for York East (Mr.
Beckett) when he spoke. I know that a
survey has been made, particularly in western
Ontario, and a report by the engineering
staff of the Canadian National Railways at
Stratford, given to me by the superintendent's
office, is in the hands of the government
for consideration.
In connection with the diesels— and we
have some up our way and no doubt will
have more— I do not think that the engineer
or operator of the diesel should be alone,
someone qualified should be there also, if
for no other reason than this.
If any hon. member knows railroad men,
he realizes that when they have had the
misfortune to hit a car or a truck at a
crossing, they are never the same for months
. after, just as a result of that. Any safety
measure that can be taken to remove that
possibility of having these train accidents,
is certainly all to the good.
Now I want to talk about hogs. Perth
county leads again in 1957, being the most
important county in hog production. While
hog production generally in Ontario and in
Canada was less in 1957 than in 1956, Perth's
production ran against the trend and rose to
202,959 hogs, an all-time record for the
county. More hogs were produced in Perth
last year than in Nova Scotia, New Bruns-
wick and Prince Edward Island.
Naturally, it has been my duty to sit in
with various groups in the county: federation
of agriculture, hog producers, and farm forums,
where marketing problems are discussed, and
I have heard the pros and cons of their prob-
lems. I have at all times assured them that
governments are bound, and have agreed in
the past, to give them legislation to meet
their needs for the kind of marketing they
desire, and that whether farm marketing stays
or not will be the farmers' own decision.
Perth county also ranks high in dairy
products. Their cheese is of the best quality
and finds a ready market at the auctions
held monthly at Stratford by the cheese
board.
Creameries, of which there are fewer than
years ago, find it hard to maintain high
production on account of the ever-increasing
demand for whole milk by dairies of this
Metro area. One can see possibly 8 to 10
bulk tank trucks every day in the area. It
has always puzzled me why they should
have to truck milk so far— 90 miles and up—
when we hear of so many good dairy farms
in Peel and other ridings surrounding the
city of Toronto. It is hoped that the day
is not too far distant when all farmers, con-
ditions being equal, will receive the same
return for their product whether it goes
into the retail dairy, or for butter, or powder,
or cheese.
Perth county has some very fine herds of
cattle and some beautiful farm homes. They
have had for many years most capable agri-
cultural representatives and assistants. Dr.
Graham, now Deputy Minister, served in the
early thirties in that capacity, and started
the original 4-H clubs which are so active
in that area.
One hundred and forty-eight junior farmers
have taken advantage of loans from the
Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan
Corporation to the exent of $1,070,950 in
Perth county. I would at this time like to
express appreciation of the promptness and
efficiency shown in the procedure and opera-
tion of the loan corporation.
There are the usual very fine annual fall
fairs throughout the county— and I am sure
we would all like to congratulate the town
and neighbouring township about Mitchell,
which recently were advised of their being
raised to class B fairs.
Through The Department of Agriculture
many communities have taken advantage of
the community grants for arenas, halls, etc.
Both Monkton and Kurtzville, only a few
weeks ago, had their official openings and
are to be congratulated for their initiative
and enterprise in their projects.
In connection with education and its
problems in Perth riding, may I say that
Stratford is in the process of adding to their
collegiate, and like every other community
is having difficulty in building within its
estimates. Palmerston, only last week,
commenced work on an addition of 6 rooms
to Norwell area school situated there. The
town of Mitchell, and even some of the town-
ships, are planning additions or new schools.
We are very happy to have a teachers'
college in Stratford— Dr. Bowers (who retired
last August), with a very well-qualified staff
has had many outstanding pupils pass
through its portals. Being so centrally situ-
ated, it is hoped that before too long the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop) and
this government will authorize a brand new
building— complete with gym, etc.— for this
training college for teachers. Present facili-
ties are most inadequate.
We hear of crowding at the University of
Toronto and Western University, which are
expanding along with the other major univer-
sities, and have been greatly assisted by the
1010
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government. The time would seem ripe to
establish a junior university in Perth county.
This government has helped school boards
tremendously and certainly spared the tax-
payer and home-owner plenty.
I do believe costs are aggravated by
allowing too much leeway in the choice
of text books. For instance, there are 5
series of readers for the grades of the
primary division— there are 4 books for grade
5 social studies. These books are not like
the readers, spellers and arithmetics of our
day, which cost in the neighbourhood of 10
cents. Today's texts cost 15 or 20 times as
much, and this is not peanuts.
I believe a general standard course should
be authorized and be uniform in our schools,
and I believe these texts should be supplied
in full, and that we should let the corner
store sell the pencils, scribblers and other
needs. The government gets all the blame
for increased costs, whether it is in text books
or whether it is in the building of schools.
I also believe in the structures that are
being built and I think that when they get
into secondary schools, the buildings need
not be so rambling. I think that it should
be two storeys. There is nothing to hurt that
age group walking up a flight of stairs and
we would not have so much roof. Somebody
has said that possibly the school teachers
and even the pupils would have to have
roller skates if the schools get much longer,
on one floor.
Regarding costs the only thing that hasn't
gone up is the Hydro which we use— as a
Hydro commissioner for over 16 years I must
put in this plug!
Even the daily papers doubled their prices
some few months ago, I must say, except
the western Ontario London Free Press. It
costs at least $30 a year to read one daily
paper; 2 would be $60; 3-$90. I just wonder
whether— if a retail merchant overnight
doubled his prices— there would not be a
board of inquiry or price spread investiga-
tion ordered.
I am a retail druggist myself and often
wonder if we are not over-serviced as a
people. They tell me in Russia, for instance,
there might be only 4 or 5 kinds of tooth-
paste to choose from— yet here on our shelves
you may find from 50 to 60 varieties.
Mr. MacDonald: Communist propaganda
now, Mr. Grossman will get after you.
Mr. Edwards: There is again the plight
of all small retailers as in competition with
the chains and larger shopping centres, where
the matter of hours open becomes a problem,
and even conflict— and unfair to the small
store owner.
Going further we find the railways even
put on a half fare on Saturdays to draw
the business of all the small places into
Toronto to spend their money.
It was interesting to note the Bell Tele-
phone earnings were over $1,870,000
above 1956— more customers and higher rates.
Possibly these higher rates, along with high
transportation costs could be, also, a deter-
rant to decentralization of industry.
I would like to say that one thing that
has always struck me this way and that is
why the Bell Telephone rates— they do give
good service yet we pay for it— are double
what they were some years ago. How many
of us stop to realize that we are paying a
big percentage of the pension for their
employees? I wonder who is paying the
pension for the little fellow or for the
fellow who is not in big business.
The people in my riding who receive pen-
sions whether old age— the 65-69 pension
on the means test— or the disabled, are very
happy with the increased pension being
paid. Our older citizens, when they do not
own their own homes, do have problems
greater than is often known. I would like
to commend a fine group, The Kinsmen of
Stratford, who last year opened their second
unit of a very fine low-rental building for use
of pensioners and their families. The club
received an international award on their
project. We have some private homes who
do a fine job looking after some of our senior
citizens yet I do think the time has come
when these rest homes, or homes for the aged,
or of that nature, should be all inspected.
It is too bad more clubs in all our com-
munities would not follow their example.
The Department of Welfare is to be com-
mended for their work in the various
departments. The unemployed insurance fund
has helped many but doesn't do too much
for anyone ill. It would not seem unreason-
able to make monies out of this fund available
for this purpose. I should also mention that
I feel those widows who receive mothers'
allowances should have some continuing
assistance after she has her family raised and
through school, and while she is not of
pensionable age, being not yet 65, is unable
to take up employment which would supply
her with the needs for herself.
The residents of my riding are greatly
interested in the hospital insurance plan
which will become effective January 1, 1959.
They are proud of our federal member, hon.
MARCH 19, 1958
1011
J. W. Monteith, the federal Minister of Health
and Welfare and the co-signer along with
Prime Minister Frost of the first federal-
provincial agreement signed recently at Ot-
tawa. Mr. Monteith's father, the late Dr.
Monteith, was Provincial Treasurer in this
House in the thirties.
Perth co-operative medical services has
been in operation since 1948 and has 4,000
rural contracts in operation, providing hospital
care for 6,750 persons and professional care
for surgical cases to 3,800 persons. They
operate most efficiently and economically and
will be very well pleased to offer the use of
their organization particularly to the rural
areas of Perth under the new joint hospital
scheme.
I have already brought to the attention of
the health committee of this House the
shortage of doctors and dentists in Perth
county and other parts of Ontario. It will
be a sorry day for Ontario when the family
doctor passes out of the picture.
I might say after that health meeting I had
some 17 letters coming to me from different
parts of western Ontario saying that it was
a very important subject and a subject that
they hoped the medical association and those
concerned would try to do something to see
that there were ample doctor services in all
our communities.
It has always been my conviction that
every municipality particularly all towns and
centres of 1,000 or more should have their
local hospital for ordinary cases, etc. Perth
county rates well in this regard— 4 fine hospital
and medical centres in Stratford— ably staffed
and also Avon Crest as a chronic hospital.
I might say that it is very well located
and right adjacent to the hospital there is
plenty of room for a new Ontario hospital
at any time the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Phillips) would like to put another one
in that area.
St. Marys also has a fine, well-run hospital
as have Listowel and Palmerston. I think
every community of 1,000 and up should
have a small hospital of their own, where
those ordinary services can be supplied,
possibly more economically, and yet where
loved ones will not be so far removed when
they are ill.
These publicly-owned hospitals all do
appreciate the grants made available this year
again to help them in their financing.
Listowel is presently considering an addi-
tion and will be very happy with the new
basis of grants for new construction.
Perth county has problems in connection
with sewerage, etc., in some of its municipali-
ties. It is hoped the federal government will
authorize the completion of the Thames valley
project shortly and thus alleviate the problems
facing many municipalities in the area.
This province has come a long way in
regard to highways during the last few years.
We are most anxious in Perth riding that the
progress should be general and that such
projects as a truck by-pass of Stratford and
a by-pass on highway No. 23 at Listowel
be commenced this year. This would elimin-
ate two railway crossings and also make a
direct route— at the same time relieving the
main street of Listowel of through non-stop
traffic.
A request was made recently by a dele-
gation of road committees from Middlesex
and Perth to the hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Allan) to put a by-pass on high-
way No. 7 from Prospect Hill, following
the county road and by-passing St. Marys.
St. Marys has a very difficult situation with
the upkeep of 3 miles of highway on high-
way No. 7.
I do believe a large amount of traffic going
east on highway No. 7 could very nicely be
handled on highway No. 23, which should
be straightened at Mitchell with the new
highway No. 23 going under the railway
instead of over— which is now the case— and
a very dangerous and narrow overhead
bridge would be used for local traffic only.
Or as an alternate, highway No. 19— which
runs from Stratford to Milverton through to
Tralee— I hope is on call for resurfacing. This
highway should be continued through to
connect on highway No. 9. Perth county road
committee have also requested a development
road from Topping East which I hope will
receive consideration.
Not unlike Toronto, Perth county, espec-
ially in Stratford had to line up while
licences for cars were being secured— and I
have received some complaints. If 100 people
per day from January 2nd had purchased
their licences, I am told there would be
no occasion for line-up. However it is to
be hoped that before another year rolls
around, possibly a driving examination centre
and licencing office in connection with the
new headquarters of The Department of
Highways on Huron Road, Stratford, will be
set up serving the whole area.
I would like to pay tribute to the service
being given by the provincial police and civil
service in Perth Riding— they are a fine group
1012
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of public servants and are efficient in then-
work.
In closing I would again like to bring to
the attention of hon. members the announce-
ment of the sixth annual season of the
Stratford Festival which this year runs from
June 23 to September 13, and it is my con-
viction they will be very much impressed with
the beautiful new building in its fine setting,
and will appreciate the drama, music and
concerts being offered this year.
Mr. F. M. Cass (Grenville-Dundas): Mr.
Speaker, along with the previous hon. member
and those who have spoken at this session in
the House, I wish to congratulate you, but
mostly to thank you, for your kindness and
assistance to all of the members of this House
during these sessions of this 25th Legislature.
I also would like to say that along with all
the other hon. members of the House as they
have spoken so far, I would like to add my
word of praise to the hon. mover of the
address in reply to the speech from the
Throne, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Ken-
nedy). He is one of the elder statesmen of
this province, and particularly to those of us
on this side of the House, and I am sure he
does not confine himself just to this side of
the House; he has been a friend and a coun-
sellor for many, many years.
It was very meet that at that time the hon.
seconder to the address should have been my
colleague from eastern Ontario, the hon.
member for Glengarry (Mr. Guindon). He is
one of the 3 new hon. members who have
come to sit on this side of the House.
Each one of them is a worthy representa-
tive of the district from which he comes, and
each one of them has added, I think, con-
siderable to the stature of this House.
It was mentioned by the hon. member for
Perth (Mr. Edwards) that we have lost certain
members to the federal sphere, and I would
like to draw to the attention of the House that
of those members, 3 of them at least come
from eastern Ontario. Now, that may be a
good thing for Ottawa, but, it has not been
a good thing for us here because we will miss
the former member for Lanark (Mr. Doucett)
very much; I know we have also missed the
former member for Glengarry (Mr. Ville-
neuve), and the former member for Renfrew
North (Mr. Hunt), who were members of this
assembly.
However, as I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker,
their successors show that sign of competence
even at this early time in this session that
encourages us to believe that they will carry
on as well as their predecessors.
Now, some time earlier during this session,
I heard it said on the other side of the House
that this government or this party with its
some 80 hon. members was having difficulty
in providing Ministerial material. I would
just like to point out to those hon. members,
as well as to all of us, that we have had in
the House this year estimates presented by 2
new hon. Ministers of the Crown, hon. mem-
bers who were last session, like many of us,
back benchers, the core of the party that sits
to your right, Mr. Speaker. And I defy anyone
to say that either the hon. Minister for Reform
Institutions (Mr. Dymond) or the hon.
Minister for Mines (Mr. Spooner) in their
presentations of their budget estimates and in
their administration of their departments since
they took over last summer, is not of top
calibre.
I would like at this time to record my
appreciation to the civil service of this prov-
ince, whether they be here in Toronto or
scattered around in all parts of Ontario. With-
out them, we hon. members could not operate,
at least we could not satisfy our people at
home, that things were being done as they
should be done.
I would like also to make reference to a
matter which is sometimes known as the
"Maloney Formula," in connection with
Hydro. I wish to say that it is not peculiar
to the riding of Renfrew South, nor to its
hon. member (Mr. Maloney). The hon. mem-
ber for Lambton East (Mr. Janes) for many
years was interested in it,, as have been all
rural members.
We are very pleased that the Ontario Hydro
Electric Power Commission has been able
to grant to those members of rural con-
stituencies who have had the misfortune to
live two concessions away from anyone else,
the right to have electrical power at those
wonderful cheap rates about which the hon.
member for Perth was telling us, as well as
the people in the city. I do congratulate
Ontario Hydro on that achievement and the
new policy which they have put into force.
Another thing that was mentioned by the
hon. member for Perth that I would like also,
Mr. Speaker, to have recorded is the fact that
our hospital services commission and our
hospital plan, which is shortly to come into
force in this province, is I believe, and I am
sure it must be, making a place for the rural
medical co-operatives. These are the co-oper-
atives which are in touch with the rural people
in all our districts and have served them well.
They have the confidence of the people and
I know that there is a very vital place for
them in the administration of the new Act,
MARCH 19, 1958
1013
and I am sure that they are going to be made
use of.
But I would say one thing further, I hope
that the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips)
will take, and has taken it into account, and
that is, I am sure that no such hospital plan
as we have in mind can be completely
successful unless it has the wholehearted
co-operation of the doctors who will admin-
ister it for us, at least the vital parts of it.
And therefore I am sure that all efforts have
been made or will have been made to have
the Ontario Medical Association and its mem-
bers enter fully into this new scheme.
One other thing that I would like to men-
tion, Mr. Speaker, is the Ontario water
resources commission and its works. We have
heard many things about it and we have read
in the newspapers about what they are going
to do, and some of the hon. members across
the House have been asking what they have
been doing.
Now I would like to say right here that I
know one thing that they have been doing.
For many years the little village of Winchester
in my constituency could not get waterworks.
It did not have enough assessment, it did not
have this and it did not have that, but it
needed water.
And now within the last year we have had
a project approved whereby the financing is
being provided for us. True, we will have to
pay for it, but it is being provided for us. We
are test drilling now and before very long we
are going to have in the village of Winchester
the waterworks project which we can afford,
and which we need, and that thanks to the
administration which has been set up by the
Ontario waterworks commission.
I was most interested this afternoon to
listen to the estimates brought down by the
hon. Minister for Highways (Mr. Allan) in
his dual capacity as Minister of Highways
and Transport. I would like him to know
that during this past winter we have had
some very bad snow conditions in Ontario,
and that every time I go home on the week-
ends I find the provincial highways clear and
as ready to run on as any time in the summer
time.
Now I think that his department in the
Ottawa and Kingston districts are to be very
highly congratulated on the way in which
they have been keeping the roads open for
the travelling public this winter. He also
should be congratulated on the excellence of
the manner in which highways No. 2 and
No. 401 have been relocated and built in
eastern Ontario due to the seaway develop-
ment. There has been very little dislocation
of traffic, either of through traffic or local
traffic, and this department of the hon.
Minister is certainly to be commended.
There is only one thing that I would like
to suggest to him and that is that now when
he is having a lot of these new highways
built and as there are many in my riding,
I am strongly of the opinion that there should
be some overall policy emanating from his
department with respect to gasoline and
service stations— not only on controlled access
highways but on all other provincial highways
and that we should not be subjected to the
array of all sorts, kinds, shapes and colours
of service stations with their sometimes
devious approaches, such as we have now.
I know the hon. Minister has this under
consideration and I know that any such
regulations made by his department will cause
all hon. members trouble, but nevertheless I
do think that this is something that might
well be taken care of.
In his address to this House, the hon.
member for York West (Mr. Rowntree) went
very fully into certain matters which I, as a
member of the bar also was interested in, and
I must say that I agree quite heartily with
his remarks that we stick to the unsatisfied
judgment fund rather than go with compul-
sory automobile insurance.
I believe that it was demonstrated to the
committee on highway safety at this session
that we have in Ontario a very commendable
system. I think that the amendments which
have now passed the standing committee
stage and will be considered by this House
will go a long way towards filling the holes
and placing the onus on the wrongdoer after
an accident has taken place where there
is no insurance.
This highway safety business is the concern
of all of us, but none of us seem to take any
interest in it so far as practice is concerned.
I would say this, that I think the proposed
system of points which we heard the hon.
Minister explaining to the standing commit-
tee on highway safety the other day, and
which he explained to the House today, is a
step in the right direction. I would like to
say this though, Mr. Speaker, and draw it
to the hon. Minister's attention, that the
primary basis of British justice is that when
a man has been punished the punishment
should end then and he should not have to
carry it with him into his later life.
I think that the hon. Minister and his
department should think very seriously about
the situation when they suspend and table
1014
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
away a licence after a driver has reached
the top point system accumulation and then
when the two years have come and gone
and the points are all wiped away, they
start this poor soul with 5 demerit points
against him.
Now this driver has lost his licence and
he has paid the penalty; courts will take
care of him if it has been a very bad
accident or very bad driving, and I do think
that this proposed regulation is not in
accordance with the best principles of British
justice as we know it.
I would like to say this also, Mr. Speaker,
that we must have respect for the law on
our highways and the best way that I know
of doing that is the way the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Roberts) and his department
have been doing, that is, by the presence of
uniformed officers who are courteous and firm
and in well-marked patrol cars. They have a
tremendous influence whereas plain clothes
officers and unmarked patrol cars engender
a disrespect for the law, and in many cases
leave a very bitter feeling in the mind of the
person who has been apprehended, as he
usually considers, unfairly.
I am pleased to notice from the estimates
of the hon. Attorney-General that he has
more money for highway patrol and safety
work, and I am sure that we will be well
repaid in money saved and in lives and
injuries saved.
We were very fortunate again to have the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Frost) bring
down his fourteenth budget. Like all the
rest of the budgets he has produced, it
was a budget for the benefit of Ontario at
large and for the little man in Ontario. It
is the kind of budget that we hon. members
can go home and talk over with our people
and expect to have received with pleasure
and with satisfaction.
I was most interested to see in the esti-
mates which have come since the budget,
of the work which is being done in my
riding of Grenville-Dundas. I am very
pleased to notice that the public works esti-
mates include very necessary work at the
Kemptville agricultural school and I would
again point out to the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation (Mr. Dunlop) that it is my opinion
and that of many in our district, that this
campus is an ideal place for a junior college
when they come to be established throughout
the province, as has been forecast by his
department in other years.
Likewise, we are very pleased that there
are places being built for our provincial
police to live. We have an exceptionally good
force of provincial policemen in our counties,
and housing them has been a difficult thing.
There are houses being completed at Kempt-
ville and at Lancaster down in Glengarry,
and others, I believe, are under way.
There is one thing that I wish the hon.
Minister of Highways would keep in mind,
and that is that we have at Winchester, a
patrol of highway workers keeping open
and in repair highways Nos. 43 and 31, and
they direly need a garage in which to store
their equipment. I hope that it will reach
the estimates of the hon. Minister of High-
ways without too much delay.
There is another matter which is of great
concern to all of us, and I merely wish to
mention it because the matter is acute in
the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and
Glengarry. We have there a very well run
and very busy family and juvenile court, and
unfortunately we do not have sufficient pro-
bation officers to carry the load and give the
service which is necessary.
I am pleased to note in the estimates that
there is provision for additional probation
officers, and I do trust that one of them may
be assigned at the court at Cornwall to
serve our people.
I am sorry to see tonight that the hon.
member for Stormont (Mr. Manley) is not
in his seat. I would have liked to have
thanked him for the kindness which he did
to me in his address before this House last
week. It is not often that one is quoted,
and I was very pleased to have been quoted
by the hon. member.
It is nice to know that he reads the
reports that I send home to my newspapers,
and for the record, since he is not here,
I merely wish to say that it has always been
my impression that there was an election to
be held on March 31, and I do not know
whether the hon. member from Stormont
was aware of that when he was speaking on
Friday.
I would also like for the record, to point
out that not only in the past has the county
of Stormont received its fair share of Ontario
government money in the way of roads and
other expenditures, but I notice from the
estimates tabled today by the hon. Minister
of Highways that there are another 13 odd
miles of highway No. 401 being prepared
and highway No. 8 being relocated in that
county.
Now we are very pleased about that,
because in eastern Ontario we all like to
stick together, but I would like to make it
plain on the records of this House, that this
MARCH 19, 1958
1015
particular county has been doing very well
indeed, to the envy of those of us on either
side.
With the hon. member for Stormont, I
have the duty and also the privilege of repre-
senting the people of seaway valley. For a
few moments I would like to speak about
that particular project as it affects our people
and ourselves, and I am sure that in most
of the remarks I will make tonight, my hon.
colleague from Stormont would wish to be
associated with me, because we have very
similar problems and I think we have had
a very similar service from the departments
of government and Ontario Hydro.
Generally speaking the people in our area
who have had to be relocated, have been re-
located. They are in their new towns and
in their new homes or they have moved
away out of the district, as many older people
have done very wisely and gone to live near
their close relatives.
The old towns of Iroquois and Morrisburg,
Aultsville, Farron's Point, Dickinson's Land-
ing, Moulinette and Mille Roches, are being
razed. In fact some of them have been
entirely taken down, others are nearly down.
I would like at this point, to say that I agree
entirely with the sentiments expressed by the
hon. Prime Minister when this matter was
under discussion earlier in this House.
Generally speaking, the people are very
satisfied; they have been well used, and again
generally speaking, there is no cause for
dissatisfaction.
I had the pleasure of being in Iroquois
at its centennial celebrations a year ago, as
did the hon. Prime Minister, and again I
say that there was no question there, as he
has told this House, of there being any dissat-
isfaction, or anyone who felt that they had
not been properly used.
Now that is a broad statement but I would
like to say, that there are still matters which
are not settled in the valley. All I can say
is this, that if the government and the Hydro
Commission use the same amount of, I will
say, common sense, and the same amount of
generosity, and the same amount of under-
standing that they have used in the past,
there is no reason why a year from now
when all has been completed, should I still
be a member of this House, that I cannot
stand up here and say that everything and
everyone is well settled and well satisfied
and happy.
Generally speaking, the municipalities are
satisfied. They have new towns, they have
new buildings, they have new water works,
they have new schools for which they have
not had to pay the capital cost. They are
quite happy and I say, why should they not
be, Mr. Speaker, because those of us who
live in the older places, have always to
contend with the old sewers, the old schools,
and the old buildings.
But many of the individual property
owners are finding things a bit difficult
because they have moved, from the assess-
ment for municipal tax purposes, for fire
insurance purposes, and what not. They
have moved from the archaic 100-year-
cld buildings which have been always wait-
ing for the seaway, into an up-to-date, 20th
century 1960 business place in a plaza or
into a modern home. As a result their assess-
ment has risen greatly, and consequently
there is a great deal of unhappiness among
the property owners in the new settlements.
Now that is something, of course, which is
to be expected, and it will require some
sympathetic understanding and a consider-
able amount of assistance from the govern-
ment departments which will be concerned.
I am sure that they will receive this and
I am sure that they will want to pay their
own way and will be given every opportunity
to do so fairly.
Now in connection with this great develop-
ment, I would like to say a word of tribute,
or in thanks, to certain officials and people
involved. I think it only right that there
should be a record of it on the proceedings
of this House, particuarly with respect to the
ones whom I wish to mention, who have
had a very great influence in this great work
in our district.
First of all, and not of course in order of
importance, I would like to say that the
several Ministers of Municipal Affairs, who
were in office during the term of this great
development, have been very helpful. Particu-
larly I would like to mention Mr. M. R.
Sloan, the director of assessment, because
one of the great problems of the seaway
valley was, and is still, adjusting the assess-
ments, so that the townships and the villages
could still carry on in spite of the great loss
in assessment which they have suffered and
which may only, we hope, be temporary.
Then I would again like to thank our
colleague here, the hon. Minister of High-
ways, and particularly his now Deputy
Minister, and former planning engineer, Mr.
W. J. Fulton.
They have done a wonderful job down
there. They relocated the traffic with Hydro's
assistance on new roads and there was very
1016
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
little dislocation. A great deal of that credit
should go to the former district engineer at
Ottawa, Mr. J. B. Wilkes. I would like very
much to have it on the proceedings of this
House, that we owe a great deal in Ottawa
district and the seaway valley to his foresight,
his good humour, and his knack of getting
along with municipal and other people.
Then the hon. Minister of Education and
his chief director and former Deputy Minister,
Dr. C. F. Cannon, had a tremendous job to
do. Many of our schools were torn down.
There were school areas where previously
there had only been public schools and where
there was a large Catholic segment of the
community who now wished a new school.
The public school supporters wanted their
same old school back, even though they did
not have as many pupils, and the separate
school supporters, quite properly, wanted a
new school of their own.
To their everlasting credit, the hon. Min-
ister and his officials in the department were
able to put up new schools with the assistance
of Hydro and get things established so that
everyone was happy. Now that is not an
inconsiderable achievement, Mr. Speaker, par-
ticularly in the realm of education, and I
do pay tribute to the hon. Minister and his
officials.
Then there is the Department of Planning
and Development. We could not have done
without the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development (Mr. Nickle) and his people, and
I do wish to express the thanks of my muni-
cipal people and myself to the hon. Minister
and to all his staff. The hon. Minister was
always ready to assist, either by coming him-
self and looking into things personally, or by
sending down officials from his department
who were able to help out the municipalities
and the individuals who were in trouble.
I would particularly like to mention Mr.
Arthur Bunnell, who is consultant to the
department and who came down many times
and got us out of a lot of trouble.
And then there was a liaison officer for
almost 3 years down in Morrisburg, who bore
that very famous name of Frost, Mr. Stanley
Frost. He did a very good job as liaison
officer in that district. He was succeeded by
John Wingfelder, and he had a very peculiar
position because he had to be liaison officer
and he had also to serve on the board of
review, which the hon. Prime Minister set
up for the review of offers made by Hydro to
various owners of the district which were not
accepted by them.
I would like to say that Mr. Wingfelder.
did a splendid job down there and on that
board, and I am sure that he will be an asset
to the Ontario fuel board of which, I believe,
he is now a member.
The one last member of that department
that I would like to mention is Mr. D. F.
Taylor, the planning director. In his depart-
ment Mr. Taylor has just recently produced
for the municipalities along seaway valley a
land-use plan of the whole area lying from
the Quebec border west through Brockville
and we think it is going to be of tremendous
interest and assistance to our people in plan-
ning the new life which we have ahead of us
in this district.
Then, of course, there is Hydro, and I could
not possibly let the opportunity go by without
saying that, while at many times I, on behalf
of my people, had to differ a great deal with
the people in Hydro, Hydro on the whole
did a splendid job. They did a marvelous
job on engineering, and in dealing with the
people they managed, as the hon. member
heard the hon. Prime Minister say, and as I
have said tonight, to leave us pretty well
satisfied.
I think that I would like to mention that
the director of that project, Mr. Gordon
Mitchell, and the chief rehabilitation engineer,
Mr. Herb Jackson, and their chief property
officer, Mr. Harry Hustler, are 3 of the men
to whom a great amount of credit can be
given. They have done a wonderful job.
Then I would like also to say that in our
district, we were very grateful to have the
assistance of the hon. George H. Challies,
who for many years was Hydro vice-chairman
and who knew all the problems before he
became chairman of the Ontario-St. Lawrence
development commission. His advice and
assistance were of very great value in the
great upset which occurred in the valley.
Finally, and above all, I must pay tribute
to the people of my riding and of the riding
of Stormont. They were uprooted. Indeed
they were uprooted, some of them very
unceremoniously. They were uprooted from
places where they and their ancestors had
been for 150 years. One old lady of some
90 years was forced to move out of the place
where she had been born and where her
ancestors before her had been born and lived
and died.
Yet, the people have come through that;
they are re-establishing themselves. They are
looking to the future with confidence and in
confidence that they will continue to receive,
until everything is settled down there, the
sympathetic consideration and assistance that
they have already received from Ontario
MARCH 19, 1958
1017
Hydro and all other departments of the
administration of the province of Ontario.
Now I would like to say a few words about
the Ontario-St. Lawrence development com-
mission. Last week— I believe it was Friday—
the hon. Minister of Planning and Develop-
ment in the preamble to his estimates gave
this House some information with respect to
the department and with respect to this com-
mission which is a part of that department
for administrative purposes. I am sure that
he would not object to my enlarging some-
what on his remarks made at that time.
It was my privilege to be appointed second
vice-chairman of that commission late last
fall, replacing Mr. James Smart. Mr. Smart
had been director of parks for the federal
government and was a very experienced and
knowledgeable man, in the ways of parks and
such developments. Under his guidance the
original plan for the Ontario - St. Lawrence
development commission's series of parks and
memorials was drawn up. His experience and
his knowledge of how these things are done
all across Canada were invaluable and his
death left a very great gap on the commission
which certainly I have not been able to fill
and which we have all felt very greatly. And
when the parks system is finished, there will
be no better memorial, I am sure, for the
late James Smart than his plan which will
have then blossomed into reality.
Now the commission, which is one of the
newer bodies created by this Legislature,
consists of a chairman (Mr. Challies), and
the first vice-chairman, who is Dr. Jack
Carroll from Leeds, and myself.
Then there are members on the commission
representing the areas in which the lands of
the commission lie. From Glengarry we have
two members, Mrs. James Smith, better
known perhaps as the writer Dorothy
Dumbrille, and Mr. Joe Filion, reeve of
Lancaster township, who represents our
French-Canadian compatriots in the eastern
part of the province.
From Stormont we have Dr. John A.
Phillips, who is the chairman of the planning
board for Cornwall area, and a very well-
known and public-spirited citizen, and Mrs.
T. J. Lane, who is the wife of the former
very energetic reeve of Osnabruck township.
From Dundas we have Mr. Alan Farlinger,
who is a descendant of one of the oldest
families in the district and still lives on what
Hydro has left him of the old family farm,
outside of Morrisburg.
From Grenville we have Mr. T. Carl
Reilly, who also comes of one of the old
families in that district. And you may have
noticed, Mr. Speaker, at this session of the
Legislature our territory was enlarged by
inclusion of two more counties, and provi-
sion has been made for the appointment of
two new members to represent the new
districts of Frontenac and Lennox-Addington
which are being added to the commission's
jurisdiction.
I may say that this committee, which acts
in an advisory capacity, has been very
faithful. They have done an excellent job
of gathering up articles for our museum, of
looking over things of historic value which
might be moved into our historical villages,
and of giving their advice, and I assure you
very good advice, to the executive members
of the commission for dealing with matters
of the commission as they come up from
meeting to meeting.
The origin of this park I think the hon.
members of the House will remember, was
contained in the promise of the government
that the people would be compensated for
their loss of river frontage and the parks
and other amenities which they had. And
that the government will do.
But the purpose of the commission has
been slightly enlarged because it has been
felt that there should be some method ol
preserving for the future the great history
and tradition of the United Empire Loyalists
in eastern Ontario.
You will notice from what I have said
about the extent of the jurisdiction of our
commission that it has been extended from
the Quebec border to the Bay of Quinte, and
that roughly speaking is the area in which
the United Empire Loyalists who came from
eastern New York state to this side settled.
And they were quite distinct and apart from
those who came across at the Niagara region.
As a result our commission is also now
charged indirectly with the task of preserv-
ing the historical remnants and sites, if you
will, of our ancestors, the United Empire
Loyalists.
We have also had, or we are also about to»
have, added to our commission's jurisdiction
that very famous tourist attraction, Old Fort
Henry, which has been operated for so manyT
years so successfully under The Department
of Highways. I am sure the hon. Minister
of Highways regrets they are leaving him,
and I know that our commission is very
happy to have old Fort Henry within its
framework, particularly the director, Mr.
1018
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ronald Way, who is a very noted historical
authority and who was in charge of the
restoration of Old Fort Henry and also several
restorations in the Niagara parks system.
I also would like to say that I know the
hon. member for Kingston, the hon. Minister
of Planning and Development has a very
kind spot in his heart for Old Fort Henry,
and I am sure we will fare just as well with
him as our hon. Minister as Old Fort Henry
has done in the past with the hon. Minister
of Highways as the responsible Minister.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the com-
mission has a really tremendous project ahead
and one which is not going to be completed
in a day or two days or by 1960 as hon.
members may observe. As they will see
from the estimates which have been and
will be produced in this House for the com-
mission, there is a very great deal of work
being done and work which will take a very
long time.
Now I feel that our work and. our
objectives are divided into 3 categories.
First of all there is the memorial. Now down
in eastern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, we are very
proud of Crysler Farm battlefield and it is
to us what Laura Secord and her story over
at Lewiston and Queenston Heights are to
the people there.
Down there we have a federal historic site
upon which is a monument to that battle of
Crysler's Farm, when the British, mostly the
militia from eastern Ontario, repulsed or at
least prevented, the Americans from going
further. I prefer the term repulsed the
Americans. We consider that as one of the
highlights of our traditions in eastern Ontario.
Now this site is being flooded out and
arrangements were made with the federal
government to have the battlefield monument
moved down onto a large memorial mound
within Crysler Farm Park, and I hope there
will be a lovely memorial there.
There will also be a museum, patterned
perhaps along the lines of the Old Fort
Henry of battle accoutrements and uniforms
and what-not of the days of 1812. Actually,
this museum and park are on the easterly
verge of the actual battlefield, and our
people are still trying to find some of the
burials that were made after the battle of
Crysler's Farm. We have not as yet been
successful, but we hope that we will because
we are in that immediate area.
The first thing then is memorial; the sec-
ond thing is restoration. We are now moving
into Upper Canada village which is part of
Crysler Farm Battlefield Memorial Park,
many of the old historic buildings in eastern
Ontario, Loyalists' buildings, buildings which
date back to 1790, and within reason and as
far as possible they are being restored.
We will Tiot be in the same class as
Williamsburg, Virginia, or even Sturbridge
Village but we hope that we will have first
of all a restoration of truly authentic early-
Canadian buildings and contents, and sec-
ondly that we will have a tourist attraction
for our own people as well as for the people
to the south and to the east of us, which
will bring many people to this great province
of Ontario.
And then thirdly, within the framework
of the Ontario parks integration board, we
are to operate a series of parks along the
St. Lawrence River from the Quebec border
to the Bay of Quinte. It is our hope within
the framework of the parks integration board
that we will have a series of distinctive parks
which will be very important.
At the east side we have the entrance
to this great province from Quebec; at Corn-
wall we have one of the great international
crossings from the United States; at Ogdens-
burg and Prescott there is a new international
bridge being erected; and at Ivy Lee we
have another of the great international
bridges between this country and our friendly
neighbours to the south. As our park areas
stretch along all these great entrances, it is
our hope that we may have something there
which will be worthy of Ontario and which
will entice all our American visitors and our
visitors from Quebec back again many times.
At the present time the park system as
we have it, consists actually of three park
developments. One is in Glengarry, and we
could not possibly do without a develop-
ment in Glengarry.
The development there, Mr. Speaker, we
trust will be the eastern entrance to the
province of Ontario, or the Quebec entrance
and with the co-operation of the Department
of Travel and Publicity and of the Depart-
ment of Public Works, we hope to have the
appropriate entrance facilities to greet our
French-Canadian friends and our English
friends from Quebec when they come into
Ontario.
I know that the hon. Minister of Travel
and Publicity ( Mr. Cathcart ) is adept at those
things and I am sure there will be some-
thing tljere that will be a credit to our
province.
And then the next park is the one at
Crysler's Farm. That one is being developed
as a recreational park for all the people,
MARCH 19, 1958
1019
but I would point out for the benefit of the
hon. member for Stormont this is a park
which is within 20 minutes' drive from Corn-
wall. It is going to be a park with all the
facilities which even some of the larger
cities will not have, and in that respect,
Cornwall and the riding of Stormont are
going to be famous.
Then, thirdly, we have a park at Brown's
Bay, which is a few miles west of Brockville
in the county of Leeds, and it now serves the
district of Brockville. This was a former
Department of Highways park, and we
acknowledge having received a very nice park
from the department and in a very good state
of repair, symbolic of the way the Depart-
ment of Highways operates in our part of
the province.
In the future there is a great deal to be
done in connection with parks all over
Ontario. This particular development I have
been mentioning is one which is going to take
a long time and the one in which we in
eastern Ontario have a vital interest and one
which will be a credit when we are done, to
this government, and to all of us in eastern
Ontario, in fact to all the people in Ontario.
We have hopes that it will be far enough
advanced that when Her Majesty the Queen
arrives next year to open the seaway, it might
perhaps be possible also at that time to have
our parks opened in the same area.
Before closing, I would like at this point
also on behalf of our commission to express
to the hon. Minister of Planning and Develop-
ment, and particularly to his chief accountant,
Mrs. A. V. Cameron, the thanks of all of us
who work on the Ontario - St. Lawrence
development commission.
For administrative purposes, as I have
mentioned, we are under that department,
and they have been a tremendous help to us;
we could not operate without them; their
experience and their guidance have made us
into a good commission in a very short time,
and I would like therefore to express the
appreciation of myself and all others con-
nected, to the hon. Minister and his chief
accountant.
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to those
hon. members and yourself who have been
here tonight and listened so carefully and
quietly to what I have had to say. It is
always a pleasure, I think, for any hon. mem-
ber to come before this House, and set forth
the things that his people would like him to
say, and set forth the record of the achieve-
ments of either his riding or that body to
which he is connected in relation to this
province of Ontario. Such has been my
pleasure tonight and, Mr. Speaker, I thank
you and the members of the House for your
courtesy to me.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ON THE BUDGET
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Middlesex North): Mr.
Speaker, in rising before you as one of the
4 freshman members of the fourth session of
the 25th Legislature, it is with a real sense
of sincerity that I add my voice to the many
expressions of congratulations to you for your
outstanding ability to handle the affairs of
this House.
May I also congratulate the hon. member
for Middlesex South (Mr. Allen) on his
appointment as Deputy-Speaker of the House,
and express before you, Mr. Speaker, my
sincere appreciation to the hon. member for
Middlesex South for his unbounded kindness
to me since my election to this Legislature.
Indeed, since my nomination last August, he
has shared with me his wealth of knowledge
gained from years of practical experience in
provincial and municipal government, as well
as in agriculture and business.
While I am deeply honoured, Mr. Speaker,
to represent the riding of Middlesex North,
I realize, as do you, the reason for my being
here. We of Middlesex North who were privi-
leged to have as our former member the late
Tom Patrick were shocked and profoundly
saddened at his sudden and premature death.
His loss was felt throughout our riding in a
way in which I cannot find words to describe.
I know from the kindly remarks I have
heard of him since coming among the hon.
members of this House that his warm person-
ality is missed by all of you in this Legislature
and the many departmental officials who
knew him. May I express my heartfelt thanks
to the hon. members of this House for the
kindness, patience and good fellowship which
has been extended to me as I attempt to
replace one who was one of you.
Last August 7, I had the honour of being
nominated in Middlesex North to contest the
by-election of September 5, 1957. In speaking
1020
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the nomination convention of some 1,200
people, I expressed the thought uppermost
in all our minds that we, who were in attend-
ance at that convention, were there as
supporters to hear and to see at first hand the
greatest Prime Minister in the history of our
province. Now, after my election to this
House, where I have seen at first hand the
evidence of his outstanding leadership, may
I congratulate the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost), who as Provincial Treasurer as well,
has presented his fourteenth budget, a budget
whose magnitude is exceeded only by its
ability to meet the needs of the people of
this province.
In speaking of my riding, Mr. Speaker,
in this budget debate, I must first call atten-
tion to the fact that it is made up of indi-
viduals and communities of widely differing
interests. It is a riding rich in agricultural
developmment, with farmers making use of
a type of soil which will produce in
abundance.
Middlesex is second to no other county
in the province of Ontario in the production
of registered seed grain. Within a com-
paratively small radius of the village of Ailsa
Craig some 350,000 bushels of registered seed
grain were grown and marketed, much of it in
the United States last year. This is an annual
accomplishment in a community long noted
for being one of the largest beef producing
areas in the province.
The town of Parkhill has the distinction
of having the largest egg-breaking and pro-
cessing establishment in the British Common-
wealth. A few weeks ago a shipment of 6
carloads of eggs left Parkhill for Venezuela.
The Parkhill Creamery is also the largest
exporter of eggs in Canada. It is interesting
to note that to date Canada has exported
some 100,000 dozen eggs, compared to some
10,000 dozen a year ago. This is a truly
great market for the egg production of the
farms of our riding.
Then we have a thriving export business
in turnips, or rhutabagas, should we say, in
the Lucan district, with thousands of in-
spected bushels being shipped annually to
markets in the United States, Lucan pro-
duces cash crops of corn— beans and sugar
beets provide our farmers with valuable in-
come as well.
Besides having the largest seed fair in the
province, lasting 4 days, Middlesex has long
been noted for its internationally famous
herds of purebred beef cattle.
However, with the rapid development of
the city of London and surrounding suburban
area, the fluid milk business has provided a
substantial source of income the year round
for many successful dairy farmers. Coupled
with this has been an expanding market for
breeding animals of the dairy breeds to the
United States and other foreign countries.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we have a
very diversified agriculture in Middlesex
North, indeed may I say we have a thriving
agricultural industry, keenly aware of the
rapid and recent mechanical development
affecting our industry.
This intensive agricultural picture which
I have called to the attention of this House
is not something which has just happened
on its own. Perhaps one of the greatest
reasons for the success of agriculture in
Middlesex North, and throughout other rural
ridings, is the assistance provided through
The Ontario Department of Agriculture.
Great credit should be given our Ontario
agricultural representatives since the agri-
cultural representative's branch was in-
augurated many years ago. These men have
wrought wonders in improved production
techniques in every phase of agriculture.
Farmers have been instructed and encour-
aged to produce with quality and in
abundance.
Today we are faced with a problem of
marketing— or should I say distribution.
Actually there is a world food shortage.
Surely the challenge which faces everyone
of us is proper distribution of food rather
than controlled production or wanton destruc-
tion of already existing food surpluses in a
few commodities. The Gordon economic
commission report on agriculture states that
by 1980 our population will increase to the
place where we will be short of food sup-
plies in this country unless we have increased
production.
In the matter of farm marketing legis-
lation, may I congratulate the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow) for the
progress made in this direction. Much still
remains to be accomplished, but with
patience and honest effort we will succeed
in forming farm marketing legislation that
may go down in history as an era of develop-
ment in agriculture of which we may be
proud.
The extension services of The Ontario
Department of Agrictulture are rendering
valuable service through the numerous
record of performance tests which have been
developed for the various types of live-
stock. Dairymen have long recognized the
value of the ROP in building the outstanding
dairy herds to be found in this province.
MARCH 19, 1958
1021
Farmers interested in economical production
of pork realize it is an advantage to know
the advanced registry rating of breeding
animals to be added to their herds.
Poultrymen too have built the poultry
industry, both in the production of eggs,
and for the production of meat from per-
formance testing of various strains within
breeds and among breeds of poultry.
Now the latest performance test is being
initiated— this time it is beef cattle. So far
the tests have revealed a distinct relation-
ship between rate of gain and economy of
gain. Since rate of gain is proven to be
largely an inherited characteristic, it is
reasonable to assume that it can only be
transmitted by those animals that have in-
herited it. With this thought in mind, The
Ontario Department of Agriculture has set
up a test station on one of the properties
of the Ontario Agriculture College to test,
on feed, for a period of 168 days, male ani-
mals of 8 months of age, nominated by
breeders throughout the province. Applica-
tions to date have been so numerous that a
supervised plan of feed testing these animals
has been worked out on the local farms of
the breeders. The results of this test have
proven so satisfactory that during 1957 the
Ontario bull premium policy was amended
to provide a higher premium on bulls making
an average daily gain of 2.3 pounds for the
test period, than one those approved for
type only.
This is a move which should place the
beef cattlemen of Ontario in the position of
being able to purchase a bull with a known
quality of performance which could be
transmitted to offspring that should gain
more rapidly and on less feed than previously
had been experienced.
May I congratulate the hon. Minister of
Agriculture on the establishment of breeding
herds of beef cattle on the government test
farms in northern Ontario. Ontario cattle-
men are finding it increasingly difficult to buy
feeder cattle in western Canada because of
the tremendous demand for beef in the
rapidly developing Pacific Coast area, where
proportionately, more beef was consumed
last year than in the East, plus the fact
that Western farmers are marketing surplus
grain in the form of beef, has created a
demand for feeder cattle in the West which
did not exist a few years ago.
In other words, the American and western
Canada feedlot operators are competing with
Ontario buyers for the good feeder cattle
to be found in western Canada.
Our Ontario Department of Agriculture
should be commended for encouraging the
production of feeder catde of good beef type
in Ontario to meet the demands of Ontario
farmers who are interested in finishing cattle
for the expanding beef trades in our province.
While I have mentioned production and
marketing, Mr. Speaker, may I call to the
attention of the hon. members of the House
the interest which is being shown to a new
business training programme initiated by
The Ontario Department of Agriculture's
farm economics branch.
Realizing the need for progress in agri-
cultural research in the field of economics,
the Ontario government in 1948 established
within The Ontario Department of Agricul-
ture the farm economics branch. Since that
time, a small staff of qualified workers,
specialists in their field, has been gradually
assembled and their research has built up
a wealth of farm management information
which is forming the base for a developing
programme of farm business extension. The
research programme of the branch has been
quite extensive, and is gradually covering
all the economic aspects of Ontario agricul-
ture.
Among the farmers of the province of
Ontario, dairying is the most common enter-
prise, and the dairy production study has
been the most extensive. Records are obtained
on every herd in Dairy Herd Improvement
Association work. It is interesting to note
the results in one of the many counties
participating in this plan.
In one particular county, the average net
returns for 41 dairy farmers co-operating in
the dairy herd improvement plan in the year
commencing May 1, 1951 to April 30, 1952,
was $502. Five years later, these same 41
farmers in the year May 1, 1956 to April 30,
1957, had increased their average net income
to $1,992. The results speak for themselves
—the same can be said for the programme
right across Ontario.
Recognizing the need for accurate informa-
tion gained under average farm conditions,
the Middlesex Soil and Crop Improvement
Association asked for, and was granted, the
opportunity to set up the first farm manage-
ment advisory service in the province on a
farm in our county.
A young farm operator volunteered for the
experiment on his 200 acre farm; may I say
the results of the experiment were so satis-
fastory that a similar service has been set
up in 33 counties across the province.
1022
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I have talked with this young farmer on
numerous occasions, and he has continually
emphasized the definite advantage which
good farm business management and land
use has meant to him in a financial way on
his own farm. The hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture indicated how well the programme is
being received when in his budget address he
stated that in Bruce county there are 135
farmers co-operating with the agricutural
representative and his assistants in a com-
pletely supervised farm management service
such as I referred to a moment ago.
It is reasonable to assume this valuable
service of The Ontario Department of Agricul-
ture will continue to expand as farmers, and
particularly young farmers, keenly aware of
the possibilities offered in such a service,
become more fully aware of this important
part of the department's extension work. May
I add that short courses in farm business
management lasting 3 days each were held
in 30 Ontario centres with an average daily
attendance of 35.
Someone has suggested that the young
people of Ontario's rural communities are
leaving the farms. In many cases that is
true. But it has been ever thus. We are, Mr.
Speaker, all very much aware of the fact
that this great province has been built and
maintained by the constant stream of young
people, steeped in the traditions of good
citizenship, who have come from the rural
communities, towns and villages across the
length and breadth of Ontario.
But may I assure the hon. members of the
House, that in Middlesex we have been able
to interest a goodly number of young farm
people in staying on our farms. We had, in
1957, in Middlesex, some 20 4-H clubs, with
a membership of 309 boys and girls engaged
in agricultural projects of one kind or another.
To correspond with the activities of the
boys' groups, we had 21 4-H girls' home-
makers clubs with an active membership of
over 200. Besides these clubs, we have the
older groups of junior farmers and junior
institutes comprised of some 300 members.
The future of agriculture in Middlesex is in
good hands, largely through the untiring
efforts of our Ontario Agricultural repre-
sentative for the past 25 years, Mr. W. K.
Riddell, and the many capable assistants he
has had, and speaking of those assistants may
I say that I believe the county of Middlesex,
through the assistants which have come and
have been trained and have been started, in
the field of agricultural representative service
by our present agricultural representative,
Mr. Riddell have rendered a service to the
province of Ontario which is a continuing
service.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Perth
(Mr. Edwards) mentioned Dr. Cliff Graham
as being an agricultural representative of his
county. May I suggest that Dr. Cliff Graham
started in the field of agriculture in Middlesex
county as an assistant to Mr. Riddell some
years ago.
Following him, we had a few years later,
Mr. Gordon Bennett, now newly appointed
chief agricultural officer of this department
of agriculture. Then we had Mr. Everet M.
Biggs, the present dairy commissioner for
Ontario. We also had Mr. Ken Lantz, newly
appointed associate director of extension. We
had Mr. Fred Campbell, the present manager
of the Ontario stockyards, as one of our early
agricultural assistants as well.
All of those men started in Middlesex
as agricultural representative assistants, and
every one of them have proven, to the prov-
ince of Ontario, their value in the field of
agriculture.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that in our junior
farmer activities, we have been able to secure
loans in the ridings of Middlesex North and
South for 114 junior farmers totalling
$893,000.
The agricultural picture of Middlesex North
would not be complete without mention of
the London township agricultural society's
annual fall fair at Ilderton. May I say this
fair was the pride and joy of my late pre-
decessor, Tom Patrick, and well it might be.
I recall very well the occasion when the hon.
member for Peel, who was then the hon.
Minister of Agriculture, opened the Ilderton
fair. Might I add, Mr. Speaker, that he, like
our present hon. Minister of Agriculture, is
held dear to the hearts of rural people not
only in our riding, but across Ontario.
As a special feature of Ilderton fair, junior
activities are emphasized. In 1957, some 200
individual 4-H club members of the county
took part in the annual 4-H championship
show. Some of these young people went on
to compete in provincial competition. Besides
these individual exhibitors, there were 10
4-H club educational displays, providing an
attractive insight into 4-H club activities.
In speaking of fall fairs and the riding of
North Middlesex I must certainly commend
the Thorndale agricultural society for last
year celebrating their 100th anniversary of
the fall fair held in that village.
They provided one of the finest attractions
that could be seen anywhere in the province
MARCH 19, 1958
1023
of Ontario, reminiscent of the days long ago.
A parade of floats was held there which I
believe was second to none found anywhere
in this province, and it was one of the out-
standing features of that very auspicious
occasion.
I wish to congratulate the members of the
Thorndale agricultural institute, some of
whom we have the pleasure of having here
with us in the gallery tonight.
In one of the other towns of my riding,
the town of Parkhill, they are already making
plans to celebrate their centennial next year.
I look forward with a great deal of interest
to seeing the progress of that fall fair and
the activities which I know those people
there in Parkhill are capable of presenting.
On behalf of some of the constituents of
my riding, I should like to respectfully call
to the attention of the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer and the hon. Minister of Agriculture a
matter respecting the return of gas tax re-
funds to those engaged in providing tillage,
seeding and harvesting services to farmers on
a custom basis. I have been informed by
my constituents affected, that prior to the
increase in the gas tax from 11 cents to 13
cents that the entire 11 cent tax was re-
funded. Now, however, instead of receiving
the 13 cent refund, only the 11 cent refund
is returned. My contention is this, that if an
operator is entitled to the 11 cent refund,
should he not be entitled to receiving the full
13 cent refund? This is not a large item, I
admit, but it is one which is proving some-
what vexatious and frustrating, and I under-
stand exists in other ridings besides my own.
It is a problem which I have no doubt can
be straightened out when considered by the
proper authorities.
Further, may I call to the attention of the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips)
whom I should like to congratulate for his
untiring efforts on behalf of the health of
our people, that we in the rural areas of
Ontario are most anxious that the rural
medical co-ops be allowed, indeed that they
be financially encouraged, to sell and collect
premiums for the new proposed Ontario
hospital plan.
We have had abundant evidence in the
last few days of people not following instruc-
tions to get their car licences by March 12.
What will happen to thousands of people,
now covered by the rural medical co-ops in-
surance plan, when the new hospital plan
comes into effect next January 1?
I humbly submit that, unless these co-ops
are encouraged to carry on, people by the
thousands, now covered by a reasonably good
plan will not have any hospital insurance at
all when the new plan comes into effect.
Let us recognize the great job done by our
rural medical co-ops and encourage them to
go on to do even greater things for the
people whom they serve so well.
With this intensive agricultural programme
carried on throughout Middlesex, it is not
surprising that our people are conservation
minded as well. The Thames Valley conserva-
tion authority embraces most of the county
of Middlesex, and is responsible for the con-
struction of the Fanshawe dam situated
northeast of the city of London.
The lake created by this huge dam is fast
becoming one of the attractive resort areas
of Western Ontario, with cottages lining its
banks and a lovely park, golf course, and all
sorts of water sports attracting thousands of
people weekly during the summer. This
winter, during the cold weather, the frozen
lake attracted skaters by the hundreds. How-
ever the great result of the Fanshawe Dam
has been the control of the Thames River,
with its long history of serious floods in our
area. Since its construction, I'm sure it
would be safe to say, it has prevented at
least two or three floods which could have
caused serious damage to property in the city
of London and the urban area of London
township.
Mr. Speaker, may I also call attention to
the Aux Sables River conservation authority,
the first in Ontario, of which the hon. member
for Lambton East (Mr. Janes) has spoken.
The Aux Sables authority is at present con-
sidering the construction of a dam near the
town of Parkhill in the northwest part of the
riding, which I have the honour of repre-
senting. The proposed cost is approximately
a million dollars. Several of our municipalities
are financially involved in this proposal which
is very badly needed as a flood control
measure for the town of Parkhill, as well as
valuable vegetable growing areas known as
the gardens of the New Venice Corporation
and the Klondike gardens in the county of
Lambton. ,
As the Aux Sables authority is comprised
entirely of rural municipalities, with the
exception of the town of Exeter, with a
population of 2,000, and the town of Parkhill
with a population of 1,000 people, the burden
of paying for this new dam is believed to be
more than the taxpayers can afford on the
present basis of sharing the cost.
I understand that the province, through
The Department of Planning and Develop-
ment, has agreed to pay half the cost of this
dam. Since, as I mentioned, this authority
1024
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is made up of rural areas, it has the highest
average per capita assessed costs of any
conservation authority in Ontario.
With that thought in mind, may I remind
the hon. members of the House of a quota-
tion from the report of the select committee
on conservation, "That government grants to
conservation authority projects be increased
in rural areas," obviously because of the lack
of industrial assessment. May I, therefore,
on behalf of my constituents, petition the
hon. Minister of Planning and Development
( Mr. Nickle ) to give consideration to increas-
ing to 75 per cent, the government share of
the cost of this badly needed Parkhill dam.
I would like to congratulate the hon.
Minister of Highways for the consideration
and effective action he has taken to remedy
traffic situations in our riding which have
been both frustrating and dangerous. I refer
specifically to the installation of traffic signal
lights at Elginfield, the dangerous intersection
of highways Nos. 4 and 7 where a rechan-
nelization of traffic has helped considerably
in lessening the accident hazard at that
intersection.
The expected widening of highway No. 4
to a full 4-lane highway from London to the
intersection of highway No. 22 should assist
greatly in moving traffic north of the city.
We of the London area greatly appreciate
the announcement of the hon. Minister of
Highways to build the highway extension to
highway No. 401, south of the city. This
is a move which will help alleviate the
congestion of traffic in the greater London
area.
The county road system of Middlesex,
including the riding of my friend the hon.
member for Middlesex South as well as my
own riding, is the largest county road system
to be found in the province with the largest
budget for road construction and maintenance.
Our county has their own paving machine
and are busy on a progressive 5-year plan
of preparing and paving the county roads
carrying traffic not only form our own county,
but from outside our county, to London the
hub not only of Middlesex but all western
Ontario;
While my constituents are grateful to the
hon. Minister for what he has already done,
may I respectfully suggest the re-aligning of
highway No. 7 south of Parkhill to eliminate
two of the most dangerous corners in western
Ontario, and further suggest the taking over
by the province as a development road the
connecting link between Clandeboye and
highway No. 7.
This short piece of road, now used as a
short cut between highways Nos. 4 and 7,
if improved to provincial standards, could
provide another splendid paved road to
London for traffic now obliged to use highway
No. 4, and thus alleviate the obviously
crowded traffic conditions on highway No. 4,
especially during the summer months.
And might I add, Mr. Speaker, that in the
gallery tonight we have a representative of
the council of the township of Nissouri in
my riding.
The hon. member for Perth a few minutes
ago referred to a delegation that attended
the hon. Minister of Highways in respect to
a by-pass for the town of St. Marys in Perth
county with respect to building this by-pass
and in building a new bridge crossing the
Thames River, south of St. Marys. This
bridge which is on a township townline
between the township of Nissouri in Middle-
sex county and the township of Blanchard
in Perth has got to be replaced.
I respectfully submit to the hon. Minister
of Highways that it is a natural course for
highway No. 7 to cross the Thames River
following this town line, and proceeding then
in a direction to the city of Stratford, bypass-
ing the town of St. Marys and taking the
heavy through truck traffic out of that town
and making it more convenient for the people
of that town to get around in safety.
I urge, sir, that the consideration of The
Department of Highways be given to this
bridge which in my opinion is not only badly
needed but it is an essential for that area.
We recognize the tremendous needs in high-
way development all over the province in
this rapidly expanding economy in which we
find ourselves, and so on behalf of my people
of Middlesex North, may I, Mr. Speaker,
once again express our gratitude for what
the hon. Minister of Highways has already
done, and is considering to do, in our riding.
Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger)
for the effective action of the Ontario water
resources commission, not only in my riding,
but throughout Ontario. There is a very
serious sulphur content in the water supply
of the town of Parkhill. The Ontario water
resources commission has already spent
$4,000 on test drilling to locate a new water
supply. Although this test drilling was un-
successful, may I say that not one cent of
the cost of this drilling was, or will be,
charged to the municipality, a community of
1,000 people.
MARCH 19, 1958
1025
Today, in Parkhill, the Ontario water
resources commission are in the process of
building a plant to remove the sulphur
content of the water, at a cost of several
thousands of dollars, which will be paid back
by the town of Parkhill over a period of 30
or 35 years.
At the present time, a complete water
survey of Middlesex is in progress. With the
rapid industrial, and accompanying residen-
tial, growth of the London area, a serious
water shortage has developed. Ontario
water resources have undertaken this survey.
Dr. Berry has informed me it is estimated
the survey will cost $10,000 to $15,000,
which will not be levied against the munici-
palities involved.
This scientific work, carried on by The
Ontario Department of Public Works through
the Ontario water resources commission, is
providing information for communities
throughout Ontario which otherwise might
never be able, on their own, to undertake
the enormous amount of investigational work
necessary for such undertakings.
Further to these surveys, the provision of
funds to provide water and sewage treatment
plants, to be paid back over a long period
of time ensures the continued growth of
communities which otherwise are certainly
doomed.
Mr. Speaker I would be remiss in my
duties as a member of this House if I did
not commend the realistic approach taken
by the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Spooner)
respecting pipeline legislation. In drafting
this legislation the hon. Minister has, as
he explained to the House in introducing his
new bill, taken into consideration the prac-
tical experience of those closely connected
with pipe line problems. The experience of
those that have had this problem thrust upon
them such as the hon. member for Lamb-
ton who spoke on this a few weeks ago;
the experience which has been the problem
of the hon. member for Middlesex South
and which has been my problem since my
election last fall.
I do not think that any of the hon. mem-
bers of this House realize the difficulties
which we have gotten into through the
putting of those pipe lines across western
Ontario, and I believe that the hon. Minister
of Mines through this new Act will certainly
clear up a great deal of that trouble. May
I say that those who have been able to work
with him in the preparation of this bill
respect him and admire him for his courage
and his consideration.
While I am speaking about this matter of
pipe lines I would like to call to the atten-
tion of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Warrender) a problem that is close to
the hearts of many of these people who are
affected by these pipe lines in western
Ontario.
According to the Act the municipalities
crossed by these pipe lines were given the
authority to place assessments upon those
pipe lines and quite rightly so.
But it does, by doing that very thing cause
another problem, it creates the feeling in
the municipalities which is crossed by these
lines among the farmers and among the
people of the municipalities that everyone
is benefiting from the increased assessment
of those pipe lines. In one particular town-
ship in my riding, it amounts to almost
$500,000 increase in assessment.
The point that I am trying to make is this,
that those of us who are living in that
same township and throughout the riding
which I represent who have not had the
problem of pipe lines crossing our munici-
palities are faced with the fact that we are
benefiting from the misfortune of the farmer
whose property has been crossed. I believe
that it would be well for us to give con-
sideration through a change in The Municipal
Act which might suggest to a municipal
council that consideration be given to de-
ducting a percentage of the assessment on
the farm property crossed by that pipe line,
in relation to the assessment on the line itself.
It seems to me that it would be a con-
tinuing asset for that farmer as years go on.
It might mean only a slight reduction in his
tax, but when that farmer goes to sell his
farm, as sell it sometime he must or leave
it to someone who will come after him, it
will mean the farmer who has a cloud on
the title of his farm, because of the rights
of the pipe line across his property, will
also have a type of a continuing asset in a
slight reduction in his yearly taxes. I believe
that it is worthy of consideration.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, permit me to
mention our educational institutions of
Middlesex North. We are very proud of
the University of Western Ontario, situated
on what we believe to be the most beautiful
university campus to be found anywhere in
the country. Our university is presently
engaged in a $6.5 million fund-raising
campaign for an expansion programme to
take care of a rapidly increasing enrolment.
In this session of the Legislature, we have
given third reading to a bill establishing
1026
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Huron College, the theological institution of
the Anglican Church, as a full degree-grant-
ing college, another real asset to Middlesex
North. Indeed I might say that in Middlesex
North we have the very centre of educational
culture for all western Ontario, because in
addition to the institutions of higher learning
already mentioned, we have the new Ontario
teachers' college, St. Peter's seminary, Brescia
Hall, which is a Catholic college for girls,
Christ the King College, and Mount St.
Joseph Mother House Academy.
It is reasonable to assume that many of
the hundreds of new families moving into
our beautiful new residential sub-divisions,
near the city of London, in Middlesex North,
have come there because they wish their
families to have the opportunity not only of
attending our new modern, elementary and
secondary schools, but of attending our
institutions so capably caring for the needs
of higher education in our area.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and the
hon. members of this House for the very
gracious and the very kind attention which
has been given to me in this my first address
in this House, in these rambling remarks, I
have made some remarks on the affairs of
our riding, a riding which I represent and
which I trust I have called to the attention
of all concerned, the fact that this province
has a progressive, in the fullest sense of the
word, Conservative government of which I
am happy to be a supporter.
It is a government dedicated to the well-
being and prosperity of the common ordinary
individual, it is a government succeeding in
its task of providing government of the
people, for the people, by the people.
Mr. J. A. McCue (Lanark): Mr. Speaker,
I should like to speak to this House tonight
on a subject which I believe is of vital
importance to the people of this great
province of Ontario.
• Before announcing this subject or begin-
ning to talk on it I should like to say to all
hon. members of this House that I realize
the time is late. We have all worked very
hard from morning to night and I do not
wish to belabour the hon. members of this
House by making any great long speech. I
will try to be short and concise and to the
point, but nevertheless I think I have a
message to give to this Legislature and to the
people of Ontario which as I stated before
is indeed of vital importance.
My subject is the position of the general
practitioner or family doctor in the present
day scheme of medical affairs as it exists
in this province. There are in Ontario today
approximately 7,500 doctors licensed to
practise medicine. Of this number approxi-
mately 50 per cent, are general practitioners
—the remaining 50 per cent, are specialists
plus those doctors who are engaged in insti-
tutional works of one kind or another.
The trend towards specialization began to
develop and increase greatly about the 1920's
and has reached what I believe is an unwieldy
and overbalanced proportion of the medical
profession today.
While there may be in my opinion too
many specialists, nevertheless as a general
practitioner I wish to pay my tribute of
appreciation to the specialists. They are,
if in the proper proportions, in most instances
a dedicated group within our profession who
have had the desire to follow one particular
line of medicine and make themselves
proficient in it so that they know as much
as current knowledge will permit in that
specialty.
To a man in general practice, their wise
counsel in consultation over a difficult case
is of the greatest help to the family doctor
and to the ill patient. I know from personal
experience how glad and relieved I have
often been over a case about which I was
particularly worried to have a specialist come
in consultation with me to aid my patient.
So I pay my respects sincerely to the
specialists in my profession as a most in-
dispensable and important segment of it.
However there is the other great segment
of the medical profession— the family doctor
or general practitioner— the segment to which
I have the honour to belong for over 20
years.
They are the doctors, and mark this well,
whom I believe are closest to the people.
Their first and greatest aim should be— and
I believe it is— to dedicate their lives to
giving service above all to the sick and
ailing of the population. This service must
be complete 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week.
It is my belief that this is what the
family doctors are sincerely trying to do all
over this province. There may be the odd
exception because we are all human, and
this may produce a quick reaction from a
patient who is emotionally upset and worried,
and understandably so, over his own illness
or that of one of his loved ones. Occasionally
such matters are seized avidly by the press
and a whole group of men who are working
MARCH 19, 1958
1027
quietly and continuously are condemned for
the action of a tiny minority.
I submit that nearly all family doctors
are conscientiously doing a hard and
fatiguing, but indeed gratifying job for their
patients. Because of this there develops
what has come to be known as the "patient-
doctor" relationship. When a patient becomes
ill he or she becomes worried and psycho-
logically upset— to be able to go first to the
family doctor and to sit down and receive a
sympathetic and understanding hearing of
those problems in the back of that patient's
mind— problems which he is frightened of
and which he often will not discuss with
anyone else— these things make a good family
doctor a most indispensable part of the
community.
The family doctor must be like the minis-
ter or priest in that he becomes often the
repository of the innermost facts and prob-
lems of a patient's life— and these the good
physician can be trusted never to reveal out-
side of the four walls of his consulting room.
Sir William Osier, who might be called
the father of the modern era of medicine—
and certainly one of the greatest physicians
of all time— often stated that medicine must
never be looked on purely as a science—
but also as an art. That is a great truth and
a good family doctor will develop that art
of handling his patients with kindness, sym-
pathy, reassurance and support to the ill
person.
Because of the existence of the doctor-
patient relationship, as I have tried to explain
it, there is a condition existing in this province
today which I believe is unjust and com-
pletely intolerable. That is the fact that there
are many hospitals in existence today which
will not allow a family doctor to become a
member of their staff nor to treat any patient
of theirs within the hospital. In the type of
hospital of which I speak he cannot have
the services of his own doctor. He is stopped
at the front door— no matter how much the
patient may want him as the doctor he has
confidence in.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, to all hon.
members of this House that I think one of
the greatest things (and I am not reading any
notes now, I am talking from what I know)
is that a doctor can have the confidence of
his patient. I often have said to patients,
"if you will have confidence in me, I will do
everything I can for you, if you have not con-
fidence in me for goodness sake get another
doctor".
But there are in this province today people
who want their own doctor and cannot have
him because he is not on the staff of the hos-
pital and they have to be turned over to a
stranger. Now I am going to go back to my
notes.
He must be turned over to a specialist who
while being technically very capable of diag-
nosis and treatment does not often possess
the patient's confidence. Now I do not mean
to criticise when I say that. I know many
specialists who are the kindest men and in
whom you would have the greatest confi-
dence, I am not being critical like that, but
the point is if a sick patient psychologically
upset is turned over to a stranger, I do not
think it helps them— that is the only point I
need make on that.
The specialist, often being a complete
stranger has not had the opportunity to know
the patient's background, his worries and
fears which his family doctor has had, and
who has been left at the front door of the
hospital.
As a result of this situation there was
formed, I believe about 1950, a section of
general practice within the Ontario Medical
Association with one of its prime objects
being the tackling of this problem which I
have been relating.
This was quickly followed by the develop-
ment of sections of general practice within
the provincial medical associations of a num-
ber of the other provinces.
Then developed the formation of a section
of general practice within the Canadian
Medical Association— finally we now have the
College of General Practice of Canada.
This is headed by Dr. Victor Johnston who
has been a most outstanding figure in the
promotion of the elevation of the general
practitioner. A family doctor of sagacity,
wisdom and experience he gave up a busy and
successful practice to head the college of
general practice and I wish to pay tribute
to him publicly before this House tonight for
his great efforts on behalf of the general
practitioners of this great province of Ontario.
The objectives of the college of general
practice while numerous might be simply
summarized into two main ones— firstly the
encouragement of the family doctor through
regular post graduate work to keep himself
aware and abreast with the newest develop-
ments in medicine and thereby benefit his
patients — and secondly to encourage the
development of sections of general practice
within those hospitals which have not permit-
1028
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ted the family doctor to work within their
walls.
This has met a certain degree of success
in a number of hospitals, but there is still
a great need for many hospitals to recognize
this problem and deal with it by setting up
these sections of general practice within
their structure.
In many smaller hospitals in this province
the situation is reversed and there are nothing
but general practitioners on the staff. A well
trained general practitioner is capable of
handling 85 per cent, at least of his cases.
This, many general practitioners are doing
and doing well in the smaller hospitals of
this province. There is no reason that in
the fields of general surgery, medicine and
midwifery that he should not be capable of
treating his patients in hospital and I will
say to this House that there is not one per
cent, of general practitioners who would
exceed their limitations.
That in certain areas a man who has spent
possibly at least 8 years of his life in training
to become a doctor should be put in the
position that all he is allowed to do is to
practice in his office and make house calls is
a condition which makes him a second class
medical citizen that is at once demoralizing
and degrading and devastating in a medical
sense. This is a condition which I contend
lowers the standard of the practice of
medicine in the overall picture in this
province. By giving him hospital status he
is encouraged to participate in all aspects of
the treatment of his patient and to gain
experience, making him a better doctor.
Here we are, Mr. Speaker, at a time when
this province is expanding faster than it ever
was in its history, talking about a shortage
of doctors, and yet there is a certain amount
of medical talent in certain areas in this
province which is denied its proper release
and the public are therefore suffering from
a lack of this treatment, which these doctors
are willing and ready to give if they are
given a chance.
I have no axe to grind because I have
been a past chairman of hospital boards in
the town I live in, I have done surgery and
medical work all my life, I have not had any
of these problems personally, but I am here
to speak and I think it is about time that
somebody got up on their feet and spoke
on behalf of these men who I think are
getting choked off in their medical efforts.
I believe as a private member that thought
could well be given by this Legislature to
this matter. It is my own personal feeling
that I would like to see legislation introduced
which would require every hospital board at
present not doing so, to take the family
doctor onto their staffs. In other words
let the doctors into the hospitals wherever
they now cannot do so— why should there be
any medical caste system anywhere? Why
should there be any discrimination in a
democracy such as ours?
In conclusion I desire briefly to comment
on the shortage of doctors in the rural areas
of this province.
My opinion is that the remedy for this
situation is the production of more general
practitioners and the development of more
small rural hospitals for these men to work in.
Because I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and all
hon. members of this House that the practice
of medicine today is not the practice of going
in and giving the old mustard plaster; when
you give some of these high potency drugs
to patients you have to have them in some
place where you have some means of check-
ing and controlling what you are doing. You
cannot just go off and keep somebody home
one day and say, "take this", because when
you do, you are creating some danger for
your patient.
Put those two factors together and I think
we will produce the answer— and then we
will have all of the people of Ontario well
looked after all of the time, which I am
confident is the desire of this great govern-
ment of Ontario.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this will probably be
the last time I will rise during this session,
but I just want to say one thing and I say
this in great sincerity before I take my seat.
I am just a new member of this House, and
happen to be the third medical man.
I want to say this, that as a medical man
I think the present hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Phillips) we have, is the greatest
Minister of Health we have ever had in the
history of this province. He is not only a
beloved figure to all hon. members of this
House but he is a humanitarian, he is a
man who has practised the same type of
medicine as I have, he has done his surgery
and medicine and obstetrics in Owen Sound,
and he is a real doctor, and if I were ever
sick I would be proud to have him look after
me.
And I also want to say this, in tribute to
another great medical man who sits in this
House, and I refer to the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Dymond) who like
myself is an old Queen's man, and that
MARCH 19, 1958
1029
made us pretty good friends right away, I
just want to say I think in my discussions
with him on these topics that he also is a
medical man who might, like myself, be
better back delivering a baby tonight.
Mr. D. J. Rankin moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to; the House resumed.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motions:
Bill No. 3, An Act respecting St. Peter's
Church, Brockville.
Bill No. 25, An Act respecting St. Michael's
College.
Bill No. 30, An Act to incorporate the
Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation
of Ontario.
Bill No. 37, An Act respecting the Town
of Almonte.
Bill No. 41, An Act respecting the City of
Hamilton.
Bill No. 132, An Act to amend the Coroners
Act.
Bill No. 133, An Act to amend the Police
Act.
Bill No. 138, An Act to amend the Cor-
porations Tax Act 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do
now pass and be intituled as in the motions.
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 139, "An Act to amend The
Succession Duty Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on this bill, I think
it is clear to the House that this amendment
provides for the payment out without waiting
for the consents from the succession duty
department in case of estates of $2,500 by
any one insurance company with respect to
any policies of insurance.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the govern-
ment gave any consideration to the many
representations that are made upon it to
increase the overall exemptions?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The federal authority
is acting on this matter, but the federal Act
is not in effect and will not go into effect
until some considerable time hence, so I
think that probably until that Act has been
definitely settled, we would be wise to bide
our time.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Has any consideration
been given to exempting one-half of an estate,
as being that portion owned by the— or earned
by the— wife?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I think
that the situation is very plain. Any adminis-
tration has to get money and, after all, a
succession duty tax is a fair tax. If you were
to follow the principle of exempting half of
any estate, you can see what that would lead
to. A million dollar estate would mean
half a million dollars that would be succes-
sion duty exempt. It would have first of all
a tremendous effect on the revenues and I
really do not think that it is justified. Now
the practise we follow in Ontario— and we
introduced this amendment or this principle
some years back— is that no taxes are pay-
able out of the first $50,000.
It is true that if the estate runs over
$50,000, then of course the tax is payable,
but so as not to infringe upon that first
$50,000. It may be that that amount is not
sufficient, perhaps it should be raised, but at
the present time if we raise that amount, the
federal authorities get the money because
there is no deduction of 50 per cent. I think
my friend would see that it is certainly not
to our advantage to do that.
Another thing is this, a straight exemption,
as my hon. friend will see, is an exemption
which really comes off the last amount of
money in a large estate. It comes off the
highest tax amount and I do not think that
we would go for a straight exemption of
$50,000 or $75,000, but I think that we might
consider the raising of the present floor from
$50,000 upwards but that would depend, of
course, upon the changes being made in the
federal Act.
THE RACING COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 140, "An Act to amend The Racing
Commission Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: This bill provides it is really not
any extension of the present powers of the
1030
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
commission but rather it is providing that
they should file their rules and when they
file them with the registrar of regulations
then they take effect and they are on record.
The racing commission has as I think all
hon. members know, a very responsible job
to perform here in this province and it is
essential that they be in a position to dis-
cipline those who are engaged in the racing
business, because if that were not possible
then of course many different resorts could
be taken which might very well in the hands
of unscrupulous people defraud many of the
public who go to the races. I think that is
the main reason why one has to have fairly
strict disciplinary powers in the commission.
The commission is made up of some four
members and they are responsible citizens.
We have one member in the House on that
commission and this bill has been discussed
by the commission today with people who
have made representations concerning it and
when it goes into committee I propose to
recommend certain amendments in the com-
mittee stage that I think will put the bill in
a position where those who have taken issue
with it as it now stands will be satisfied with
it or at least the commission will have made
an effort to meet them part way.
At the present time the effect of these
amendments when they are presented would
be to strike out section 11B as it appears in
section 2 of the bill and to provide the sec-
tion 113 something to this effect— Provided
that in every such case the applicant or
licencee shall be afforded an opportunity of
appearing before the commission to show
cause why the licence should not be sus-
pended, revoked or denied as the case may
be.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is
somewhat difficult to discuss the principle
without having the full details of these
amendments because these amendments may
well meet some of the objections I had in
mind.
The hon. Minister and other hon. members
of the House may be aware of the fact that
there have been protests made by people
interested in this whole field. Partly the
protest is that you are giving far greater
powers than are necessary. In the Toronto
Daily Star on March 15, Mr. Sherrington,
President of the NBPA said a protest would
be made against broadening of the rights
of the Commission. His comment was that
"the laws of the commission should not super-
sede the laws of the province," which seems
to me to be a pretty valid point. There is
another general principle on which I would
like to ask the hon. Minister a specific ques-
tion. It has been represented to me that
one of the objectives of these broadened
powers is to make it possible for the com-
mission to discipline certain personnel who
work around the tracks and who are con-
sidering a union. These powers would make
it possible to increase the difficulties for the
union. In fact, if these penalties are left in
the bill, persons seeking to organize the union
of their choice could be fined.
Is the hon. Minister aware of any such
situation— that these broadened powers might
be used for such a purpose?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: No it is my understand-
ing that this bill does not widen the powers
beyond what they have at the present time.
They have very wide powers under section
3 which is being repealed now. Section 3
reads of The Racing Commission Act of
1950:
The object of the commission shall be
to govern, direct control and regulate horse
racing in Ontario in all of its forms.
Then section 11 of the Act sets out the
powers of the commission to do various things.
Now as this section is now before the House
in Bill No. 140, I do not think that it has
the effect in itself, of widening the very wide
powers that they have had right along, but
I do think that it has this advantage. Before
any of those rulings are affected they must
be filed with the registrar of regulations and
they are then on record that everybody knows
what they are.
Now that is a move — it is not making
them a regulation where they would have to
come and be passed before a Cabinet or
something of that sort, to be effective, but
it is a move towards making them available
to all who want to know what their rulings
are, and then with the amendment which I
propose to submit, every person who is
affected on any application for suspension,
revocation and so forth, has a right to come
and be heard before the commission, before
the decision is made.
I would think that that ought to meet the
situation and in committee we can deal with
it in more detail.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I was just
going to say that I am anxious that these pro-
visions should be fair and that those who are
affected by these regulations should be treated
justly. I am not anxious to give the commis-
MARCH 19, 1958
1031
sion any powers that are broad and arbitrary
and unfair. May I say, that when the matter
comes up in committee, I am perfectly
prepared that the principle of this whole thing
should be discussed in the light of the
amendments as then made. I think the
point of the hon. member for York South
that this should be considered in the light of
the amendment is fair and I am prepared to
look at it from that standpoint.
My understanding of it is this, that
presently the commission has broad powers
of making rules under the section referred
to. The effect of this amendment is to put
the rules in the position of being regulations,
and having the force of regulations, and they
would be filed with the Registrar and would
be available and would be rules that would
be properly passed and properly promulgated.
I think that is the point.
Now if such is not the case I do not intend
to rush this matter— it can be considered at
that time.
I would say that the amendments could
be introduced and, as a matter of fact, the
hon. Attorney-General could give the Opposi-
tion and other members of the House, copies
of the proposed amendments, so they would
be in the books and so that they would be
available for discussion and perhaps could
let it be known that these are the proposed
amendments and then could call this matter
for committee consideration, say at the
beginning of the week.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am mind-
ful of the rules of the House on second read-
ing, and I do not want to trangress them
by getting into detail, but just let me draw
to the attention of the hon. Attorney-General
one clause here which I think illustrates this
whole worry of how conceivably there are
powers that are much broader than are
necessary and might be used for other
purposes than was originally anticipated.
Take 1101 in section 2:
The commission may make rules govern-
ing, controlling and regulating the racing
of horses in any or all of its forms, the
operating of race tracks and the activity
of all classes of persons having to do
directly or indirectly with the racing of
horses or with race tracks.
That section provides power to discipline
every single person who may be hired, if
words mean anything, for any purpose at all
around the race track. I just draw that to
the hon. Attorney-General's attention as an
indication of what may conceivably be too
broad powers.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. Prime Minister
suggests that perhaps this might go to legal
bills committee and if the Opposition would
like that, we can have a special meeting of
legal bills to deal with it. Actually, I might
say to my hon. friend that what he has
read out there is exactly what is in 11 only
it is in 2 different parts of 11 as it now is.
The rewording in this bill now is not widen-
ing what they have already got, but what
they have already got might be considered
too wide.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think this might go
to legal bills committee.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to refer to subsection 11 A:
The commission may deal with any
matter within its jurisdiction, either in
public or in camera, and for such purpose
has all the powers that may be conferred
upon a commissioner under The Public
Enquiries Act.
Now I would ask the hon. Attorney-General
whether he does not think this is going alto-
gether too far. It seems to me that surely
as we expand our commissions, and it is
understandable that we have to, there is no
justification for camera proceedings which
cannot be reviewed, which cannot be
appealed, which cannot be pursued anywise
by any individual affected.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: We are going to send
it to legal bills, and I would say that we
will ask the members of the racing commis-
sion to be at legal bills and tell us just why
they need all this.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I might say, sir, in refer-
ring this bill to the legal bills committee,
that the Ontario racing commission comes
under the Treasury and at the present time
I am the Treasurer. I got my lawyer to
guide this bill through the House. I may say
that I do not have any strong feelings about
this bill myself, and I would like you to
take it to legal bills committee. I think this
is the chairman here, the hon. member for
Waterloo South (Mr. Myers).
I would say that this bill can be put
through the wringer and we can see just
what this requirement involves. If it goes
1032
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
too far— I must admit that I look at a section
like the "in camera" section and I wonder
just what is the purpose of having some-
thing that may affect a citizen conducted in
camera unless there are very full rights of
appeal, which of course may be in the Act.
I remember I did introduce The Racing
Commission Act myself a number of years
ago. I think it was 1950, but I forget the
terms of it. If there are not proper rights of
appeal, I would like to see that there are
rights of appeal. I would say, sir, that it
will go to the legal bills committee and I
would like to have this looked at and it can
be gone through, as I say, with a fine tooth
comb. I have no opinions other than that
we should give the commission adequate
powers to deal properly with these things.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 156, "An Act to amend The
County Judges Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
comment on the general principles of this
bill and to perhaps give some indication of
the thinking that has prompted the bill, that
it might lead to some further developments
in connection with this part of the adminis-
tration of justice. It will be observed that
the language chosen in providing for an
increase in the number of county court and
district court judges in the province, is such
as to render the provision quite flexible.
This is in keeping with the study which
has been under way by the officers of my
Department in order to insure that the
organization of our county and district courts
is such that the judges are working under
conditions which will produce the best
administration of justice.
Those of ,us who are familiar with the
workings of the court are fully aware of the
variety of functions which our county and
district court judges are called upon to
perform in the daily discharge of their duties.
They not only must engage in both civil and
criminal trial, sometimes with a jury and
sometimes without, and look after the inci-
dental interlocutary matters that arise, but
they must also go about the county or the
district presiding at the division courts or
small debt court sittings, which are not
restricted to the county or district town.
The county and district court judges also
perform special duties under various provin-
cial statutes. While our county court system
is fashioned after that of England, a
comparison of the functions of the county
court judges there and here, discloses a
substantial difference in the duties performed.
For example, in England, the criminal
aspect of the work is taken care of by a
body of judges known as recorders. The
interlocutary work is done by the registrars
of the court. The circuits of the county court
judges are not restricted to a single county.
The county court judges function also as
special divorce commissioners of the high
court, and it will be seen that in various other
ways the functions of our county court
judges, and those of England, vary to a
considerable extent.
I might say that when I was looking into
the number of judges that we have here,
and comparing them with the number of
judges that they have in England and the
much greater population over there, for a
time I was rather wondering how they did
their work there with some 68 judges against
64 here, but as I have already indicated,
there are recorders and registrars who do a
great deal of the work of judges there, and
the judges themselves do pretty much circuit
work exclusively and these . other matters
which I have just mentioned.
The one thing does stand out however,
namely, that in England there is a vesting
in the Lord Chancellor of a sort of super-
visory jurisdiction which is quite unkown
here in our county and district court setup.
It is well recognized that under the late Chief
Justice Vanderbilt of New Jersey and fol-
lowing the revision of the state constitution
there some 10 years ago, the courts of New
Jersey came to be regarded as something of
a model for their efficiency in operation, and
the courts administration.
The New Jersey system has been studied
far and wide. The general supervisory juris-
dication of the Chief Justice of New Jersey
over the various courts bears a considerable
resemblance to the English situation. Parti-
cularly active in improving the administration
of justice in the courts is the state of New
York, where a temporary commission in the
courts was created by legislation some 5 years
ago.
What was really the first act of that tem-
porary commission under the chairmanship
of Mr. Harrison Tweed, who is a very well
known citizen there and who has been quite
well recognized here in Canada as well, was
MARCH 19, 1958
1033
to recommend the establishment of a judicial
conference. The judicial conference com-
prises the chief justice of the state and the
presiding judges of the various appelate
divisions as well as a certain number of trial
judges.
It also includes the chairman of certain
of the committees of the Legislature who are,
however, non-voting members. While it
would take longer than I have time here for
tonight to discuss the functioning of such a
judicial conference, with the type of adminis-
trative functioning that is carried on on the
one hand, by the Lord Chancellor in England,
or the chief justice as administrator of the
courts in New Jersey, I would like to say
this. These are institutions which we do not
now have in Ontario. When we find on the
one hand in England, where we are inclined
to regard the administration of justice both
conservative and efficient, the Lord Chan-
cellor has a supervisory jurisdiction over the
various courts, and on the other, in certain
of the United States, where studies are being
made in order to render the courts more effi-
cient, they have such institutions as a Chief
Justice administrator and a judicial confer-
ence.
Perhaps the time is coming when we might
very well look into the institutions, both of
the mother country and the democracy to
the south, with a view of seeing whether
there is any room for improvement in our
own system.
That study will be continued by senior
officials of my Department and by myself.
In the meantime, the bill, which is now
before the House, will permit wider and
more efficient use of the county and district
judges under our present system with flexi-
bility for the future, and will allow for some
6 additional appointments of the federal
authority, if the federal authority enacts
complementary legislation.
RAISING OF MONEY ON CREDIT OF
THE CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 165, "An Act to authorize the rais-
ing of money on the credit of the consoli-
dated revenue fund."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the adjournment of the House, may I say
that tomorrow, as I announced to the House
yesterday, we will have the estimates of The
Department of Lands and Forests and, later,
the estimates of The Department of Planning
and Development, which were adjourned last
Friday.
Mr. Oliver: Later, did he say?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, we will take The
Department of Lands and Forest first, and
then follow that with The Department of
Planning and Development. Now it might
be that The Department of Planning and
Development would be taken in the evening,
and we would put in some Throne speeches
following, if there is any time, or we might
take some of the bills on the order paper.
There is the conclusion of the Throne
debate tomorrow and the vote. That would
be taken first — I am awfully sorry. The
Throne debate first and the vote on that,
followed then by the business I mentioned.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.50 of the
clock, p.m.
No. 40
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
©elmte*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Thursday, March 20, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 20, 1958
Report, standing committee on printing, Mr. Whitney 1037
Upper Canada College Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, first reading 1037
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender,
first reading 1037
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, first reading 1038
Pipe Lines Act, bill intituled, Mr. Spooner, first reading 1039
Conclusion of the debate on the speech from the throne, Mr. Allan 1040
Estimates, Department of Lands and Forests, Mr. Mapledoram 1048
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Insurance Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Private Investigators Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 1076
Came and Fisheries Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Tile Drainage Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Mining Tax Act, bill to amend, reported 1076
Resolution re Ontario Anti-Discrimination Commission, Mr. Daley, concurred in 1076
Recess, 6 o'clock 1077
1037
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, March 20, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Clerk of the House: Mr. N. Whitney, from
the standing committee on printing, presents
the committee's report and moves its adop-
tion.
Your committee recommends that the sup-
plies allowance per member for the current
session of the assembly be fixed at the sum
of $50, and that, to meet the convenience of
the hon. members, this amount be issued to
each hon. member of the assembly in order
that he may make the desired purchases in
his own constituency.
Also that an amount be authorized and a
cheque be issued to each of the full-time
daily newspaper representatives covering the
session of the legislative assembly, as nomin-
ated by the press gallery and approved by
Mr. Speaker.
Your committee recommends that copies
of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide, Cana-
dian Almanac and the Canada Year Book be
purchased for distribution to the hon. mem-
bers of the assembly, and also that each hon.
member be given a year's subscription to the
Labour Gazette and to the Ontario Statute
Citator.
Your committee recommends that the fol-
lowing sessional papers be printed for
departmental use and distribution:
Accounts, public
Agricultural College, Ontario, report
Agriculture, Minister of, report
Agriculture, statistics branch report .
Auditor's report
Civil service commissioner, report...
Education, report, 1956
Education, report, 1957
Estimates
Highways Department of, report ....
Labour, Department of, report
Legal offices, report of the inspector
Liquor control board, report
Niagara parks commission, report
Ontario northland transportation
commission, report
Police, provincial, report of the com-
missioner
Public Welfare, Department of,
report
Public Works, Department of, report
1,825
975
2,475
7,175
525
375
1,275
1,375
1,400
1,275
1,275
725
575
400
185
425
1,375
600
Continued
Reform Institutions, Department of,
report 890
Reform Institutions, training schools,
report 990
Toronto University, report 250
Veterinary College, Ontario, report 2,775
Workmen's compensation board report 3,175
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE UPPER CANADA COLLEGE ACT
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Upper
Canada College Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This bill provides that the board
of governors of Upper Canada College may
borrow such money as may he necessary to
demolish the building which has now become
uninhabitable and to build new buildings.
Under the old Act, which has governed
Upper Canada College for a good many
years, there is a provision that the board of
governors may not spend in one year on addi-
tions, renovations, and permanent improve-
ments, more than $100,000, which is now
not sufficient to carry out the work which
must be done.
THE MUNICIPALITY
OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
ACT, 1953
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act,
1953."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This is the bill which embodies
some of the recommendations made by the
committee which has to do with looking into
Metropolitan Toronto's affairs.
I think I should go over some of these
sections, and I might add that all of the
recommendations are not suggested here at
this time, or it is not suggested that we
implement them by legislation at this time,
by reason of the fact that there are several
recommendations there which we feel should
have the further consideration of the area
1038
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
municipalities. At this time there is one here,
subsection 2A, which provides that where the
metropolitan council failed to fill a vacancy
in the office of the chairman, as required, then
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
council may appoint the chairman to hold
office for the remainder of the term of his
predecessor.
Another amendment reads that, where the
chairman is a member of the council of an
area or municipality, he may resign from such
council without resigning his office as chair-
man.
There is another section here which auth-
orizes the metropolitan council to appoint an
executive committee who sets out the powers
which the council may authorize the executive
committee to exercise.
Now the main principle here is that it would
be something like a board of control in a
city. The executive council having to do with
initiating metropolitan council matters would
be empowered to do certain things as set out in
The Municipal Act similar to the powers given
to the board of control. They do this by the
procedural by-law. This is to make it statu-
tory.
Section 125#ias an amendment which sets
out 4 different types of pupils in high school
areas rather than the 3 which are now shown
for the purpose of getting maintenance assist-
ance grants.
There is a new section to clarify the power
of the board of education of the metropolitan
area, to transfer property acquired for public
school purposes to secondary school purposes
and vice versa.
There is one here where the board of educa-
tion in the metropolitan area may rehabilitate
or renovate any school buildings under its
jurisdiction, and the same shall be deemed to
have permanent improvements for the pur-
poses of this Act.
The metropolitan council may make grants
in aid of capital or current expenditures to
any public library board in an area or muni-
cipality which in the opinion of the metro-
politan council provides library services to
residents of any other area or municipality.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves first reading
of bill intituled, "An Act to amend The
Ontario Municipal Board Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: This is a rather important section,
so I will read it and then give some explana-
tion.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-council, on a recommendation of the chair-
man of the board — that is, the municipal
board— may from time to time appoint as an
acting member of the board a person who, in
the opinion of the chairman, is especially
qualified to assist the board with respect to
any particular application to be signed by the
chairman.
This person, so appointed, will act with any
two members of the board for the purpose of
hearing and determining such application,
and the person so appointed shall have all
the powers of the members of the board for
such purpose, and shall be entitled to such
remuneration as the Honourable the Lieu-
tenant-Governor-in-council may authorize.
The thinking behind it is that the Ontario
municipal board at the present time, as every-
one knows, is extremely busy with the
multiple applications they receive. It has been
thought that, because of the difficulty of
getting persons to act on the municipal board,
the chairman should be empowered to pick
certain persons with certain special qualifica-
tions who, on going into a certain area know-
ing that there is a special problem to be met,
would appoint a person to sit on that board
for that purpose.
In that way, not only will it assist the
municipal board in dealing with the many
matters that come before it, but in addition
they will have the experience and qualities
that this new member— who was asked to sit
for that purpose— would have.
There is another suggestion. It has been
recommended that there be an amendment
authorizing the board, upon the request of
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
council, to conduct an inquiry into the re-
organization of municipal governments in any
designated area. I am told that, up to now,
there has been some doubt as to whether the
Ontario municipal board had this authority,
and this is to make it clear that it does.
Now, in addition to that, there have been
a great many requests from various parts of
the province— namely London, Sudbury, St.
Catharines, and many others I could mention
—to have us consider whether there might be
some other way of dealing with annexation or
amalgamation problems, rather than just on
a straight case of an application either for
or against. We have been asked to consider
whether there might be some other way of
dealing with it than on a straight, shall we
say, Metropolitan Toronto basis.
This will enable the board to go into a
designated municipality, consider the prob-
lems peculiar to that area, and perhaps come
MARCH 20, 1958
1039
up with a solution which might not be
annexation or amalgamation, might not be
the metropolitan form of government, but
might be something in between those two
which would fit that particular problem.
This amendment is designed to assist the
government to have these inquiries take
place, so that proper solution can be arrived
at much more quickly than in another way.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Would it be
extended to take in an inquiry into the
financial condition of any municipality as
well?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Aifairs ) : Mr. Speaker, I am bringing
in an amendment, of which I think notices
have been given to the Opposition, when we
reach the committee stage, on that particular
point, and I shall explain it at that time.
THE PIPE LINES ACT, 1958
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves first reading of
bill intituled, "The Pipe Lines Act, 1958."
Motion agreed to; first reading of bill.
He said: This is a consolidation and revision
of The Gas Pipe Lines Act, 1951, and The
Oil Pipe Lines Act, 1953.
It is a new Act and a very important one.
I must say the intention of the new Act
is that it will simplify, clarify, and make
uniform the procedures for obtaining leave
to construct a gas or oil pipe line; the
procedures leading up to authority to expro-
priate lands for right-of-way purposes; com-
pensation for land taken; compensation for
damages under easement agreements; com-
pensation for entry on land for purposes of
repair, and so on.
It will also make uniform the procedures
for obtaining leave to cross highways, public
utility lines, and the like.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the
following:
1. 38th annual report of The Department
of Labour of the province of Ontario for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1957.
2. 57th annual report of the Ontario north-
land transportation commission for the year
ending December 31, 1957.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to say that we have quite a
large group of students here representing
school section 1 A at Lamport; a large group
from the Wiarton district high school; and
another group from Forest Hill junior high
school. These students are here to view
the proceedings of the House, and we extend
to them a very warm welcome.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Before the orders of the day, I would
like to ask the hon. Prime Minister if he
will table the report of the Ontario muni-
cipal board having to do with the finances
of the town of Eastview, and which is par-
ticularly applicable to the bill that is presently
before the House.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I
would be very glad to. As a matter of fact,
I intend, when that matter comes up in
committee to have that report read to the
House, and also a letter from the hon. Minis-
ter of Municipal Affairs, neither of which
were read— or read in their entirety— at the
committee, which I think would entirely clear
up the matter. Now I would be very glad to
do that, and I give my undertaking.
Mr. Oliver: On that point, I have felt
since this matter has come up that the report
should have been read by the clerk at the
time it was presented to the House. I mean,
with an ordinary report over which no great
controversy would arise, the present proce-
dure is all right. But this report was filled
with controversial facts and figures, and it
should have been presented to the House
at the time of the bill's introduction.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I had not read the report
myself, at the time the report came in here;
and it did not seem necessary to read it here
and then read it again to the committee. It
seemed at the time that it would be better
to read it there.
But what happened was that the report
was dealt with in an abstract form in the
committee, and it was not read in full.
But I will arrange, before the bill is dealt
with, to have the report read in full, and
the hon. Minister's comment read in full,
which I think will clear up the matter.
Mr. Oliver: If I may indulge once more,
I am getting along so well with the hon.
Prime Minister this afternoon that I want to
test him once again.
Last evening, when my hon. friend was
away on a mission about which there would
be some doubt or some cloud, I asked the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan) about an-
other report that has to do— as I understand
it— with an investigation that was made by
the Ontario research council and The Depart-
ment of Transport, having to do with the
diesel fuel oil tax.
1040
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, as I understand it, quite a compre-
hensive investigation was made, to determine
the validity of the level of that tax, and that
report is now prepared. I wonder if the hon.
Prime Minister will undertake to table that
report, as well, in the House?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The report that the hon.
leader of the Opposition mentions, I think,
is at hand. Now I am speaking off hand, as
a matter of fact I have not been able to read
it either, the Opposition keep me so busy here
that I do not get around to these things, I
mean-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): We
were not keeping the hon. Prime Minister
busy yesterday.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, I think I did very
well, I was here at 9 o'clock in the morning,
and I left at 11 o'clock at night, and I
worked all throughout the day. The hon.
member cannot ask a person to do better than
that.
In connection with the matter relating to
diesel fuel and indeed the trucking matter
generally, we are conducting investigations
on several different trucks including the
weights-and-mile arrangement. I will look
over the report, and I will be prepared to
give that.
As a matter of fact, I think that the report
perhaps might indicate that the rate of tax
might better be 19 cents than 20 cents, I
thinks that is the tenor of it.
As for myself, I would not be adverse to
reducing that, with the consent of the House,
to 19 cents, but subject to this:
I would want it very definitely understood
that we have other matters and other investi-
gations in mind. I would be very glad to
give a report to the House, if there is not
something that I know about that stands in
the way, nor would I object to the reduction
of that tax down to 19 cents.
But I would say that we have in mind
some other and perhaps more equitable forms
of taxation. Now I think that is the answer I
would give to my hon. friend.
Mr. Oliver: Just one further word. I am
not arguing at the moment as to whether the
tax is too high or too low. But what I am
suggesting to the hon. Prime Minister is that
this report dealt exhaustively with a public
question, and it seems to me that it is proper
information for the Legislature to have. I am
quite content to leave it to the hon. Prime
Minister to look the thing over and, if he
thinks there is no harm to be done to the
government, he can put it on the table of the
House.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But it is our view that
what is harmful to the government might be
harmful to the people.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I may say that I consider it
an honour to be the last speaker on the
government side of the House in this debate.
However, before proceeding, I would like
to express my appreciation to you, as has
been done many times, for the capable and
impartial way in which you have conducted
the House during this session.
I would like also to congratulate the hon.
speakers, some 50 of them, who have spoken
in this debate.
It has been my good fortune to listen to
a great many of those speeches, and I must
say that they were of a high order. There
was a great deal of information in them,
which I appreciated learning, and I am sure
this has been the feeling of every hon. member
in this House. I was especially interested in
learning of some of the splendid qualities
of the ridings of the various hon. members.
Before I proceed further with what I have
to say, I would like very briefly to remind
the hon. members of this House that the
riding that I represent is a very fine one,
situated as it is around Lake Erie for 100
miles, where there is the largest fresh-water
fishing fleet in the world, I am told.
We do not have any large cities, but we do
have some splendid towns and a very friendly
people.
Then, agricultural-wise, I am sure that
many hon. members in this House have never
fully realized what wonderful agricultural
country the counties of Haldimand and Nor-
folk are. With our livestock in the east, our
general farming, our tobacco, our fruits and
vegetables in the west, I believe that I am
stating a fact when I say that the value of the
agricultural production in my riding is greater
than that in any other riding in the province.
When we realize that the value of the
tobacco alone produced in Norfolk county
is approximately $35 million each year, it
gives some conception of the importance
of that riding.
I may say too that, when many worry about
what is going to happen when industry takes
over the Niagara peninsula, we have a veri-
table garden in my riding, and it might
MARCH 20, 1958
1041
surprise hon. members to know that three-
quarters of all the strawberries that are pro-
cessed in Canada are grown in Norfolk
county.
We grow peaches and all the fine fruits
that are grown in the Niagara peninsula,
so that when that becomes an industrial area
we will then look upon Norfolk county as
the garden of Ontario.
I might mention too, that Norfolk county
was a pioneer in conservation and refores-
tation. And may I say, to any who have
never had the opportunity to view the re-
forestation that has been undertaken in Nor-
folk county, that it is a treat and a wonderful
experience for any to enjoy.
And, last but not least, I might say that
the goaltender who is largely responsible
for the victory of the Whitby Dunlops is a
homebrew Haldimand-Norfolk boy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to
this debate, I have been impressed by the
fact that there is a tremendous difference
in mental outlook between this side of
the House and the opposite side. On this
side, we believe that under our democratic
form of government the long-term future of
this province and this nation is assured and
that we are living in a land of destiny.
On this side, we recognize in Ontario that
in recent years it has had its greatest
development in history. We believe that we
are fortunate to be living in this province
and that we are particularly privileged to
have an opportunity of moulding the legis-
lation at this time. Now the hon. Opposi-
tion members seem to have one thing in com-
mon and that is a degree of pessimism that
is quite unwarranted by the facts. It is not
any wonder that some hon. member on this
side of the House has described them as
dispensers of gloom.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Profes-
sional Pollyannas on the government side.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Now, I am quite unable
to understand what, if any, policy the hon.
members on the opposite side of the House
have to suggest.
On one hand, they criticize a reason-
able increase in the debt of the province,
although as I said yesterday the proper word
should be investment, rather than debt. On
the other hand, they suggest that greater
expenditures be made to relieve unemploy-
ment and to improve the economy of the
country generally.
There is only one note that I was able to
notice that was unanimous— that in under-
taking to do this, I heard no suggestion of
an increase in taxes. The attitude of the
hon. members of the Opposition seems to be
a lack of faith in this province.
Mr. MacDonald: He can tax Mr. E. P.
Taylor any time he wants to.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Why do they not use live ammunition, instead
of those old dead shells?
An hon. member: Lots of powder in them
yet.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I am wondering if the
results they expect, following the voting on
March 31, has anything to do with the
dampening of their spirits at this particular
time?
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this
debate, the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) stated that:
A speech from the Throne is intended to
convey ... an outline, and the more brief
the outline the better, of legislation that is
about to be introduced in this Legislature.
He went on to say that,
in keeping with that definition, the speech
from the Throne was on a par with those
that have gone before . . .
He said:
When one thinks of the size of the prov-
ince and of the many and varied problems
that confront our people and that are sub-
ject to the laws enacted by this Legislature,
it is not surprising to appreciate that in the
speech from the Throne there was attention
paid, however scant that attention may
have been, to a great number of subjects.
Now, while the intention of the hon. mem-
ber may have been "to damn with faint
praise", it would appear that, on the basis
of his own definition, the speech from the
Throne is a document of very considerable
importance. In fact as the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) has said, the speech from the
Throne is
designed to meet requirements in 1958
and the challenge of these times, including
a broad legislative programme— a plan for
the betterment of our people.
Having in mind the pessimistic and the
negative attitude adopted by the hon. mem-
bers of the Opposition during this session,
I would like to take this opportunity of
1042
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reminding the House of the greatness of this
province, and the extent to which it has
developed under the administration of the
present government so capably guided by our
hon. Prime Minister.
By natural increase, and as a result of
immigration, we have had an unprecedented
increase in our population. We now have
some 5.75 million people— an increase of
more than 1.5 million, or more than the
population of Metropolitan Toronto— within
a period of 10 years.
We expect a further increase of more than
1.5 million in the next 10 years, and we note
that the population of Ontario is increasing
at a rate greater than any other province in
our country, and twice the rate of increase
in the United States.
Now, this increase in population will permit
us to develop our resources, enlarge our
industries and broaden our markets. It is
an essential part of Ontario's growth.
But while it is a great source of strength,
it also presents new responsibilities for which
we must be prepared. There is, for example,
the increase in the birth rate from a low of
16.9 per 1,000 in 1937 to a high of 27.4
per 1,000 last year.
As the result of this increase we now have
more than 1.4 million— or one-quarter of our
population— in school-age groups, and the
school enrolment figures have doubled in the
past 20 years. We cannot see any evidence
of a slowing down in the next 20 years.
Another of our many responsibilities comes
from the fact that it is forecast that 70 per
cent, of the increase in population will settle
in urban areas which brings, as anyone
recognizes, a very great responsibility to
municipal services in those areas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as our population has
grown, our labour force has increased until
it reached a peak of 2.25 million last August.
Towards the end of the year, there was some
increase in unemployment, but this should
not obscure the fact that at that time we
had more persons employed than ever before.
Not only did the total personal income reach
an all-time high of over $9 billion, but the
personal income per capita was also at a
peak of $1,624, or nearly double what it
was in 1943.
During 1957, the gross value of our manu-
facturing production, and the volume of our
newsprint production, remained at a record
high level, while mineral production reached
a new high. While there was some reduc-
tion in farm prices, this was offset by an
increase in production, and thus our agricul-
tural income remained at a high level.
I have mentioned these facts, and sug-
gest that there is certainly no evidence of
gloom or pessimism contained in these
figures.
We have come a long way since the war
years and, if our growth in population is any
indication, we still have a long way to go.
The physical volume of production in this
province is now some 3 times greater than
it was in 1939 and, judged by consumer
purchases, living standards have increased
some 60 per cent.
Our manufacturing industries have in-
creased both in the volume and the diversity
of their production. On the farm there are
fewer farmers but, by use of new methods,
manpower productivity is up some 75 per
cent, and the total output is up more than
25 per cent.
In Ontario, we now produce more than
half of Canada's total production of metals
and two-fifths of the total production of
structural materials.
In the production of uranium alone, there
is a spectacular story of growth within a
period of the past 4 years, and in 1958 it
is even possible that uranium will be second
only to nickel in value of our mineral produc-
tion.
Our manufacturing industries produce
about half of the manufactured output of
Canada and this is one of the reasons that
Ontario is known as the heartland of Can-
ada. And as an evidence of faith in the
future of this province, these industries had
a new capital investment of nearly $700 mil-
lion in 1957, or more than double the amount
so invested in 1950.
I might mention Hydro and the increase
in the use of electrical energy in this prov-
ince. It is an indication of our rapid growth
and the need to plan ahead to take care of
future development.
In the past 8 years our consumption has
doubled, in terms of kilowatt hours, and it is
more than 3 times what it was in 1941. In
order to provide power resources, the Hydro
commission found it necessary to provide
dependable peak capacity of 6.5 million horse-
power in 1957. This will be increased to
nearly 10 million horsepower in 1962, as a
result of the St. Lawrence power project
coming into production and also the addition
of other hydro and thermal plants as well as
new nuclear power plants.
New capital investment in Ontario totalled
more than $3 billion in 1957, an all-time high
MARCH 20, 1958
1043
in our history. The present indications are
that this record volume will be maintained
during 1958.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a most practical
demonstration of the confidence that investors,
both domestic and foreign, have in the
stability of conditions in the province at the
present time as well as their calculated faith
in our continued growth and development.
Some hon. members of the Opposition
have referred to the increase in capital debt
of the province. At the same time they ask
for more highways, more schools, more pub-
lic works, more of many things.
Now, the increase in public debt of this
province is really a sign of growth and vital-
ity. Our sound financial position is clearly
indicated by the favourable interest rates that
Ontario is able to secure, both at home and
abroad. Government business is big busi-
ness, and in order to build for the future it
is necessary and desirable to go into debt
just so long as we keep well within our
capacity to meet our obligations.
I might add that, when we borrow, we are
investing in capital projects— largely revenue-
producing— which have a long life and which
will serve our people for years to come.
This expanded construction programme
would not be possible if we were to depend
on current revenues alone, any more than the
average person could buy a house for his wife
and family without borrowing money to pay
for it.
Actually, it is not the size of our provincial
debt which is important, it is the relation
of that debt to the ability of the province to
pay and, as I have indicated, our credit rating
is very high. On a per capita basis, our
capital debt is no greater than it was 15
years ago; in relation to personal income, our
net capital debt is half of what it was in 1943
when this government took office.
Also, our net capital debt is now only 1.5
times the net ordinary revenue of the prov-
ince, whereas in 1943 it was 4.5 times as
great.
The hon. members of this government are
all keenly aware of the great change and
development that has taken place within this
province since 1943. Our present provincial
indebtedness would have seemed extremely
large at that time. It may even seem so to
the hon. members of the Opposition today,
but to us who look forward to the future with
confidence, it appears to be most reasonable.
Yesterday it was my pleasure to present a
highways programme to this House, and I
would like to quote some figures supplied by
the Ontario road builders' association which
indicate the benefit to the economy of our
province of such a programme.
The Ontario road builders' association esti-
mates that 27.1 per cent, of the total cost
of a road construction project is spent on
wages, and that the 1957 road construction
programme in Ontario provided nearly 50
million man-hours of direct labour.
In addition, the association estimates that
nearly 60 million man-hours of indirect labour
was provided in the various industries supply-
ing equipment, fuel and materials to the
road building industry, while still another
120 million man-hours of labour resulted
from the re-spending of salaries and wages
by construction employees and the re-invest-
ment of contractors' earnings in new equip-
ment.
This all adds up to more than 230 million
man-hours of work, resulting directly and
indirectly from the construction programme
on our provincial highways and municipal
roads and streets during the past year.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members on the
other side of the House suggest, on the one
hand, that the debt of the province is
increasing too fast, while on the other hand
they suggest that the government is not
doing enough to increase employment. Our
highways, roads and streets are responsible
for part of our provincial debt. But if it
were not possible to spread some of the cost
of our highways over the future, it is cer-
tain that we would not be able to provide
the millions of man-hours of work which are
available today.
I suggest that at no time in the past has
any government of Ontario planned for the
future of the province as this government
is doing today. We have a Department of
Planning and Development which is active
in community planning, in conservation, in
housing, in the development of trade and
industry and in regional planning. We have
a Department of Economics which is well
organized to advise the government on
economic trends. Other departments such as
The Department of Education and The
Department of Highways— to mention only
two— have given a great deal of attention to
plans for the future. These plans are sound
and realistic, and they are guiding this prov-
ince to an even greater period of develop-
ment.
This government realizes, too, the par-
ticular difficulties faced by the municipalities
in providing many local services, and there-
fore aid to the municipalities has been greatly
1044
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
increased. Since 1943-1944 the rate of pro-
vincial investment in the development of
municipal services has increased from just
over $20 million per year to over $216 million
a year, and we expect to do more. Capital
investment in public service facilities will
continue to expand as the economy and the
population grow.
In many cases, the responsibility for such
investment is shared by the province and the
municipal authorities, and that is as it should
be. However, where planning will help and
assistance is warranted, this government
stands prepared to assist the municipalities to
a greater extent than ever before.
I would also like to point out to hon.
members, particularly, that everywhere in
Ontario today there is evidence of a material
prosperity such as few, if any, other people
in this world have ever had. If one goes to
the top of the tower in the east block, he will
see the signs of growth of Toronto, our
capital city, quickly becoming one of the
great metropolitan centres on this continent.
Expanding industry, new housing, and
better services have changed the skyline of
Toronto almost beyond recognition within a
few short years, and the process of growth
is still going on.
In other cities, towns and villages through-
out the province, this same development is
to be seen, and on the farms, too, there is
evidence that great changes have taken place.
So, through heavily populated areas we are
building a multi-lane freeway to span the
province— from Windsor to the Quebec border
—without a stop light. In the wilderness,
along the shore of Lake Superior, we are at
work on the last remaining gap in our section
of the trans-Canada highway. At Elliot Lake,
a whole new mining industry has come into
being within 5 years, with a population of
more than 20,000. With services provided as
a result of the foresight and planning of this
government we are looking forward to a
progressive and well-planned city.
On the St. Lawrence, there is a million
horsepower project and a seaway nearing
completion; at Hamilton a $16 million sky-
way will be opened this fall. These and
thousands of other examples are to be found
of progress and prosperity which, I suggest,
Mr. Speaker, have never been equalled in
this province before.
I think of our highway systems. I think of
our schools, our central school system, and
our high school districts made possible
because of the great improvement in our
highways, and because of the assistance that
these school boards receive from this govern-
ment.
There is perhaps one other side of the
picture which cannot be measured by fact, but
which I should mention, and these are the
human values to be considered. It is in the
field of human betterment that this govern-
ment is achieving the far-reaching objectives
which are matters of top priority policy. Many
of these were referred to in the speech from
the Throne. There is no department of
government which does not in some way
contribute to the betterment of our people.
In agriculture, the services rendered to a
most important industry cover a wide range,
which includes courses in business, courses in
business management, technical advice, and
assistance with farm marketing. I think of
the weather service that is provided in our
area, and as the agricultural industry is
helped, the area adjacent receives very great
benefit. So, naturally, does the province as
a whole.
When we speak of human betterment, per-
haps we refer specifically to health, public
welfare and perhaps education.
In the field of health there are such things
as the hospital insurance plan which will
come into effect at the beginning of the next
year. This is a plan which will remove the
fear of catastrophe from sickness. We think
of the health units that have been established
throughout the province. We think of the
Salk vaccine and so many other services that
we enjoy now as the result of the progressive
policy of this department. As a result of these,
our death rate for the last 4 years has been
only 9 per 1,000.
Benefits through The Department of Public
Welfare cover a wide range, including old
age assistance, blind persons' allowances,
mothers' allowances, unemployment relief,
homes for the aged and disabled persons'
allowances. Here, in some cases, the cost is
shared by the province and the federal gov-
ernment, or the province and the municipal
authority, or is paid by the province alone.
But in each case the humanitarian attitude of
this government is an important factor.
I come to the field of education, and may
I say that we are facing up to our responsibili-
ties not only to provide for an increasing
number of primary, secondary and university
students, but to provide a better standard of
education, and make it possible for a higher
proportion of students to attend university.
We need teachers, we need schools, and the
municipalities require provincial assistance.
All these are being provided under the wise
MARCH 20, 1958
1045
direction of our hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Dunlop).
Our advances in the field of education can-
not be measured in dollars alone, although the
increase in grants and other assistance since
1945 has been substantial. Since that time,
our school enrolment has almost doubled, and
we can expect it to double again within the
next 15 years.
There is one item in particular that I
would like to mention, in connection with
the leadership that has been given by the
hon. Minister of Education in the provision
of schools.
It has been my good fortune to attend the
opening of several central elementary schools
and, as I look at those splendid buildings
that are being built at a cost of less than
$20,000 per classroom, I have wondered how
many millions of dollars have been saved by
this province— and the ratepayers of the
province— because of the decision by the hon.
Minister of Education that the grants would
apply only up to $20,000 per room.
I mention this because it is so noticeable
that the attitude of the architects changed
completely when this was known, and then
the competition between the architects— or
the ambition of the architect— was to find how
good a building he could build and keep the
cost within $20,000 per room. Therefore we
have these excellent buildings, splendidly built
at such a reasonable cost.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would
like to urge upon the hon. members of this
House to recognize the wonderful work that
is being done, the wonderful service that is
being given to the people of the province of
Ontario by this government, headed by our
hon. Prime Minister, whose sole ambition in
life seems to be to give better and better
government to the people of Ontario.
I hope that all the hon. members of this
House will support the speech from the
Throne.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. T. L. Kennedy (Peel)
moved, seconded by Mr. F. Guindon (Glen-
garry) that a humble address be presented to
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor (Mr.
Mackay) as follows:
May it please your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and
loyal subjects of the legislative assembly
of the province of Ontario, now in session,
beg leave to offer our humble thanks to
Your Honour for the gracious speech Your
Honour has addressed to us.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion), moved, seconded by Mr. H. C. Nixon
(Brant), that the motion for an address in
reply to the speech of the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor, now before the House,
be amended by adding thereto the following
words :
But this House regrets the government
has failed to:
1. Take any effective action to meet the
rising unemployment in Ontario.
2. Correct the ever- worsening condition in
our agricultural industry.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South) moved,
seconded by Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth
East), that the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now
before the House, be amended by adding
thereto the following:
To clause 1 the following:
(a) through developing presently-
owned properties, and acquiring more land,
for a greatly expanded low-cost housing
programme, so that not only work will
be provided, but inflated land values will
be checked and the cost of homes brought
within the reach of a majority of our
people.
To clause 2 the following:
(a) by actions as well as words, in co-
operating closely with all commodity
groups, to build effective marketing
machinery; and
(b) by dispelling the uncertainty con-
cerning the hog marketing plan with an
immediate announcement of the postpone-
ment of the vote until at least one year
after the plan has been in full operation.
Now the vote is on the amendment to the
amendment; that is the amendment moved
by Mr. MacDonald, and seconded by Mr.
Gisborn.
Will all hon. members who are in favour
of the amendment to the amendment please
say aye.
As many as are opposed, please say "nay."
The amendment to the amendment was
negatived on division as follows:
YEAS
NAYS
Gisborn
Allan (Haldimand-
Gordon
Norfolk)
Innes
Allen (Middlesex
MacDonald
South)
Manley
Auld
1046
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
YEAS— Continued
NAYS— Continued
Nixon
Beckett
Oliver
Boyer
Reaume
Cass
Spence
Cathcart
Thomas
Cecile
Whicher
Chaput
Wintermeyer
Child
Worton
Collings
Wren
Connell
-14
Cowling
Daley
Dunbar
Dunlop
Dymond
Edwards
Elliott
Fishleigh
Frost (Bracondale)
Frost (Victoria)
Fullerton
Goodfellow
Graham
Griesinger
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hanna
Herbert
Jackson
Janes
Johnston (Parry
Sound)
Johnston (Simcoe
Centre)
Jolley
Kerr
Lavergne
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
Mapledoram
Morningstar
Morrow
Murdoch
Myers
McCue
McNeil
Nickle
Noden
Parry
Phillips
Price
Rankin
Robarts
Roberts
Robson
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
NAYS— Continued
Spooner
Stewart (Middlesex
North)
Stewart (Parkdale)
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-69
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to
the amendment lost.
Now the vote is on the amendment to the
motion moved by Mr. Oliver and seconded by
Mr. Nixon.
Will all hon. members who are in favour of
the amendment please say "aye."
As many as are opposed, please say "nay."
The amendment to the motion was negat-
ived on division as follows:
YEAS
Gisborn
Gordon
Innes
MacDonald
Manley
Nixon
Oliver
Reaume
Spence
Thomas
Whicher
Wintermeyer
Worton
Wren
-14
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Norfolk)
Allen (Middlesex
South)
Auld
Beckett
Boyer
Cass
Cathcart
Cecile
Chaput
Child
Collings
Connell
Cowling
Daley
Dunbar
Dunlop
Dymond
Edwards
Elliott
Fishleigh
Frost (Bracondale)
Frost (Victoria)
Fullerton
Goodfellow
Graham
Griesinger
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hanna
Herbert
Jackson
Janes
Johnston (Parry
Sound)
MARCH 20, 1958
1047
NAYS— Continued
Johnston (Simcoe
Centre)
Jolley
Kerr
Lavergne
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
Mapledoram
Morningstar
Morrow
Murdoch
Myers
McCue
McNeil
Nickle
Noden
Parry
Phillips
Price
Rankin
Robarts
Roberts
Robson
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Spooner
Stewart (Middlesex
North)
Stewart (Parkdale)
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
-69
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The vote will now be on the main motion.
The motion was agreed to on division as
follows:
YEAS
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Gisborn
Norfolk)
Gordon
Allen (Middlesex
Innes
South)
MacDonald
Auld
Manley
Beckett
Nixon
Boyer
Oliver
Cass
Reaume
Cathcart
Spence
Cecile
Thomas
Chaput
Whicher
Child
Wintermeyer
Collings
Worton
Connell
Wren
Cowling
-14
YEAS— Continued
Daley
Dunbar
Dunlop
Dymond
Edwards
Elliott
Fishleigh
Frost (Bracondale)
Frost (Victoria)
Fullerton
Goodfellow
Graham
Griesinger
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hanna
Herbert
Jackson
Janes
Johnston (Parry
Sound)
Johnston (Simcoe
Centre)
Jolley
Kerr
Lavergne
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
Mapledoram
Morningstar
Morrow
Murdoch
Myers
McCue
McNeil
Nickle
Noden
Parry
Phillips
Price
Rankin
Robarts
Roberts
Robson
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Spooner
Stewart (Middlesex
North)
Stewart (Parkdale)
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-69
1048
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Clerk of the House: Resolved that an
humble address be presented to the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor as follows:
To the Honourable J. Keiller Mackay,
d.s.o., v.d., ll.d., Lieutenant-Governor
of the Province of Ontario.
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and
loyal subjects of the legislative assembly of
the province of Ontario now in session, beg
leave to offer our humble thanks to Your
Honour for the gracious speech which Your
Honour has addressed to us.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of supply, Mr. H. M.
Allen in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS
AND FORESTS
Hon. C. E. Mapledoram (Minister of Lands
and Forests ) : Mr. Chairman, I should like to
point out that the management and develop-
ment of our renewable natural resources is a
continuing business requiring foresight and
long-range planning. Perpetuation of our
forest resources in particular, and of the
industries dependent on them, will always be
a major factor in the provincial economy.
Therefore, such new provisions as are in-
cluded in the estimates are designed to meet,
not only immediate needs, but also to prepare
for the future growth and requirements of
our population. Planning to provide for the
needs and prosperity of the people is one of
the prime responsibilities of government, and
has always been, I am happy to say, one of
the policies on which this administration has
been strongest.
Of paramount concern in the year ahead
will be the continuation and expansion of
policies and programmes on which we already
are embarked. This is especially true of the
increase and improvement of our parks, which
were used by nearly 3 million people last
year, and of project regeneration which we
started two years ago.
The provincial parks have proved to be
immensely popular. As the need becomes
evident, we may acquire more park lands to
meet projected needs, and develop more than
40 parks which are in need of immediate
attention to bring them to the high standards
desired by the public.
We have made provision in the estimates
to carry forward and expand project regenera-
tion. We believe it is part of the most far-
sighted and productive programme for
sustained yield and fullest utilization of our
forest resources yet devised by any govern-
ment in this country.
Even though the forest fire loss last year
was only a little more than one-fifth of the
1956 toll, it is most essential that we be ever
on the alert. We must remember that the
forest fire problem presents a constant and
dangerous threat.
We have brought our forest protection staff,
including our air service, to a high degree of
skill and efficiency. We have developed new
techniques for detection and control of fire
on land and in the air. We do not intend to
relax our vigilance in guarding our precious
forest resources.
Efficient wildlife management requires
that provision be made in the estimates for
continuation of our fish and wildlife inven-
tories, with special emphasis on the wolf
census which we began this winter.
The recurring tragedies in hunting and
fishing expeditions, with considerable loss of
life, have pointed up the urgent need for
making available to the public special train-
ing in safety practices connected with these
outdoor sports.
Research in many fields requires support.
We plan to intensify studies of forests and
wildlife, and also our participation in Great
Lakes fisheries research.
Turning first to the management of the
fish and wildlife resources, we believe that
the time has come for measures to be taken
to safeguard the lives of inexperienced peo-
ple who use the woods for hunting and
recreation. We are studying the problem
of safety in the woods, particularly the pos-
sibility of making available some system of
training, both in woods travel and gun han-
dling. Such training, if made available on
a voluntary basis, might have some value
in reducing hazards in the woods, as well
as providing the facilities to educate the
youth of our country who will be the hunters
and woods travellers of tomorrow.
Last year, we provided for additional sums
of money for fisheries and wildlife work in
the province. This was in recognition of
the fact that there has been an increase in
the demands on our fish and game resources,
due to the increase in our population and in
our prosperity. On the other hand, the areas
MARCH 20, 1958
1049
available for these pursuits are decreasing
because of the encroachments of industrial
and other developments.
The lamprey control programme being
carried on in the Great Lakes has shown
that lake trout are unusually susceptible, in
that they may be killed by the lamprey
before they have had a chance to reproduce.
From the information that we have on lake
trout spawning habits, we are considering
the possibility of increasing this species by
the provision of artificial spawning beds.
As lamprey control proceeds, we must
prepare to restock depleted areas. One of
the most valuable lines of approach is to
produce a rapidly maturing variety of lake
trout which will be less vulnerable to lam-
prey attack. Tests are being conducted to
determine if the splake, a cross between
lake trout and speckled trout, will survive
in the Great Lakes. It may be necessary
to modify our hatchery programme to pro-
vide for increased stocks of lake trout.
In the realm of fisheries, factors of water
temperature, depth, currents, and bottom
materials have a great bearing on fish popula-
tions. Consequently the department has been
actively engaged in physics research in Lake
Simcoe and the Great Lakes. Much Of the
work has been made possible by the
generosity of the Royal Canadian Navy, which
has made vessels available to our staff at no
charge.
Deer hunters will be glad to know that we
had an extremely large fawn crop last year. It
is the largest crop recorded during our inten-
sive studies of the subject, which were started
10 years ago, and unless severe weather
intervenes, a very good carry-over is expected.
The moose situation is reported better than
ever in the western part of the province,
with little overall change in the eastern part.
The study of big game, hitherto confined
to deer and moose, is being extended to the
woodland caribou in the northwestern part
of the province. The caribou situation in the
Patricia area has improved greatly in the
past few years, due in part to the very fine
co-operation of the Indians.
Last year, we commenced a study of wolves
to determine their numbers and their relation-
ship to domestic and wild animals. This is
to be a 3-year programme to provide us with
a method of controlling the depredations of
wolves. An assessment of the wolf bounty
as a means of wolf control is near completion.
We have had success in measuring the move-
ments of individual wolves.
We have established a group of extra con-
servation officers who will be given valuable
experience by being moved to fill in where
they are required in our fish and game pro-
tection programme. As soon as a vacancy
occurs, it can be filled by a member of this
group, who then becomes eligible for training
at the Ontario forest ranger school.
Our programme of Crown land surveys in
connection with the management and disposi-
tion of Crown lands has been expanded
to meet the demands of our increasing
population.
Greater efforts are being directed to the
continuing programme of land-use planning
to achieve the best multiple use of public
lands.
In January of this year, the province entered
into two agreements with the federal govern-
ment to relieve seasonal unemployment. The
first agreement is for the construction of
forest roads for protection and other forest
management purposes, and is on a 50-50
cost-sharing basis. This agreement is to end
on June 30, 1958, and the total expenditures
incurred are not to exceed $1.5 million.
The second agreement, also on a cost-
sharing basis, is for the development of pro-
vincial parks. This agreement is to end on
May 31, 1958, and the total expenditures
incurred under it are not to exceed $1
million.
Shortly after these agreements were ar-
ranged, men were put to work in various
parts of the province on the projects, and
up to the present time approximately $1.3
million has been allotted for roads and $970,-
000 for parks.
Under this scheme we have, at the present
time, approximately 225 miles of roads under
construction, and work in progress in 18
parks. The working force of nearly 2,000
men is divided about equally between the
two projects.
We are continuing our programme of build-
ing logging roads to open up areas of timber
in need of harvesting.
I come now to a part of the work of the
department which concerns the health and
happiness of all our people. I refer to our
provincial parks, readily accessible and ade-
quately serviced, where worries may be
forgotten occasionally under the spell of the
great outdoors.
This province has gone forward to its
primary position in our great nation through
the initiative, energy, and the vision of a
virile and healthy people. Our forbears drew
their strength from the land, and it is back
1050
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to nature that we must turn frequently to
replenish it.
Some 3 million people enjoyed our parks
last year. Some parks, near large population
centres, even found it difficult at times to
accommodate those who converged upon them
on public holidays. The need increases with
our growing population. We must expand
and develop more park lands if we are to
meet their demands and fulfil our respon-
sibilities.
The shorter work week has provided more
time for outings and for travel. Our fine
highway system brings park lands within
easy reach of most of us.
The expansion of our parks programme
has been rapid in the past 3 years. Not too
long ago, we had only 6 provincial parks.
Today we have more than 100 and we expect
to add about 20 more.
This government began, in 1954, to build
a system of parks of which future generations
could be proud. It is to carry on this plan
that we are providing some $3 million in
this year's estimates.
We now have a large proportion of the
land we need for our parks programme.
Our next major step, of course, is the de-
velopment of these parks to the stage where
they will benefit the maximum number of
people.
I think there will be general agreement
with the remarks of the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) when he said in his budget
speech:
Few policies of the province are, in the
long run, likely to prove more rewarding
than the establishment of provincial parks.
The development and improvement of our
parks is carried out under a master plan
providing for all necessary facilities. These
include extensive camping and parking area
development and construction of roads and
trails.
Nature museums and nature trails are
operated in Algonquin, Quetico, Rondeau,
Presqu'ile, Sibley and Serpent Mounds pro-
vincial parks, and have proved very popular.
In our larger parks, such as Algonquin
and Quetico, we are being careful to retain
extensive areas in their natural state, safe
from civilization, so to speak, and accessible
only to the canoeist and hiker. Such wilder-
ness areas, we believe, must remain precious
to us, far from the humdrum of everyday life
and yet, like Algonquin, within brief travel-
ling time from large population centres.
All our parks play a vital part in our wel-
fare and in our economy. We plan to main-
tain them as the finest anywhere.
I would like to turn now, Mr. Chairman,
to the question of forest protection. Because
we have had a successful fire year, with
few bad fires, we must not allow ourselves
to be lulled into a false sense of security.
Hon. members will realize that because of
extreme weather conditions we could be
subjected to a real test of our men, equip-
ment and organization.
To guard our forests and vacation lands,
we have one of the finest protective organi-
zations, and an air service unique of its
kind. The budget estimates for this service
are now sufficient to take care of normal
requirements.
There are very definite reasons why it is
necessary to maintain the present level and
make provision for additional funds from
time to time. In the 1957 fire season, there
were almost 1,500 forest fires— an increase of
12 per cent, over the past 5-year average.
This increase in fire occurrence is coupled
with a marked increase in the number of
people using the forest, and by the addition
of some 25 townships to the area to be pro-
tected from fire. It is obvious that we cannot
relax our vigilance.
In regard to fire damage, I am pleased to
report that the area burned over was 29 per
cent, below the average for the past 5 years.
The area burned was slightly over 46,000
acres, which is less than .5 per cent, of the
total accessible forest area of the province.
It is a matter of deep concern, however,
that over 85 per cent, of the total fires were
caused by human carelessness. This, we feel,
indicates a real necessity for a much greater
effort towards effective forest fire prevention
education. As a matter of interest, it may be
noted that over one-half of the fires attributed
to human carelessness last year were caused
by campers and smokers. They alone
accounted for the burning of more than
17,000 acres.
It is evident that the public must play its
part to cut down the needless waste of our
valuable resources which, after all, are public
property. We are seeking the co-operation of
the public to this end by increasing our
public relations programme in fire prevention.
While weather was an important factor in
confining the spread of fires, we feel that
credit is due to our efficient organization in
detecting fires quickly and following with
prompt suppressive action.
MARCH 20, 1958
1051
Although we still have tragic fire years,
such as 1936, 1948 and 1955, the trend for
each decade for the past 40 years shows a
great reduction in the average area burned.
We feel that this is due in large part to an
efficient forest protection service.
We are going forward with experiments
and the formulation of new techniques. Under
an arrangement with the federal government,
radar is used to track lightning storms, the
cause of many fires.
Our latest, and perhaps most promising,
development is the aerial water-dropping
equipment developed by our own staff. This
is now being manufactured so that all of our
Otter and Beaver aircraft will be equipped
for the 1958 fire season. This technique holds
great promise as a delaying action weapon
until fire-fighting crews arrive to take over.
Great interest has been shown in this develop-
ment by other forest protection agencies
throughout the world.
The general decrease in area burned in
recent years indicates an improvement in
forest fire protection as a direct result of more
adequate funds being made available. At the
same time, it emphasizes the need of a con-
stant strengthening of the organization to
take care of a problem which is continually
growing in magnitude.
The field work of the forest resources
inventory begun in 1947 has now been com-
pleted. The total area of the province covered
by this inventory is 285,000 square miles, and
extends from southern Ontario north to
approximately 52 degrees latitude. Nineteen
district inventory reports have now been
issued, and the remaining 3 will be available
by next fall.
This year we will commence a 10-year
programme to re-photograph the accessible
forests of the province in order to keep the
inventory up to date. As we see it at present,
this programme will cover the forests which
have been, or will be, under development
during the next few years, and will total
about 125,000 square miles.
It is planned to photograph 12,500 square
miles each year, commencing this year with
the North Bay and Pembroke districts. This
will give us a perpetual inventory of our
forest resources.
Hon. members may recall that two years
ago we started project regeneration with a
view to substantially increasing work on
regeneration in the province. During these
two years, we have spent an additional
$1,715 million on an expanded regeneration
programme which includes methods of obtain-
ing natural regeneration, increased nursery
production to permit a large planting pro-
gramme on Crown lands, protection of
regeneration from insects and disease and
on research.
The money spent on natural regeneration
has been used to develop means of improving
the forest seed-bed to increase the germination
of seed, changes in cutting methods to increase
available seed supply and survival of seed-
lings, and the spraying of competing brush
with chemicals known as herbicides or
silvicides. This programme of cultural treat-
ment in 1957 covered about 14,000 acres
across the province. In addition, regeneration
surveys were conducted, and some access
roads were built.
The use of herbicides to kill worthless
competing shrubs such as alder and hazel,
thereby allowing valuable young conifers to
grow vigorously in full sunlight, is emerging
as one of the most significant aids to the
development of valuable forest crops.
These chemicals are usually applied by
small low-flying aircraft; however, this year
we are planning to try helicopters, particularly
in situations where precision applications are
required.
Although we have done some of this spray-
ing on a fairly large scale, we are at the same
time continuing to do research to increase
our efficiency by determining the most effec-
tive formulations of chemicals and the best
time of year for application.
The increase in the reforestation programme
has included the development of 6 new nur-
series in northern Ontario, and expansion of
several of the older nurseries. There has
also been some increase in planting on Crown
lands, but this cannot be greatly increased
until the new nurseries are in production.
In order to protect existing young stands
of white pine, and to prepare new sites for
planting of white pine, we conducted an
active blister rust control programme. This
work involves the removal from the vicinity
of the trees of currant and gooseberry plants
which assist the spread of the disease.
The research effort connected with forest
regeneration has been directed towards find-
ing improved methods of getting both natural
and artificial regeneration, conducting forest
land-type classifications, investigations to
develop superior tree strains, investigations on
the effect of deer browsing on yellow birch
regeneration, and the effect of mice and other
rodents on various tree seeds and seedlings.
The activities of deer and mice in certain
areas often make forest regeneration pro-
grammes costly or ineffective.
1052
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I should like for a moment to summarize
the overall planting and nursery programme
of the department conducted during the past
year, and to refer to the expansion in this
field which took place last year and which
will continue into the immediate future.
On Crown lands, we have planted 9.5 mil-
lion trees on approximately 19,000 acres. It
is planned to increase this to 12 million trees
during the new fiscal year.
Areas managed in co-operation with coun-
ties and conservation authorities increased
from 120,000 acres to nearly 125,000 acres.
In addition to the protection and manage-
ment of these forests, improvement thinnings
were made, and on 4,500 acres we planted 4.5
million trees. It is planned to plant 5 million
trees on these areas in 1958.
Approximately 12.5 million trees were fur-
nished to owners of private lands, and we
intend to increase this to 15 million in 1958.
During the past year, the 5 existing large
nurseries were expanded, and the 6 small
nurseries which have been established and
sown with seed will produce about 9 million
trees. The total output from the nurseries
last year was 26.5 million trees, and this will
be increased to over 30 million during the
coming year. Two additional large nurseries
will be started during 1958, in the Kenora
and Swastika districts of northern Ontario, so
that yearly production should be over 60
million trees by 1962 or 1963.
We are encouraged by the results of the
regeneration work done so far and plan to
continue the programme. However, starting
this year there will be some change in em-
phasis. Two years ago I stated in the Legis-
lature that the participation of industry would
be required in the programme within two
or three years, and that there would be
discussions with industry. We have had dis-
cussions with industry this year, with the
result that we are satisfied that industry has
the staff, the equipment, the labour force,
and in most cases the willingness to employ
their facilities in the regeneration programme.
It is in the interests of 3 groups— the prov-
ince, which owns the forest; industry, whose
continued existence is based on the forest;
and labour, whose members get their liveli-
hood from the forest— to co-operate in this
programme and ensure that it is a success.
It should be noted that industry now
employs about 300 foresters in Ontario and
the department employs about 200. We look
to foresters from both industry and govern-
ment to give technical leadership to the
whole programme of forest management.
The province proposes — and this appears
from our discussions to have the agreement
of industry in general— that those companies
having staff and facilities should help with
the work of regeneration, and that this should
be done in accordance with the department's
standards and specifications.
These co-operative projects will start when
their details have been agreed upon by the
province and the company concerned. Re-
generation work on the limits of those
companies that are unable to participate in
the programme, because they lack suitable
staff and equipment, will be arranged for
by the department. Obviously, a great deal of
work will be required of the staffs of both
the department and industry, and we will
need the good-will and co-operation of
industry if they are to direct the necessary
technical skill to the work that must be done.
We feel assured from our discussions with
industry that their co-operation and help
will be forthcoming.
This is a big programme. It involves
tremendous areas and a great variety of con-
ditions, many of which are still subjects of
study by our foresters in both industry and
government.
It is our plan to give the programme a
5-year trial period, by the end of which we
hope to have overcome the growing pains and
problems that are inherent in it.
Then we should be ready to move on to
the next part of the long-term programme
which follows logically after regeneration—
that is, the forest improvement programme.
The forest improvement programme will
call for thinnings, release cuttings, and
removal of inferior trees and species on those
areas where such treatment is economically
justifiable. The planning of the programme
has already started and will continue to be
developed over the next 5 years. This stage
will include some emphasis on the forestry
measures needed to improve the forest for
wildlife, although this is already being con-
sidered in the regeneration work.
We already have 4 or 5 years' experience
as a result of doing this work in a modest
way. The programme has been to carry out
very intensive forest management of a pilot-
plant nature on small, accessible areas which
show promise of a good financial return.
The guiding principles are to practice good
forest genetics by using the best quality trees
as seed source, conserve soil quality, fully
utilize the productivity of the area, and
produce high quality timber.
MARCH 20, 1958
1053
During 1957, operations to improve the
quantity and quality of young trees were
carried out on almost 1,000 acres of mature
stands and cut-overs; and the tending of
young growth was conducted on over 5,000
acres. This programme will be continued
during the coming year, and it is largely on
the experience gained in this work that the
forest improvement programme of the future
will be based.
Ontario is pioneering in its forest manage-
ment programme. All phases of forest man-
agement will be properly integrated and
developed, step by step, on a sound forestry,
biological and economic basis.
On vote 901:
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North): I
believe it is the policy this year to make some
preliminary introductory remarks from the
Opposition side of this House, and in that
respect I would approach this in the same
manner that we did yesterday.
We appreciate the person of the hon. Mini-
ster of this department and his executive
ability, and there are features of his report
today that we heartily endorse.
I think we are all in agreement with his
parks programme, his reforestation set-up, and
the fact that he has made a deliberate effort
to derive sufficient income generally to pay
for the costs and expenses of his department.
With respect to the criticism that I would
like to direct toward this particular depart-
ment, I would emphasize firstly, the pulp and
paper aspect. Hon. members will recall, Mr.
Chairman, that a year ago many of us on this
side of the House took severe objection to the
so-called logging tax. We criticized that tax
in several repects, but basically we criticized
the tax because we contended that the indus-
try was in a period of change and flux
wherein it could be adversely affected by the
imposition of a tax.
I think we can come today and demonstrate
in graphic form that this industry was in
exactly the same condition that we contended
a year ago. In the interval since we last met,
this industry has declined in several respects.
For example, the production at large across
Canada, and this typifies Ontario as well, is
down almost 10 per cent.— 9.8 per cent, I
believe. The net earnings, the earnings as
such of the respective companies involved in
this industry, are down on an average of 25
per cent.
I would remind hon. members that the
past year, that is the year 1957 of which we
are talking, was in part a good year and in
part a bad year. But 1958 is bound to be a
bad year in all respects, and I am sure the
earnings of the companies will average below
the 25 per cent, or more decline to which I
have made reference.
There are other factors that we pointed
out last year that I would like to emphasize as
a preliminary to my argument today. Hon.
members recall that we contended that this
particular industry had been picked out as
a whipping boy over and above all other
industries in the country, or in the province
at large. No other industry in the province
was subject to anything over and above the
normal 2 per cent, corporate tax. This indus-
try was subjected to an additional tax on
profits in the amount of almost 9 per cent.
Translated, it is an effected tax on income
of approximately half, or I believe we treated
it last year as 4.5 per cent.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): So is
mining.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I am sorry, the hon.
Prime Minister is quite right, mining and
this industry, there is no question of that.
But this particular industry and mining were
subjected to an unusual form of tax. That, I
believe, we criticized.
The factors I want to point out are that, at
the present time, this great industry— which
I believe is our number one basic industry,
our largest exporter in the American markets
particularly— is subject to some new adverse
conditions.
Despite the growing competition from the
southern states, and let us make no mistake
about this, this industry is required to produce
pulp and paper profitably. There is no point
in talking about logs in the north and trees
growing on fertile ground. Those trees must
be processed in a manner that is profitable
for the United States market, where 90 per
cent, of the total production is sold, and in
that country competition is growing very rap-
idly, particularly from that area generally
called the "southern pine district", the south-
eastern portion of the United States.
To emphasize my point, the portion of the
total American market that the southern pine
people are supplying is growing rapidly at the
present time. I believe that, whereas a year
ago it was something in the nature of— the
hon. Minister will correct me because I am
not exactly sure of this— 10 per cent., now it
is up to about 15 per cent.
I am simply emphasizing this factor. This
industry is subject to the normal rules of
economics, they have to produce the products
at a profit. In the south they have cheaper
1054
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
labour, power, and transportation than we
have here, and let us make no mistake about
it. Here we have one great advantage. We
have a better log, we have a better tree to
start with, but we have certain disadvantages.
Among these is the fact that, traditionally
and by habit, this product is sold at a price
that is determined in the United States;
freight rates are not added. Therefore the
selling price, when it is quoted in so many
dollars per ton, means that the producer
receives that many dollars per ton laid down
in New York.
This means that our industries must absorb
the freight charges, and they must absorb
the various costs of production that are
involved in Canada.
In addition they receive not Canadian dol-
lars but American dollars for payment. Now
hon. members know, better than I, that at
the present time the Canadian dollar is at a
premium, and accordingly when the product
is sold in the United States the industry does
not receive 100 cents on the dollar but some-
thing less.
Fortunately, the premium has declined in
the course of the last year, so that particular
factor is working to the advantage of the
industry, but it is still a great and serious
factor to be considered.
I say to hon. members that, in view of
these facts, and in view of the fact that we
are determined in Ontario— I hope we are,
and I am sure I concede this point to the
government— to maintain the status quo of
this industry. We are determined to see it
prosper. What better can we do than instil
real confidence into this industry, not only
confidence but encouragement? How does
one encourage a person to take risks? One
does not do so by prejudicing him, or adding
a load to a burden that he is already carrying
which he feels is unfair.
The fact of the matter is that the industry
does feel that this tax is unfair. The hon.
Minister may argue that it is not, but I do
not think that there are many hon. members
in this House who contend that the industry
•does not feel that the tax is unfair. As a
result of its mental attitude, as a result of
its feeling that it has been dealt with unfairly,
this industry is not in the position that we
would like it to be. It is not in the position
where it is ready and willing to go out and
invest and reinvest in its productive capacities
to increase its production and regain the
American market.
It is concerned about the possibility that
maybe this government will impose still more
taxes. It is concerned about the real possibility
that the southern pine producers will gain
more advantage than they have at the present
time, in the nature of lower cost production,
of lower freight rates, and the other several
factors to which I have referred. These are
serious conditions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cyril
Young is over there, and I am sure he agrees
with me.
Mr. Chairman, these are serious considera-
tions, I know that we have a real problem
here. I know that the government is going to
tell me: "Well, so what?"— It does not like to
impose taxes, it does not like to impose this
particular tax. They have just said that they
are in favour of balancing the budget with
respect to this particular department. Now,
how in the world are they going to do it?
I will acknowledge those factors. But I say,
Mr. Chairman, that one wrong or two wrongs
do not make a right. The fact of the matter
is that, in my opinion, this is an inequitable
tax, this is an unfair tax, and as such it
should be eliminated.
Where will the government derive revenue
elsewhere? Well I do not think that is my
basic responsibility. But on the other hand,
in fairness and in debate, I would say this. It
does seem to me that the time has come when
we must acknowledge an elementary fact,
and that is that it costs The Department of
Lands and Forests a good deal of money to
reforest its plantations in the north, and to
generally care for this industry. I think that
much of the benefits derived from the profits
of the industry goes basically to the federal
government. I do not think we get our fair
share, and it seems to me that the ideal
solution is to require of the federal govern-
ment an arrangement whereby our costs,
whatever our costs in this department are, be
reimbursed to us in the nature of a rebate of
the income tax that is paid to that particular
government.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
statement is due to the change in govern-
ment at Ottawa.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I made exactly the same
statement last year. I have always felt that
way in this respect.
But I do not feel it is fair to add an
extra obligation to this industry in Ontario,
when the industry is required to compete with
other provinces in the Dominion and with
other states in the United States.
I think, to the extent that we can keep this
industry in a most competitive position, in
an ideal position, and impose less taxes on
it than elsewhere, we will be doing a great
service to ourselves and to the north.
MARCH 20, 1958
1055
The hon. Minister of Lands and Forests is
as anxious about the development of the
north as I. I am sure he has spent more time
in thinking about it. I do not think that
anybody is going to contend that is not our
objective.
But I say to hon. members that those trees
were there when the Indians were there, and
unless they are processed profitably we are
never going to accomplish what we really
want, and that is a maximum of use of our
great natural resources in this particular
province. We are blessed naturally by this
industry and by the trees. I do not believe,
like the hon. member for York South does,
that just because those trees grow on Crown
land, therefore all the profit from that indus-
try should be diverted back to the govern-
ment.
I believe there is a certain element of truth
in what the hon. member says, but instead,
I would suggest this:
What we are really interested in is develop-
ing that northland, not to the advantage of
one or two millionaires or anything of that
sort, but developing it to the advantage of
people generally, and more people in northern
Ontario.
A good healthy industry means jobs in the
north, and what I am really driving for, and
arguing for, is a maximum of jobs in that
particular industry. The way to get it is to
keep the industry in good financial condition
and in a competitive mood. I suggest that this
tax is the antithesis of that objective.
I say to hon. members that it would be
much better to rebate the tax that they
speak of to the industries, on condition that
they invest it in capital production, and
reinvest it to increase their capacity and
opportunity to do business. That, I think,
would be a demonstration that this govern-
ment is really interested in the industry as
such.
If this government is determined to make
the industry successful, it will give them the
confidence that is required to invest more
and more money to produce more and more
jobs.
Now, like this government, I would like
to see the ownership of this industry spread
as widely as possible. I for one think the
day will come when more and more Cana-
dians will participate in the ownership. I
think one of the great challenges of this
day is to diversify our public ownership of
property and corporation as such. I think that
if we will consider some novel means of
rebating income tax, and rebating other taxes
to individuals, on condition that they reinvest
in our natural resources, we will accomplish
this objective to a large extent.
We would diversify ownership, we would
make these people think that they were part
and parcel of the industry and make more
Canadians feel exactly that.
I feel that private industry is the only
method by which we can effectively develop
this industry. I do not believe in a socialized
form of development, but I think we should
do what we can under private ownership to
extend the opportunity of others to participate
in this natural resource.
We have an obligation to do whatever can
be done, even though it be in novel fashion.
I say to the hon. Minister that I hope that
he agrees with me in some of the things that
I am saying, because I know that he is
interested in the industry and I am sure that
the criticisms that I am giving have been
given by both management and labour. It
seems to me that they are elementary
economic propositions.
The only answer that can be made is that
the government needs money to balance this
particular department's budget.
Granted that it needs the money, but the
fact of the matter is that the government
should not take it in an inequitable fashion,
because if it does, then it is doing an injustice
to the industry, and eventually it is going to
find that the industry will undergo the sort
of recessive period that we had several years
ago.
This industry 25 years ago was a great
industry, and then 20 years ago it collapsed
materially, as hon. members know, and re-
gained its position only 10 years ago. It has
not expanded its facilities fantastically in the
interval. It has not had the opportunity to
invest a lot of money. It is true that, while
we are dealing with large figures and large
numbers of dollars, the investor has not gained
fantastically. If he is receiving 5 per cent, of
the total earnings of the industry, he is lucky.
I hope the government will acknowledge,
or will do something about, what I think was
a mistake a year ago, and will take some
positive steps to relieve the industry of the
burden— or to assure the industry that it will
will be relieved of the burden— in the near
future and, in the alternative, acknowledge
to the industry that this government's basic
concern is the welfare not of the capitalist,
not of the managers, but of the industry as
such, and primarily of those people who get
jobs and derive money from the industry. As
such, I say, this government must necessarily
1056
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be interested in the welfare of the fiscal
policies of this industry. I would hope that
this government would have some idea how,
what has been termed by many to be an
inequitable tax, can be relieved.
Now the hon. Minister knows— and I am
sure he will have examined it more carefully
than I— that a report of the Canadian tax
foundation, on the various industries for the
last 10 years in Canada, was prepared by Mr.
Moore and published since we last met. I
would quote only a few passages, one from
page 211:
Careful consideration of the logging taxes
leads to two broad criticisms. First, there
is no jurisdiction for the tax unless it is to
take the place of all or a portion of the
Crown stumpage charges; and second, if
tax there must be, the discarded methods
for calculating loss and profit are preferable
to the new law.
Ontario's comparable advantage in rela-
tions to southern pine states has greatly
declined since the war and the improvision
of a differential tax upon its fourth industry
appears particularly ill advised.
Now, I do not want to quote at more
length, and there may be an opportunity to
base this issue as we go through the estimates.
I merely want to fortify my general observa-
tion with the observations of experts in the
field, and I do hope that, in a statesman-like
manner, the hon. Minister has given this great
thought, and that he is prepared to acknowl-
edge the concern of the industry, and will be
in a position to give us his impressions on
what should be done to relieve the industry
of this unfair competitive position.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would just give to the
House a little of the history of this question,
so that the hon. members may more clearly
draw their conclusions, and I would ask my
hon. friend— when he has heard the history
of the question— to make any amendments,
which he sees fit, to the proposal which he
has made this afternoon.
May I say first of all that all of the prov-
inces have now, as far as I know— or have had
for many years— royalty tax. It is on royalty
taxes that the province of Alberta makes the
fabulous sums it does out of natural gas.
It is on royalty tax that a great proportion of
mine income and forestry income that we
have received have been based.
Now, what are the facts? They are these:
All of the minerals in the ground belong
to the people of Ontario, on all of the Crown
land where they have been found. All of
the timber that grows on about 85 per cent,
of the land area of Ontario belongs to the
people of Ontario, it is theirs. Therefore, they
have the right to sell land.
Now, my hon. friend is proposing the with-
drawal of these taxes. In effect, he proposes
that these great resources be given away with-
out consideration. I say that is completely
and totally unsound.
May I give the background of the present
royalty tax. Royalty taxes really run back
into the days of the initiating of mining in
the province of Ontario. It was felt that
in mining— and I think that this is sound— the
ton of ore which lies in the ground below
belongs to the people of Ontario. Now, it can
be brought from the ground only if it is
profitable so to do. The point was this,
whether— and this was determined years and
years ago, half a century ago— there should
be a tax of 1 cent a ton, or 2 cents a ton, or
10 cents a ton. On what should it be based?
It was determined, and I think very soundly,
that the tax would be on the basis of the
profit earned. That was the situation.
Now that simply means this, that if the
attempt is made to take that ton of ore from
the earth, or from the ground, and it is not
profitable, then there is not any charge. Now
then, if it is profitable, then the province
receives an amount which is metered to the
amount of the profit. Now, I think my hon.
friend will say that is entirely fair.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I agree fully with what
the hon. Prime Minister has said this far.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right. Now we turn
to forestry, to which he was referring.
We have had stumpage taxes in this
province for many many years. Stumpage
taxes, as the hon. member knows, are based
upon certain factors. Formerly they used the
Doyle rule which has been abandoned
recently for another rule, the Ontario rule.
The Ontario rule is, of course, a fair and
equitable rule. The old Doyle rule had a
lot of over-run in it, and in small logs that
meant that the over-run was very inequitable.
As a matter of fact, we were running against
problems in the very large logs. I think it
operated in favour of the province, at least
that is my recollection of it.
Now concerning the stumpage tax which
is still applied in Ontario, it was determined
that there would be so much per 1,000
board feet of estimated content of the logs
paid to the province as the stumpage due.
Now the question arose as to whether that
stumpage due should be increased, and may
MARCH 20, 1958
1057
I say that the industry itself proposed that,
instead of raising the stumpage dues, that
there should be substituted, for that, some-
thing that would meter the matter of profit
grants, and I think that is entirely fair.
It means that the industries pay to the
people of Ontario an amount which is gauged
upon the profits of that concern, rather than
increasing the amount which would be un-
changeable if it were placed on a stumpage
basis.
Now that was the situation. In both of
those cases the tax, or the amount payable
for those resources, is fair and equitable.
The problem that my hon. friend raises is
the problem of provincial rates and I am
not one who believes that we should give
up our rates. I am not in favour of that.
I think our problem is to preserve and pro-
tect the province's rates, and to that extent,
I am for provincial rates. I think that the
rates that were given to our people, and the
settlement at the time of Confederation
should be preserved and cultivated by us.
Now where does the problem commence?
The problem came in this way. In the
dark days of federal-provincial relations, in
the days of hon. Mr. Ilsley, it came about
that hon. Mr. Ilsley was determined to cen-
tralize all of these taxes down in Ottawa,
and he said that it was part of the King
policy of 1945, that they would recognize
no profit tax at all.
As a matter of fact, they aimed at pushing
the provinces out of that field and that was
where much of the argument of 1945 arose.
Now hon. Mr. Ilsley was prepared— I do not
want to bring him in as a member of the
judiciary now, because when these people
become jurists they get above the affairs
of these assemblies and Parliament, but I
am talking about him as a personality, per-
haps I should say the former Minister of
Finance back in 1945 and therefore I will
amend my remarks in that way— he was pre-
pared to recognize the stumpage charged by
the province as deductible expense before the
calculation of tax, but he was not prepared to
accept the royalty that was charged by the
province in connection with mining as a
deductible expense.
He said that it was a corporation income
tax, and therefore he would not recognize
it. He was endeavouring to push the prov-
inces—Ontario and Quebec notably— out of
fields which belonged to them.
There was very great controversy on that
point. As a result, the federal government
made this proposal, that they would recognize
royalties imposed by the provinces. I men-
tioned Ontario and Quebec and we could
include British Columbia in that. At any
rate, the federal government agreed to recog-
nize the royalties that were calculated on
their formula, to meet the provinces' posi-
tion, and that was done.
Now they made, as deductible items, both
royalties that were charged on profits that
were related to or came from the ground,
and the logs that were taken from the forest
domains.
The situation is simply this, that at the
present time the direct stumpage tax is
treated as a deductible expense. Our inten-
tions have been, and are now, that the
federal government should recognize these
resources as belonging to the province, and
as a matter of fact should allow the prov-
ince, as a totally deductible item, a certain
proportion of what would be judged as a
fair and reasonable royalty. I still think that
is the case. As a matter of fact, we said so
last November at that famous conference
which brought so much to this province, and
which I am so hopeful of in its continuation.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Did they agree with
the hon. Prime Minister?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, there are a lot of
things that we did not get around to dis-
cussing. We only got around to discussing
$22 million worth, and we did not get around
to some of the other items. But we will,
and I would say that this is one point.
I think that the provinces are clearly
entitled to more money from their own
resources, after all they belong to us, and
we are selling them to industries, and we
should receive an amount that is fair. I think
that the solution that we have proposed was
that the provinces should receive a reasonable
royalty allowance and their stumpage allow-
ance.
Of course, they could not dispute the fact
that they should be totally deductible or
allowed as against corporation taxes, which
of course would affect us, because it would
affect the 11 per cent, amount of corporation
tax which we are charging. It would reduce
that amount.
That is the answer, or rather, the historical
background of this question.
Mr. Wintermeyer: In reply to the hon.
Prime Minister, I would say this, that with
much of what he says, I am in complete
agreement. I would hope that nothing that I
said would suggest that I deny the right of
1058
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the people of Ontario to these particular
minerals in the ground and trees above the
ground. I lost those points of agreement, in
order to emphasize my point of disagreement.
I would say that I am in total agreement
with him that a certain royalty should be
paid to the provincial government for the
use of the land, either above or below
ground, and that it should be deductible,
and the basic cost borne by the federal
government. I am in complete agreement
there.
My point of disagreement is this, that if we
are not committed to a socialistic philosophy—
and let us make it emphatically clear that I
hope we are not— and that if we believe that
private enterprise can do the best job, not
for the investor, but for the little people of
Ontario, in all sincerity, I say that the thing
we must do is create the best possible
economic climate within which that industry
can operate.
I say that we should not do anything that
puts the industry in an unfair position with its
competitors, and I say we have to this extent—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I do not think so.
Our tax is lower than elsewhere.
Mr. Wintermeyer: No, I think it is as high
as any and it is comparable only to British
Columbia's.
Hon. Mr. Frost: British Columbia has only
10 per cent.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, according to the
report, British Columbia may be comparable
to Ontario, but British Columbia is not higher.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does that report take into
effect stumpage for instance?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, apparently so.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Our stumpage is much
lower-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, that is true, but the
position apparently is that we are in fact
charging more, or putting more of a load
on the industry, than is our competitor and I
ask the hon. Prime Minister, does that really
matter? What we are really interested in is
making a maximum use of the land that we
have, and the maximum use will be to permit
the industry to use the land in the most
profitable fashion.
Now, to just emphasize my point, and again
reading from the report, I would point this
out to the hon. Prime Minister:
Decisions concerning the degree of
utilization of timber being cut turn upon
the stumpage charges to be paid. Decisions
to use inferior species, or damaged or less
accessible timber, or to cut lower stumps
or lower tops, depend not upon whether
the value of the additional amount of timber
will bear the cost of extraction or whether
the loss incurred in the operation is com-
pensated by increased future yields.
Rather, the more intensive utilization of
a given amount of wood fibre on the stump
must cover both the extra costs of extrac-
tion and the additional stumpage charges.
One informed source ventured the
opinion that the waste caused in this man-
ner runs as high as 30 per cent, of the total
merchandisable wood fibre of operated
Crown lands in Ontario.
Now that, hon. members emphasizes my
whole point.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: May I ask a ques-
tion? The hon. member does not think for
one minute that the pulp and paper com-
panies want that sort of a situation? What
he is talking about in this tax foundation
manual-
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh, no, no.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Is he talking on
their behalf or not? I think the hon. member
ought to have a talk with some of the
presidents of the pulp and paper companies.
I do not think they would go for that at all.
In fact, they are getting off very much
easier than that, and I do not think they
would want us to put them in that position. If
the hon. member talks about making it
embarrassing for them, I think that would be
one way to make it embarrassing, because
their whole financing in the pulp and paper
industry is done on a premise of getting a
timber limit from the government on a long-
term lease, with lots of protection.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right, but the
point I am making is this. I cannot talk tech-
nicalities like the hon. Minister can, but I
interpret this particular quotation to mean
simply this. This timber must be processed
profitably. If the industry decides that it is
dangerous, or it may not be processed profit-
ably, it will not use particular areas, and it
will use only those areas which can be profit-
ably processed.
Now this expert has estimated that it
would result in a disadvantageous position for
Ontario, not only in respect to the tax but
in other respects.
We know that power, water, and trans-
portation are the basic costs in this industry.
MARCH 20, 1958
1059
In regard to all those things, they estimate
that one-third of our timber land in this par-
ticular area— that is, Crown lands in Ontario-
is not being processed. I say that it simply
emphasizes the point that I am making, that
what we must do is give a maximum of
encouragement to the industry to expand and
to prosper.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Surely today it is
not a question of expansion or developing the
industries. It is a question of supply and
demand.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Oh certainly it is, but—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: And certainly if we
went on that premise, the mills would be up
and down— shut down one day and starting
up the next.
Mr. Wintermeyer: All right. Mr. Chairman,
let me say this. If that is the question, and
I agree, that is another way of looking at it.
Have we increased our total of American
consumption, or has our portion of the Ameri-
can consumption decreased in the last number
of years?
Now, not dollar-wise, but percentage-wise.
My understanding is that we have lost, in a
substantial way, a part of the American
market.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: It is very hard to
guess at that, but I would say this, that in
the last two or three years probably 8 new
paper machines went into production in the
United States.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Exactly, and why?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: And in Canada, or
in Ontario— let us just take a look at Ontario-
there have been probably two or three. It
is a question of supply and demand. I agree
with the hon. member quite frankly in relation
to the southern competition regarding news-
print. I agree that they can deliver newsprint,
say down in Tennessee or some place like
that, in the New York market for probably
$14 a ton cheaper than we can deliver it say,
from Spruce Falls, in Ontario.
Again there is one basic thing that the hon.
member does not want to forget. Newsprint
is one of the few things that goes into the
United States duty free, and certainly the
United States people— or the United States
government— have been using all the means at
their disposal to put themselves in a favour-
able position in relation to the import of
newsprint.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I agree with that.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: And they have a
lobby going at Washington all the time on the
newsprint situation. The publishers and all
the other people involved are, of course,
spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers'
money to develop the pulp and paper industry
in the United States.
They have distinct advantage in regard to
weather conditions, cost, and all those other
things. But they do not have the only thing
that Ontario has— a better product.
I think that of course, the southern pine
can be developed only to a point. It will
come some day and not too far away, I would
think— to the saturation point at which they
could economically develop any more pulp
and paper mills in that area, because of the
water and labour supply. Let the hon. mem-
ber not forget this, that in Ontario we have an
organized labour force to which we are
paying good wages. In the United States and
the southern United States, and in the south-
ern pine market, they are getting cheap
labour, exploited labour. But they are going
to be organized, and they are going to get
into the same position as we are in Ontario.
These things are just starting, and we have
gone through all these growing pains. They
have an edge now but I do not think they
are going to have an edge too long.
Again, I say it is a question of demand and
supply. Taxes imposed by Ontario last year
had absolutely nothing whatever to do with
the slowdown of production of the mills in
Ontario this year, in my estimation, if the hon.
member was trying to make the point that we,
by raising the taxes, had something to do with
the slowdown in the industry, the cutback
from 10 per cent, to 15 per cent, there has
been in the newsprint production in Ontario.
Let him not forget this too, that they are
not being taxed unless they make a profit.
That is the fundamental thing which I think
the hon. Prime Minister pointed out. We
could have probably increased dues, and had
a very good justification for increasing dues. I
think the hon. member for York South has
advocated it over the last two years, parti-
cularly in relation to spruce. I think we could
have justified it quite fairly and frankly, be-
cause of the amount of work we have been
doing on reforestation and regeneration alone.
On this, I may say that the pulp and paper
companies have not contributed too much, up
to the present time. I think they will con-
tribute, and I think we will co-operate. I
must say that we have had wonderful co-
operation from them.
But again I say we could have made it a
very unjust tax by putting an increase on
1060
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Crown dues, which they would have paid
indefinitely whether their profits were there
or whether they were not. Whether they
were in a depression or whether they were
not, the dues would be set.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I do not think that I am
arguing that particular point. I am simply
saying this to the hon. Minister and I think
in fairness he will agree with me, that the
southern situation is serious. Now it is all
right to say he hopes that that encroachment—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Taking the part of
this industry, do not forget the same com-
panies.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Only Bowater.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Oh, no. Kimberly-
Clark.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, that is an American
company.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Yes, but they are
operating in Ontario. It is an American cor-
poration operating in Ontario. There are other
companies operating mills in Ontario. Abitibi
is going down now in the United States to
build a mill.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Only in Minnesota.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Yes, I know, but
the fact remains that they are going down
there and, in effect, are competing with their
own markets.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Exactly, and does the
hon. Minister like that? Does he think it is
a good thing?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, I still do not
think that we should give away the natural
resources of this province because of a situa-
tion like that.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, we are not actually
giving them away. I am advocating reserving
them for the use of our own people.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, that is exactly
what we are trying to do.
Mr. MacDonald: I find myself in the extra-
ordinary position of agreeing about 95 per
cent, with the government in this argument.
I do not propose to enter into it because
I think it will be to a great extent a repeti-
tion of the debate that has gone on so far.
But I want to underline one aspect of it, that
I was rather struck with, in reading through
the submission to the Royal commission on
Canada's economic prospects by the Cana-
dian pulp and paper association.
On page 99 they point out that the Domin-
ion government's current direct revenues from
the forest industries are annually about $200
million, while expenditures on the forest are
less than $10 million a year.
Now part of our difficulties, regarding an
equitable division of expenditures for the
development of this industry, arises from the
failure of the federal government, under the
late regime, to implement The Canada For-
estry Act, by investing adequate sums for
conservation and reforestation and things of
that nature.
They have only paid lip service to the
purposes of that Act. Now it seems to me
that, if we cannot raise the amount that I
think is necessary, at the appropriate level,
namely the royalty tax, one answer is that the
federal government, when it gets its hands on
$200 million, and only invests $10 million,
might relieve the province of a degree of that
load by implementing The Canada Forestry
Act.
Mr. Wintermeyer: There is no dispute there.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree, there is no dis-
pute there.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to
pursue that any further because I wanted
to start out by expressing my personal thanks
to the hon. Minister— and I am sure on this
occasion I can do it on behalf of many
hon. members on all sides of the House—
for the tour of northern Ontario that his
department organized last year. The tour
was exhausting, but profitable— exhausting in
terms of physical energy but profitable in
terms of the information we got and the
glimpse we received of some of these exhil-
ating developments in northern Ontario.
In fact, I found it so interesting that I
went back to northern Ontario on my own
tour for about 15 days, in the latter part of
September. I did it, Mr. Chairman— and I
say this quite frankly to the hon. Minister
and to those in the House who may be
interested— because I wanted to get an up-
to-date first-hand view of these problems
in this great forest industry.
I was able to spend, for example, a day
or two on the limits of Marathon and on
the limits of Kimberly-Clark. For those in
the industry, it will be readily apparent why
those two would be chosen. Starting off in
the evening, I sat down with their forestry
officers, with their timber management offi-
cials, and threshed through the problems
they face. Then I went out the next day,
out through their limits, travelling over their
MARCH 20, 1958
1061
road systems, seeing their management pro-
grammes, their cutting and operations.
Subsequently, I had the opportunity of
sitting down with members of the staff of
the department in various places like Kenora,
the Lakehead and at points down the Cana-
dian Pacific Railway line.
As a result of that, there are 4 points that
I want to raise this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I want to raise them— if hon. members can
believe this to be possible— in a wholly un-
provocative manner, because quite frankly
I think there are some basic problems here.
I give the hon. Minister due credit, as
head of this department, for at least moving
in the direction of coming to grips with
them. I think we are still some distance
from the answers, but at least I think we
are moving in the direction of coming to
grips with them.
What I want to contribute this afternoon,
I repeat, is a sort of unprovocative contri-
bution to thinking on these problems.
The first one, Mr. Chairman, is this prob-
lem of regeneration. When one visits an
area like that of Marathon he finds a highly-
mechanized company whose approach to the
whole regeneration problem is that nature
will do the job 85 per cent. They feel that
all that is needed is to supplement natural
regeneration a little to guarantee the next
crop cycle 60, 70 or 100 years from now.
Then one moves a very few miles west,
into an area that is quite similar but man-
aged by a different company, Kimberly-
Clark. Their approach is radically different.
They say one cannot expect nature to repro-
duce the next crop cycle, and they start from
the time they cut the trees on the assump-
tion that they have a very serious job to
do in the way of assisting nature through
extensive reforestation.
Now, the first point I want to make and
make emphatically, is this: As a layman, I
find it extremely difficult to reconcile these
two approaches. In each instance we have
professional foresters, whose integrity and
whose knowledge it is impossible to chal-
lenge, and yet they come up with completely
different solutions.
Now I know this is a very difficult chal-
lenge to throw to the hon. Minister, but I
want to say to him that I think very soon
it is going to be necessary for The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests to lay down the
standard of regeneration and to accompany
it with regulations to make certain that that
standard of regeneration is fulfilled.
The reason why I say this is not only
because of the contrast between one company
saying that 85 per cent, will regenerate
naturally, and the other one saying it simply
is not the case.
There are many companies that are doing
nothing, or next to nothing, I am convinced.
They are doing nothing because they are
waiting for the government, in effect, to lay
down the rules; and when the rules are laid
down for a standard of regeneration, they will
live up to them.
As long as the government delays in laying
down the rules, they are going to do practi-
cally nothing. And the longer we wait, the
longer we are going to have inadequate
regeneration.
Therefore we shall not be fulfilling our
trusteeship for future generations in assuring
the adequate regeneration of this resource.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Would it be all
right for me to answer that one point now?
I understand the hon. member has two or
three points he would like to make, and I
would like to speak on that point while I am
thinking about it freshly.
I thought I made it abundantly clear,
when I asked for my vote on the project of
regeneration. I am thinking entirely along the
same lines as the hon. member for York
South.
I, as hon. members know, grew up in the
pulp and paper industry, and I have had the
privilege of meeting a great many foresters,
and I think we have on our own staff, in The
Department of Lands and Forests, about 200
foresters, and probably there are 300 in indus-
try at the present time in Ontario.
And I would venture to say, if we put the
whole 500 foresters into one big room, we
would have 500 opinions on how this job
should be done.
I made that very clear in my initial address
that this was a major problem. And I, for
one, asked this House to vote substantial
amounts of money on the project of regenera-
tion with the thought in mind that we would
come up with a plan.
Now I can say to the hon. member that this
year we have that plan. We have had 2.5
years of experience on projects— pilot projects
—across the province in different areas. We
have what we think now is a basic plan", and
I think I was called to task by one of the
editorial staff of the Toronto Globe and Mail
not so long ago, because of my very timid
approach to this whole programme.
1062
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Well now, I would like hon. members to
realize it was not a question of being timid,
but the situation was that we did not have
some of the answers. I knew if I did force the
pulp and paper companies under the rights
which we have under The Crown Timber
Act to tell them they had to do these things,
then we would have had probably 20 or 30
different kinds of plans which would have
been impossible for our staff or anybody else
to ever oversee or see that it was done
properly.
Now, as I say, we have had 2.5 years of
actual working at this programme. We have
had the benefit of the advice and the co-
operation of all the major companies, and all
the foresters in this province. I say it has been
a big programme, we have spent to date over
$2.5 million on research, in trying to find
some of the answers.
I said— but I do not know if anybody paid
too much attention to it during my speech,
that we were probably one of the first, if
not the first, province to actually embark on
this programme in Canada. There has been
very little done anywhere else in the North
American continent on it in a sizeable way
except in Ontario.
But I do think that now we have the basic
plan. We have had discussions with industry
and, in fact, 3 very well attended meetings
in which industry has agreed completely in
principle with what we want to do. And we
are now in the process of getting ready to
sign yearly agreements on what shall or shall
not be done in a specific area.
This will be done on a yearly basis for
certain very basic reasons, because we may
find out within the year that we are making
some mistakes, and if we had a long-term
programme on that particular project, it would
mean a lot of red tape to get it all undone
again.
So we have agreed on a principle of a one-
year contract, and the companies have agreed
to go along with us, to utilize their foresters,
their equipment, and everything else, and
we are to work along with them.
I said in my speech, too, it would be on a
5-year programme, and that we could go back
after 5 years, because I think it will take
5 years to find out if we are on the right track.
But basically this year, the year 1958, we
are instigating a project of regeneration by
putting a plan into actual practice. I say
that this plan may have to be changed, or
some other thing may have to be brought in,
to make it better or more efficient. But we
think we have the basic thinking now, after
2.5 years of intensive study by our research
division, by our timber division, and by our
foresters across the province. I would be the
first to admit we do not have complete
understanding, but we do have a basic plan
which industry has accepted.
/ I think that is a great day in Ontario, to
have that step which is being made this year,
and I might say I am very proud of my staff
for the amount of work they have put into it.
I just wanted to have the privilege of
answering that particular point while it was
still fresh in my mind.
Mr. MacDonald: I am very glad to hear
we have been able to reach the point of
co-operation with industry to assure our-
selves of the job of regeneration on each
annual cut. I want to make this final point
before I leave this question of regeneration:
The reason why I think we must get
industry to accept this part of the load is
that, when the Act was passed— I have for-
gotten the name of the Act— in 1953 or 1954
the province assumed responsibility for all
of the regeneration on the lands that have
been cut over until then. They absolved
the companies of any obligation that they
had not fulfilled in regeneration in previous
years.
The result is, if one goes back to the
Kennedy report of 1948, we know there are
literally millions of acres of land that could
be regenerated in this province, all of which
are the obligation of the government.
Now, in this message that we got from
the hon. Minister— this piece of departmental
literature— he states by 1962 he expects to
have 67 million trees to reforest. The only
comment I have is that I think that is about
half of what we need if we are going to
catch up on those millions of acres.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: To show how
advanced we are over other provinces in
the Dominion of Canada; I might point out
that Ontario produces two-thirds of all the
trees grown for reforestation in Canada to-
day. Nova Scotia produced 300,000 trees;
Prince Edward Island 100,000 trees; Mani-
toba 1.625 million trees; Saskatchewan 375,-
000 trees; Ontario 32 million trees; New-
foundland nil; New Brunswick nil; British
Columbia 14 million trees; Alberta nil.
As for Quebec, there is a question mark
there, but I think they produced 4.5 mil-
lion trees.
The federal government— now get this— the
federal government produced less than 500,-
MARCH 20, 1958
1063
000 trees. And they spent less than $2 mil-
lion on reforestation for the whole of Canada.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, but the hon. Min-
ister knows that out in British Columbia, and
down in the Maritimes, because of climatic
conditions they do not need as much artifi-
cial regeneration. Our problem in Ontario
is that we have difficult climatic conditions
that require a great deal more artificial re-
generation. Our problem is much greater.
Therefore we are going to need all these
many more trees for reforestation.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I would like to
say this, that we are not too sure about
that. There are a lot of things can be done
to help along the regeneration, and I must
say that it is a very difficult thing to assess
where we are going.
I admit quite frankly that it is going to
be a great reforestation project to fix up the
burned over areas and some of the larger
areas. We have assumed that, and that is
our problem.
But the other basic thing that I must say
is that one just does not start to plow the
ground and clear a site for a nursery, and
plant trees next year like one would a crop
of potatoes. It is probably 5 years after one
clears the land that he gets his first seedling.
As I say, we have gone into this nursery
business in a big way, and we are now get-
ting two large nurseries in the north into
production. We hope to get them started
this year. But it is a terrific problem, and
not only basically a problem because of the
fact that we have to get trees growing, but
in fact to get the type of land that we want
to grow trees on.
Peculiar as it may seem, the type of land
that is most suitable for reforestation, or for
a nursery site, is drift sand, the same sand
as they have down in the tobacco country.
With irrigation it makes an ideal type of
land for developing a nursery, and it is one
of our big problems.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want
to leave this one point and go on to another,
because we could discuss it for a long, long
time.
The second point I want to raise is in
regard to the position of pulpwood that
comes from privately owned lands of farmers
and settlers in northern Ontario.
The interesting thing here, Mr. Chairman,
is that a significant proportion of the annual
useage of many of these companies, comes
from this source. It may average out at 15
per cent, or 20 per cent.; in some instances
it is upward of 25 per cent, of their annual
usage. It does not come off their own limits,
it comes off privately owned land.
Now, there are two problems I want to
raise, in seeking the comments of the hon.
Minister.
The first one is this: There is no group in
this country, in this province, that is being
exploited more than this group. The facts
can be simply laid on the table. The average
cost per cord, if it is cut by the company
themselves, is approximately $30, and yet
the average cost that is paid to these farmers
and these settlers for the pulpwood that the
companies took last fall was roughly $20 to
$21 per cord. In other words, the companies
are paying the farmers and the settlers about
two-thirds of what it costs them if cut on their
own limits.
I was very interested the other day when
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Good-
fellow) amended The Farm Products Market-
ing Act and made it possible for these people
to organize on a co-op basis and start a
marketing scheme.
Theoretically I agree with the hon. Minister
of Agriculture 100 per cent. In practice, 1
have very serious doubts, because their
bargaining power is going to be something
below minimum, below zero.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. MacDonald: If the company— just let me
finish if I might for a moment. If the
company is in the position to wreck the
scheme, and to say to them, "Okay, we will
not buy our 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, this
year, we will take nothing," they can wreck
the scheme. All they have to do is cut more
on their limit, even though it costs them $30
instead of $21. They can easily wreck the
scheme, and the farmers will have to be
piecing it together every few years. Their
bargaining power is so limited.
I wish them well, although I have little
hope for this being the answer to their
problem. I do not know what the govern-
ment's answer to it is.
Now the second problem in connection with
these settlers and farmers, Mr. Chairman, is
this. If 25 per cent, of our annual cut is
coming from private lands, my question to
the government is: What is the government
doing to assure regeneration on that 25 per
cent, cut on private land?
I know that legally it is difficult at the
moment to order a person to regenerate on
his private land, but if our overall objective
1064
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is to make certain that we are going to have
in the next crop cycle the same amount of
wood that we have on this one, I think it
is obviously folly to ignore the regeneration
programme on areas that represent one-
quarter of the annual cut. I think we have
a public need, a public consideration here,
that in some fashion or other, the govern-
ment will have to work out an answer.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, far
be it for me to ever get myself in a position
where I have to defend the pulp and paper
companies too much on this cost of settlers'
wood. But I do know this, that there are very
distinct reasons for some of the spread.
I am not saying it is all of the spread, but
the pulp and paper company of course, when
they are figuring out their cost of the wood,
are charging in their camp, the construction
of the roads, and all the other factors involved
in opening up and taking out pulpwood. Of
course, that runs into a sizeable amount of
money with the modern up-to-date camps that
they have to build today, so that is part of
the picture. That is how the price gets up to
$30.
On the other hand, the farmer is using
public roads. He has no labour union to deal
with. He is cutting wood himself probably
with his sons. He does not have to pay union
rates, and he uses the King's highway to
transport his wood.
Of course, he pays a licence for that, I
agree, but in effect his cost for producing the
wood is very much less than for the pulp
and paper companies. As I say there is a dis-
parity here of costs. I discussed this matter
with the hon. Minister of Agriculture when he
was talking to me about this particular Act.
Here is a big problem. There are so few of
these private concerns, individual operators,
who can guarantee delivery of wood. In other
words, if the hon. member was operating a
pulp and paper mill, and planned to purchase
20,000 cords from farmers or others by
private sale, he would have to have 20,000
cords of wood in his yard that winter, or he
would be short to run his mill the next year.
Now one of the reasons for the spread is
that, because of the fact that they have no
organizations, they have nothing to back up
their guarantees. In other words, the farmer
goes to a mill and gets a permit to deliver so
much wood, and he gets one for 100 cords or
500 cords. He goes and gets his sons, and
they go out and cut the wood and instead of
producing 150 cords or 200 cords, they may
produce only 50 cords, and when the pulp-
wood cut by the neighbouring farmers is
brought in to the mill in the summer or in
the fall, the company finds that they are prob-
ably 2,000 or 3,000 cords short. Then they
have to go and find that wood.
That is one of the basic problems. I think
the present legislation regarding pulpwood is
good to this effect, that it might get them to
set up some co-operative plan where they
would all get together. The wood buyer's
problem is to get a guarantee of sufficient
wood.
Mr. MacDonald: If the companies will play
ball and not go out to wreck it as most com-
panies—whether they be tobacco buyers or
packers— have done, it may work.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I must say that I
investigated very thoroughly that whole situa-
tion in Fort Frances, and the hon. member
was very active in it as I understood, and I
found no basic objection from the company in
doing away with a second agency— the store-
keepers—whoever were buying the wood from
the farmers, and I did find out afterwards that
they discontinued it, quite frankly at my
advice, because I said it was good public
relations. Why could they not write a con-
tract with a farmer in their own office, rather
than giving it to the butcher or the grocer?
Mr. MacDonald: Get rid of the middleman.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I did find out after,
that the same farmers went back and wanted
to get it back into the hands of the butcher
and grocer, because he guaranteed their pay-
roll. He guaranteed their winter supply of
food, which the company would not do.
In other words, he grubstaked them, and
that is one of the basic things that goes on
in the north. These people have very little
money to start an operation on, so they just
cannot open up a camp and go to some whole-
saler and get a lot of food. They have to
get somebody to back them up, so they go
to the corner grocery store, somebody they
know, and say they would like to get enough
groceries to keep going for a few weeks until
they get a couple of cords of pulpwood cut.
That is how they operate. When they took
that method away from them, they just could
not operate.
There are a lot of little things that are
involved in these operations, that are really
local, and one has to understand them. As I
say, there is a lot that could be done in rela-
tion to the problem. I doubt the hon. mem-
ber's figures on the 25 per cent, supply of
wood.
Mr. MacDonald: I think it averages about
25 per cent.
MARCH 20, 1958
1065
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: It might be 25 per
cent, including the wood they bring in from
Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I do not think
it would be 25 per cent.—
Mr. MacDonald: What about assuring re-
generation in these private lands?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: That is the point.
We do not have any plan at the present time,
except that they have the right to apply for
tree stock the same as a private person can in
southern Ontario. Most of this wood, as the
hon. member understands, is coming off
homestead lots. I think I said this last year,
and I have not got around to doing anything
about it, but I think basically our whole
homestead Act is wrong.
We say to the pulpwood farmer: "Now, you
have to clear a big area, you have to put up
a barn, you have to put up a house, and you
have to cultivate so much land." I think what
we should say to him is: "You have to plant
so many trees-
Mr. MacDonald: That is just fine.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: —because an awful
lot of this land that we are trying to make
into agricultural land is pretty rough and
rugged land, as you realize."
Before too long, the homesteader realizes
that he is not going to have a farm, and he
moves off it, and it goes back to the Crown
for taxes and the municipalities are angry
because they lose their assessment on it, and
we get into a real problem.
I have recommended to our people, and
I recommended it last year— we have not
got around to it, but it will be done— that
we come up with some new approach to
this.
That would be one way of handling the
homesteaders. But then, of course, there are
a lot of people who sell pulpwood who have
other problems, who own their land outright.
Some have wood lots, and they have the
privilege of getting tree stock, and we are
encouraging them to do so, through our tree
farms and other things. I have been— prob-
ably some hon. members have, too— to the
certification of dozens of these tree farms in
the north, and they are on ordinary farms
where a man has planted so many hundred
trees, or thousands of trees, and he is trying
to build up a wood lot. We give him the
same encouragement, the same information
and we give him the trees at the same cost
as he would have to pay if he lived down
in southern Ontario. He has the same rights.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is
just one final point I want to raise, and that
is the question of roads. There is a different
approach on this problem which appears to
me to be new— at least in terms of Ontario
experience— that I want to put to the hon.
Minister.
I have heard the hon. Minister on many
occasions reiterate that, until we have the
basic road structure, we simply cannot have
a modern timber management programme.
They cannot get into the hinterland of these
limits if they do not have roads to get in
there, quite apart from the problems that
it raises for forest fire protection.
In fact, there were one or two striking
instances that I got first-hand information on
last fall. When I was in the Ontario- Min-
nesota offices, for example, in Kenora, they
pointed out on the wall their Patricia limits
north of Kenora. They have broken this limit
down into 15 different compartments.
Now the astounding thing, Mr. Chairman,
is this. They got these limits in the year
1921, and today— even today— they have only
7 or 8 of the compartments of these possible
15 in operation.
In other words, the remaining half has not
been touched, in spite of the fact that, for
example, bug worm has gotten into sections
so that it is being destroyed. The govern-
ment has 5 or 6 compartments up the Red
Lake road, which used to be a company
road and is now of course, one of our high-
ways. A new road has been driven into the
southwest corner of the limit from north of
Kenora, opening up one or two more. But
here, 37 years after they got their limit,
there is still one-half of it beyond their reach.
They cannot touch it because of the lack of
roads.
To take another example, in the instance
of Abitibi, when I was talking with some of
their officials at the Lakehead, they explained
that this past summer they had sent their
cruising groups into the Auden limits, east
of Lake Nipigon, and mapped out 85 miles
of roads for future construction. But they
said it will take 5 years to build this stretch.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think we had better
quit talking about instituting a modern tim-
ber management programme until we can
lick this road issue, because we simply can-
not have modern timber management if we
do not have the roads.
The question I want to put to the hon.
Minister is this. I was very interested in
reading through the great volume of literature
which is now becoming available on this
1066
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
whole issue. For example, there is the new
Royal commission report in New Brunswick,
and the new Royal commission report in
British Columbia, the second "Sloan report."
In the instance of British Columbia, all
primary roads must be constructed prior to
to the commencement of logging operations,
and these roads are the property of the
Crown, available to the licencee for the pur-
pose of the contract only.
By separate contract, the department may
agree to assist in the financing of these
primary roads up to a maximum of two-thirds
of the cost. When funds are advanced from
the forest development fund for road con-
struction, the amount is repaid at a rate per
unit of timber cut by an addition to the
stumpage used.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, when a
company gets a certain limit, before they can
start operation they have to build their basic
road structure. I am very anxious to get the
hon. Minister's reactions to this approach.
Our approach in Ontario has been dif-
ferent. A company may spend $50 million on
a mill. The only way they can get the
resources to keep this mill operating is to cut
on their own limits; but they spend only a few
hundred thousands of dollars to begin with
on their road structure, and then gradually
expand their road system out of current
profits.
Now, obviously, if they are going to try
to squeeze something out of the current
profits— concerning which my hon. friend from
Waterloo North is so worried— there is not
going to be enough. As a result they build
their roads piecemeal over the next genera-
tion or two.
My question is this: While it may be
difficult to get the companies to change their
approach, why is it not possible in our laws
to do what they have done in British Colum-
bia? The net result would be that if a com-
pany gets a huge limit, and has to raise $50
million for the mill, they may have to raise
$53 million or $54 million to complete their
basic road structure at the outset. They would
then be in a position to bring their timber out
from the hinterland as well as close to the
mill, before it becomes too old and becomes
lost. They would be in a position to tackle
such bug worming infestations as we have
in the Patricia limit of Ontario-Minnesota.
In other words, one would be able to
operate the whole limit on a timber manage-
ment basis.
Now, why it is not possible to make it
necessary, before a company gets into opera-
tion, that they build that basic road structure,
and that it become part of their capital ex-
pense rather than being handled piecemeal
out of current profits?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, of
course the hon. member from York South
realizes how many new mills have been built
in Ontario in the last 10 years. Marathon and
Kimberly-Clark at Terrace Bay would be
probably basically the two new mills. Now
Marathon has a very, very effective road
system going right through their limits, and
Terrace and Long Lac are typical examples
again. They are in a little more fortunate
position because they can use highway No.
11 going right through the centre of it.
Mr. MacDonald: But if I am not inter-
jecting—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Just a minute now,
I am not going to argue against that principle,
because I think that it is a sound principle.
I may say this, that I have already had dis-
cussions with the Anglo Newfoundland people
at Sioux Lookout, and with Argus Corporation
or the Huronian Wood Products people, who
are projecting a mill in the Georgian Bay
area around Blind River.
I suggested to them that they should be
developing a road system, and I have already
had them in my office, and they have already
been talking to our foresters. I have told them
that we want to approve their road systems.
In other words we are not going to allow
them to go in there and just build roads, they
are going to come in and have them approved
by our foresters on the basis of a management
plan, and when we approve a road we expect
them to build it. My officials said that they
quite prefer to do that.
Now, as I say, I cannot be criticized— and
I do not think that department should be
criticized— for the sins of our fathers, because
what the hon. member says in effect is true.
The other thing that is very, very bad is
the fact that, over the many, many years,
there have been millions of dollars wasted in
building roads in northern Ontario, because
two companies could not make up their minds
as to where they wanted to build the roads. I
have been working on that plan now for
two years, and I must add that I really
worked at it, and I have had my advisory
committee work on it, and they are all
representatives of some type of industry.
We have now, for the first time, had some
sort of an offer from the federal government
that looks mighty attractive to me as the
Minister of Lands and Forests, for the
MARCH 20, 1958
1067
development of forestry roads or "resort
roads" as we would like to call them.
Mr. MacDonald: But there is very little
money in it.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, it is $7.5
million in the next 5 years, on a 50-50 basis.
That is $15 million, which would build a lot
of road.
I expect this summer to go out to Alberta
to see the roads constructed by the Alberta
government on the slopes of the Rockies,
which I understand are the type of thing that
Major Kennedy and people like that have
advocated for the province of Ontario. His
thinking along these lines is that roads should
be built in the watersheds and probably 5
or 6 main highways traversing from the
lake towards the north.
But I say that the sins of our fathers are
certainly there, because paper company after
paper company are trying to hold their own
little empire together, and because they
could not get along with their neighbour on
the right, or the neighbour on their left, or
because there was some little thing that was
wrong, they could not say:
"Well, we will build the road along the
edge of our limits, and you can use part of
the road and we will use part of the road, and
we can build lateral roads off that, and we
will have a nice road system."
But they could not get together on it. As
I say, I do not see why we should take them
off the hook too much regarding this. But I
do think that we should build roads, and I
have already told two prospective companies
in Ontario that they will have the roads.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the com-
panies that are in operation now?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well-
Mr. MacDonald: Take the Patricia limit.
Here is half a limit still untouched, no roads
in it beyond there.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, I do not
know where the hon. member got the word
"Patricia" because as I understand it Ontario-
Minnesota paper company are not operating
in Patricia. They have the English River
limits.
Mr. MacDonald: Their limit is north of
Ontario, north of Kenora and Dryden from
there to—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: That is certainly
not in our area. I just wanted to quote some-
thing that the party the hon. member repre-
sents, or the people that he feels are repre-
sented by him, the lumber and sawmill
workers union, whom he advocated as great
followers of the CCF, stated in a report pre-
pared by Mr. Bode.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I will tell the hon.
Minister a bit about that report if he wants
me to.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I just want to read
what he said about their Ontario-Minnesota
pulp and paper company. I think that it is a
good-
Mr. MacDonald: I know what is in that
report, and let me say that they have some
very serious doubts about what they made,
because they made it on the basis of the
propaganda from all the companies.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Oh, no, what infor-
mation they got—
Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to be pro-
vocative, I do not want to argue this case.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: This is what I would
like to put in the record.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not too reliable.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, here is what
it says:
The Ontario-Minnesota pulp and paper
company has considerable wood reserved,
and it has undertaken a very substantial
forest conservation programme, in order to
assure the wood supply to its mill.
About 10 years ago, the company started
a programme to divide its concession areas
into small sustained yield cutting units, and
its objective is to make the wood operating
in each unit permanent.
Working towards a goal of harvesting the
amount of wood grown each year in each
individual unit, the company has now estab-
lished 30 of these units on its limits, and
the planned annual cut is approximately
6,000 cords per unit.
This method avoids a shortcoming of
large clear-cutting operations [which the
hon. member objects to] which were pre-
viously outlined under the present prac-
tices. It encourages wood regeneration,
maintains a good distribution of the age
classes, maintains good water supplies, im-
proves the selection species, and above all
it tends to increase the production it has
per acre.
The company has further attempted to
avoid soil erosion in certain areas by select
1068
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cutting methods, leaving a sufficient amount
of wood on each acre, permitting the trees
to hold the thin soil, and limited water
supply, on rocky land.
The company has also planted a con-
siderable amount of trees in spots where
natural regeneration would appear inade-
quate.
Summing up, it should be stated the
Ontario-Minnesota pulp and paper com-
pany has one of the best forest maintenance
programmes in Ontario, operated on a
sound forester's principle. The company
deserves full credit for this work from which
all are sure to benefit.
I thought that hon. member would like
to hear that.
Mr. MacDonald: I would like to tell a
little story. I know all about that— just a
minute now. Last fall when I visited the
Ontario- Minnesota offices, it was in company
with two top officials of the lumber and
sawmill union. As we were going into the
offices, they commented that this company
has a pretty good record on regeneration. I
said that, while I reserved final judgment, my
information was that such was not the case.
We went in and we had an hour and a half
discussion.
Afterwards, the officials of the union, who
had sponsored this particular report produced
on the basis of company information, came
out of that office, persuaded that their report
was not correct.
I am not going to go into the details of
it now, but I am equally persuaded that
Ontario-Minnesota publications in this con-
nection present far too rosy a picture.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Did my hon. friend talk
to them about the report?
Mr. MacDonald: No, I did not talk to
them. All I did was to draw to their atten-
tion, and prove to their satisfaction after
listening to the company officials, that
the report which they had drafted in a very
sincere effort to present the facts to their
members was all on the basis of company
information.
I want to tell the hon. Minister that for
years the company has been putting out
information about what they have been doing
in reforestation and regeneration. This "in-
formation" is not worth the paper it is printed
on, because many of them have done very
little until now.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: There is another
paragraph, I think—
Mr. MacDonald: I have heard all—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The other para-
graph goes on to say:
The Department of Lands and Forests
should have its hands strengthened in
every way possible and its conceptive
sound forestry methods should be put into
practice not only in its own work and its
education programme, but it should also
be enforced on Crown lands of private
operators who are presently responsible,
mainly, for forest planting. The Crown
Timber Act provides that all companies
operating on Crown land are responsible
for satisfactory regeneration of the forest
which they have. This regulation is the
key for forest preservation and it should
be enforced in all its instances.
I just got through telling the hon. member
that we are putting that into effect this year.
Mr. MacDonald: A little late, but con-
gratulations on doing it.
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): I
would like to take this moment to say that
the hon. Minister and his staff are to be
congratulated for the approach they have
in dealing with our problems. The people
need the many services from his department.
His personnel understand the proper way to
attend to them. The hon. Minister and his
executive are planning ahead as they rightly
should. They are continually doing reviews
to serve our wants, and those of the future
generations, in a satisfactory manner.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): It would be inter-
esting to see a vote where the hon. Minister
would like to say something about the fish
hatcheries situation in Ontario— how many
there are, if they are all working, and some-
thing about their plans for the future.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: How many hatch-
eries there are? The hon. member will notice
in my speech today that we were assessing
the probability of rebuilding some of the
hatcheries and putting them in shape, and
trying to do something more.
Mr. Whicher: Are they all in use now?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, all the ones
that we have or are ready for use, I will put
it that way. I am not particularly talking
about the one in the hon. member's area.
Mr. Whicher: Why are they not in use?
MARCH 20, 1958
1069
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, one of the
big problems, as far as the hon. member is
concerned, is right in the Great Lakes, I
suppose. He is not talking about inland
lakes.
One of the big problems in our fish hatchery
is trying to get enough eggs to run our hat-
cheries, and when we have an area where
the fish population has fallen off as large as it
has in Georgian Bay, it has been very difficult
to get sufficient eggs to keep that hatchery
going. The hon. member wanted to know, the
number of hatcheries? There are 22 hatch-
eries. Does he want the detailed information
on it?
Mr. Whicher: No, I would just like to know
this. The hon. Minister says that he is going
to fix them up, and so on.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: We are going to
try this experiment on the splake.
Mr. Whicher: Where is the department
going to get the larvae for them?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, the species I
was talking about that we are going to try
to introduce is an inland lake trout, and we
bring those from inland lakes.
As I say, one of the big problems in Geor-
gian Bay too, in that hatchery up there, is
getting enough eggs to keep their hatchery
going, and as far as I am told it is impossible
to get them. We have 22 fish hatcheries
which include 8 trout rearing stations, 6 jar
hatcheries and 8 pond stations.
Now the Collingwood hatchery was closed
on temporary basis in the fall of 1956. This
closing was effected because of the lack of
suitable egg supplies, and because normal
hatcheries stock of pickerel and white fish
was not required for local distribution.
What is the name of the particular hatchery
in the hon. member's area?
Mr. Whicher: Southampton and Wiarton,
or Chatsworth.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Chatsworth, is that
the name of it? Well, it is going to be rebuilt
this year, and it is going to be modernized,
so that we can try this experiment in that
area, and we are hoping that that will be of
some value.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the hon. Minister would say something about
the commercial fishing industry in this prov-
ince?
There are, of course, many commercial
fishermen who are out of of work due to the
lack of commercial fish, and many of those
who have gone out of this industry are very
much concerned. The fact is that they feel
that to some extent the department, over a
period of years, has been responsible, because
many of these fishermen claim that there has
not been enough control over this industry,
and that the fishermen have fished it out and
that they are continuing to do so.
Now I would like to have the hon. Minister
say something about the number of licences
and so on.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: That has been one
of the real problems that the hon. member
for Bruce just realized. The fishing people are
hard to stop. Most of them have had their
grandfathers fish before them, and it is more
or less a hand-down in the family, and as the
family did better they wanted more fishing
and more licences in some cases.
After all, when we have a declining fish
population in the Great Lakes, which is
largely due to the eel lamprey, it has been
very difficult to satisfy these people.
If I am not mistaken, there is a very strong
rule that we do not issue licences unless it
has been approved by the fishing people
themselves in that particular area, that is the
fishing association in the area.
Mr. Whicher: Who controls the number of
nets that one might use?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The Department of
Lands and Forests does.
Mr. Whicher: Is the hon. Minister sure
that it does?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, I expect that
we do. I could be wrong.
Mr. Whicher: I hear rumours that one man
may have a fantastic number of nets in cer-
tain areas, and that there is no certain or
strict control on this.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, I have, quite
frankly, been guided by the fishermen them-
selves in this matter, and I would think that
the fishermen themselves would know if that
were going on to their own detriment. We
do not authorize any increase in licences
unless it goes before the commercial fishing
group in that particular area they are fishing
in. That is about the only way that we can
have any control over it.
But as I say, they may be getting away
with something. I have met a lot of those
Georgian Bay fishermen, and certainly they
are looking after their own interests if they
can, and I would say there may be hundreds
of licences up there, but a great many of them
1070
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are not being used because there are no fish
to catch.
Mr. Whicher: I have just one more question.
If there are complaints which come in from
the commercial fishing association, would the
hon. Minister be willing to act?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Absolutely. As I
say, we take our guide from these associations
because they are the people who are working
at it. It is their industry, and it is their
concern if it does not go right.
Our officials are meeting with those people
continually, and I would say without fear or
reservation that if there is some particular
complaint in the area the hon. member is
thinking about, we would be very happy to
have our people investigate it and get a report
on it. I do not know of any.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent for
a few minutes. I hope this question was not
asked, but what were the returns from the
logging tax imposed at the last session of the
Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, I
think there must be some misunderstanding. As
far as a logging tax is concerned, it is not a
factor in Lands and Forests estimates at all.
It comes under The Treasury Department,
and I meant to tell the hon. member for
Waterloo North that, when he was directing
his remarks to me about the logging tax, but
it is not collected by The Department of
Lands and Forests.
Mr. Oliver: It is collected from The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: No, it is not col-
lected by them.
Mr. Oliver: No, not by them but from them.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I have no figures on
that whatsoever in my department.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, may I
say to the hon. Minister that I believe the
budget suggested that he has revenue in the
approximate amount of $20.5 million.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Crown dues and
other things, not logging tax.
Mr. Wintermeyer: It does not include any
logging tax whatsoever?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Oh, no.
Vote 901 agreed to.
On vote 902:
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): I want
to say to the hon. member for Bruce that in
my area, as far as fishing licences are con-
cerned, as the hon. Minister explained, our
professional associations of commercial fisher-
men are very much in the know when a new
licence is even proposed. As the hon. Minister
says, they pretty well direct whether another
one should be allotted or whether it should
not be, because they know what the lakes
will stand. I believe that is a very safe way
of awarding commercial fishing licences. I
agree with it thoroughly.
I want to ask a question afterwards, but I
want to congratulate the hon. Minister on his
new organization which appoints two assistant
Deputy Ministers, one for northwestern
Ontario and one for southwestern and eastern
Ontario. He has chosen two men who have
a splendid background in forestry and all
of those phases of his department in the
persons of Mr. Bray, who is coming to our
area, and Mr. Acheson, who is going to be in
the east.
I think it is a very forward looking step,
and one that is going to make the machina-
tions of his department much easier to handle.
In other words, it is decentralizing control.
All control will not be held in Toronto as
formerly, but the western part of the province
will have a man who can say yes or no to
things up in that area, and so will eastern
Ontario.
It is all to the good, and something I believe
that is a very advanced step, and I want to
congratulate the hon. Minister on it.
I also want to congratulate the hon. Minister
in the new parks programme and roads
programme. In my area that is now proving,
and can be seen to be, a great advance, and
the people are very, very pleased with it, and
it is going to be a great help in forest fire
protection. It is opening up access roads in
these large timber lands where formerly it
was very difficult to get fire-fighting equip-
ment in, in case of fires.
May I say a word about the logging tax.
I was trying to get a word in for a long time
there, when there was no one speaking, but
I have an article here about Abitibi.
Some hon. members: Oh, no.
Mr. Wardrope: I am one who would be
very, very sensitive to any increase in taxes
at this time, because we have some 11 paper
mills right in our area, and these boys who are
talking have none. So we are far more con-
cerned than they are with these taxes, but
MARCH 20, 1958
1071
as they know, a government has to get
revenue from some place. Let me give Mr.
Ambridge's— he is the president of Abitibi—
statement as to why this year their annual
position was not as good as previously.
He says a decline in earnings in Abitibi
Power and Paper Company is attributed to
discount on United States funds, a reduction
in newsprint volume, increased costs of pro-
duction and freight rates, income taxes and
start-up expenses of the new mill at Alpena,
Michigan and logging taxes.
I notice he mentions that last, so it must
be insignificant.
Now the cost of production— I mean in
the overall picture, and I will tell hon.
members why in just a minute— the cost of
production of all the company's products con-
tinues to increase, in spite of all we can do in
the direction of labour-saving devices and
equipment.
The principal reason for this is the yearly
increase of the wage rates of industrial
workers without a compensating increase in
productivity. Total production of paper pulp
and board dropped about 5 per cent., while
newsprint production dropped 6 per cent.,
from 1956, but the fine paper subsidiary,
Provincial Paper Limited, which is in my
town incidentally, increased its volume over
1956, which I was pleased to see.
Now here is the point: Production capa-
city of newsprint appears to exceed the de-
mand by 10 per cent, to 15 per cent. Observers
of the United States economic scene appear
resigned to the fact that at least the first half
of 1958 would be a period of uncertain busi-
ness conditions. If this is true, there is little
doubt that newsprint production in 1958 will
be less than in 1957.
Now I would like the hon. members of the
Opposition to remember that the logging taxes
are based on profits, therefore they cannot
increase costs. It is the lack of demand
as against the increased production.
Mind you, as the hon. Minister explained,
many new mills have been built. It will
catch up, and in a very few months I hope
to see the pulp and paper situation again
very prosperous, and there will be no talk
of this logging tax. It is not a major factor,
so therefore I do not think it should be of
major concern.
Now, the last thing I want to say is this:
Could the hon. Minister give me some infor-
mation as to the success he has had in con-
trolling lamprey, which has had such a
disastrous effect on our Lake Superior trout
fishing? That is one thing that is very im-
portant, and I would appreciate any figures
the hon. Minister might have on it, and
how he is coming along regarding control.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, as
the hon. member for Port Arthur probably
realizes, we have had a very extensive pro-
gramme of building electric weirs in all the
tributary waters running into Lake Superior,
and I do know that Michigan and other
governments on the American side have a
like programme going on on their side of
the water.
But just recently there was a meeting in
Toronto of some of the Great Lakes people,
both American and Canadian, held under the
auspices of the Great Lakes fisheries com-
mission, of which one of the members of
our staff is a member.
They have had some extensive experiments
on poisons and control of the lamprey through
poisons in the state of Michigan. I under-
stand they have some measure of success,
and they are very hopeful.
One of the members from the American
side tells me that he saw more gleam of hope
in the last 6 months than he had seen in the
last 5 years.
In other words they feel they have some
support from some of the big industrialists
over there, who have employed very high-
class scientists to work along with them. They
have now given the scientists the right to
sit in with these fishery people, and to give
them advice, and there is a real concen-
trated effort in fact on all sides of the water,
by all types of government, to try to do
something about this problem.
Hon. members will probably note that my
estimates are up in that particular feature
this year, as we are trying to do a little more
on our own in Ontario, but more in rela-
tion to restocking and to help to bring back
some of the fish population in some of the
lakes.
Actually, there is nothing definite, but there
is some hope that some of the things they
have been experimenting with will be of
some real benefit to the situation in the near
future.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, may I ask the hon. member
for Port Arthur a question in conjunction
with what he has said? Who is the author
of the report that the hon. member read—
the president of one of the companies?
Mr. Wardrope: It is from the Financial
Post.
1072
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wintermeyer: But is it the president
of one of the companies?
Mr. Wardrope: Yes, the statement is made
by Mr. Ambridge, the president of the Abi-
tibi Power and Paper, and it is in the
Financial Post of March 4. That was at their
annual meeting and B. W. Ambridge is the
president of the Abitibi Power and Paper
Company.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Does he have an office
here in Toronto?
Mr. Wardrope: Yes, on University avenue.
Mr. Wintermeyer: On University, not far
from here?
Mr. Wardrope: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, would the hon.
member for Port Arthur consider visiting that
office with me, and tabling his observations
of this particular tax?
Mr. Wardrope: Oh, I know what it is.
Naturally every tax-
Mr. Wintermeyer: I was going to accept
the challenge, but he has already—
Mr. Wardrope: Oh, I have talked to him.
I will go, certainly, I would be glad to. I
am a friend of his, although he objects.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): May I ask the
hon. Minister a question? I believe last
year it was decided to charge an entrance fee
to parks, and I believe at that time there was
something said about some of our tourists not
paying anything towards the facilities of the
parks. I wonder if the hon. Minister could
give us the number of tourists who visited
Ontario provincial parks in Ontario this year?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I cannot give the
number of tourists, but I can tell him the
number of people who paid admission to
parks; $170,000 was collected from that fee
this year, and we expect to perhaps hit the
$200,000 mark next year.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, would it not be
quite all right, quite helpful to know the
number of tourists who visited these parks?
I imagine that could easily be arranged by
the department, and then we could know if
people availed themselves of these facilities,
whether they were Canadians or whether they
were from another country. I think it would
be very helpful.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I think we would
have that information in the office.
Mr. Spence: Would the hon. Minister
obtain it for us?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Yes, I would be
very happy to. I do not know if we can give
it in detail, but we certainly should have some
information on it.
Mr. Spence: I believe there have been some
rumours that they are not going to re-tender
the dance hall concession in Rondeau park
this year? I was wondering if the hon. Mini-
ster could give me some light on that,
whether they are going to tender it or
whether they are not?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, I would rather
not make a public statement in the House on
that. I think it is a very controversial sub-
ject in the riding of the hon. member. If the
hon. member would care to come and talk to
me about it, I would be quite happy to talk
about it. I think all he is going to do is hurt
a lot of people.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
pay a compliment to the hon. Minister in
regard to the parks. We have a very nice one
in my riding, and there is now another one
going in, and there are a number of men
employed there now. I think it is one of the
best parks set up by this government.
But in case hon. members think I am the
least bit hoggish about this, I remind them
that Bruce country is a very long county,
and I would like to remind the hon. Minister,
after complimenting him so heartily, that in
the Bruce peninsula there is room for an-
other park.
I have heard rumours to the effect that per-
haps the department would be interested in
starting another one there, it is 55 miles north
from Wiarton and it is a beautiful place, in
the summer time particularly.
I hope by asking him for this that I am not
giving the project the kiss of death. I, and
the people who live there, and the thousands
of tourists who visit that area, would certainly
appreciate another provincial park in Bruce
peninsula.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, I do
not think I should let that remark go un-
answered. I do not like this "kiss of death"
business, because certainly there has been no
chance of anybody in The Department of
Lands and Forests to overlook a good park
situation, no matter whose riding it is in. I say
that frankly, because they are too far and too
scarce to find, and to get, and too costly.
That would be the only reason. I do not see
any reason why we would consider whether
MARCH 20, 1958
1073
or not it was a question of having 3 parks
in one riding— I do not think that has been
given any consideration one way or another.
Mr. Oliver: Is that the only reason?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: That would be the
only reason.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
we are on vote 903; there is nothing in there
about provincial parks, but everyone is talk-
ing about that, so I might just as well get on
it, too.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The hon. member
is perfectly in order, because the money
for parks goes all through this vote.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, we have this
little booklet this afternoon. I am quite sure
it is very interesting. I just looked at one
page there ,and here we have the different
colours: the southwestern region, the south-
eastern region, and the south central region.
And all of them have red stars against them
except the one in Oshawa. I wonder why we
do not merit a red star down there, and per-
haps the hon. Minister will give us some—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The hon. member
cannot have a red mark against it until we
get a park there. We own the property but
we do not have it developed yet.
Mr. Thomas: Would the hon. Minister tell
me what his plans are for the future on that?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, we certainly
have plans for that area, I would like to tell
the hon. member for Oshawa. It is a very
desirable property that we acquired from
The Department of Highways, and it is a
very easy property to develop.
There is actually not much to do there
except to put some reforestation on it, and
provide some facilities for fireplaces and
tables and things like that for picnickers. I
would say that it will be one of our more
beautiful parks in the next 25 years.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister if he intends to do
any work on it this summer?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Oh, yes, we have it
in our budget, I am sure of that.
Mr. H. L. Rowntree (York West): Mr.
Chairman, I do not want to pose a difficult
question to the hon. Minister, and I admit
frankly I do not know whether this subject
matter fits in, but I wonder if the hon. Minis-
ter could give some observations as to the
present status of the development of Christ-
mas tree farming on a commercial basis?— I
believe there was a change with respect to
the supply of the young trees. Is that indus-
try growing?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: It is a business. It
is the same as running a farm or any other
sort of a situation and, I think in most cases
a very lucrative business. There may have
been an increase in the cost of the stock, but
that increase is not only tied to the Christ-
mas tree industry, it is tied to whoever are
buying trees because of the increased cost in
developing the tree.
Quite frankly, the Christmas tree industry
in Ontario has reached tremendous propor-
tions, and they are very interested of course
in the one type of tree. That is a Scotch pine,
which is a very quick growing tree. We have
been asking our department officials to dis-
continue to some degree the growing of
Scotch pine because it is not a tree that is
used in industry or pulpwood or saw logs or
anything like that. Our main concern on a
government nursery is to provide the neces-
sary stock for reforestation across this
province.
Certainly Scotch pine does not fit that
category, so we have been trying to encour-
age Christmas tree buyers or the Christmas
tree farmers to acquire nursery stock from
private individuals, where they can acquire
it at about the same price— in fact, I think,
just the same price— as what they pay for
their trees if they buy them from us.
I do think that there is plenty of stock
available from private concerns. If they write
in to our department there is some delay. I
do not think we have been able to fulfil one-
quarter of their orders, or one-half of their
orders, for Scotch pine.
We are trying to keep the industry grow-
ing but we would prefer, I think, if they did
buy more of their stock from private
individuals. Does that answer the hon. mem-
ber's question?
Mr. Rowntree: Yes, thank you.
Votes 903 to 908, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 909:
Mr. Oliver: Before the estimates as a
whole are carried, Mr. Chairman, I want
to come back to what the hon. Minister said
in respect to the logging tax on profits.
Now, it may be that as a layman I do
not see this thing too clearly, but I can
understand that a profits tax generally ap-
plied and generally collected, from various
industries and various people, would prop-
1074
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
erly be channelled into the Treasury Depart-
ment. But this particular tax is imposed
on a particular industry, and the revenue
from the tax, according to the hon. Minister
and I think it is right, does not go to The
Department of Lands and Forests at all, but
goes into the consolidated revenue fund of
the province.
Now it is a load on the tax of the lands
and forests industry, and the department is
not balancing its budget. The hon. Minister
is $3 million or $4 million short of his assets
meeting his liabilities— current assets and
current liabilities.
Now, if he wants to balance his budget,
it seems to me that we are in this ironic
position that we have placed a heavy load,
by this logging tax, on the industry. If we
want to balance the budget then we have
to, by the imposition of some other tax,
place an additional burden on the industries
under The Department of Lands and Forests.
It seems to me that if there ever was a
profits tax, that should go to the industry
that gives this tax, it is this particular one.
I would like to hear the hon. Attorney-Gen-
eral (Mr. Roberts) on this because this is
a tax on a particular natural resource, and
the department that operates these natural
resources is not able to make both ends
meet. Why should not the income from that
particular tax be applied to the revenues
of that particular department, so that it can
make both ends meet? If we want to balance
our budget, as I say, we will have to go and
impose a new tax in order to do so. That
seems to me simply crazy. I do not know
what the official answer to it is, but—
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, I
really think the word logging tax is a mis-
demeanour. I do not think it really qualifies
the type of tax it is.
As far as I understand the tax, it is a
processing of the wood from the time it is
cut on the limit. After the CroWn dues are
paid, which is the part of the tax that goes
to The Department of Lands and Forests-
Crown dues plus whatever bonuses are on
that particular species— the logging tax is
paid. This is actually a manufacturing tax
from the time the wood is cut, put through
the barkers, and logged and sawed and on to
the mill, then processed into the finished
product.
It is, in fact, a corporation tax. That is
what it is and by no stretch of imagination
has it any place in The Department of Lands
and Forests.
But, on the other hand— and this will offset
some of the argument of my hon. friend from
Waterloo North— we are putting back into
the forest industry, from The Department
of Lands and Forests, more money than we
are getting out. We are putting back a
considerable amount of money, maybe not
into the forest industries, but we are spend-
ing on lands and forests $2 million or more
this year than what we are collecting.
That is due in effect to the fact that our
revenue is down from our pulp and paper
companies and our saw log industries, to
about 10 per cent, to 15 per cent. If we had
the mills running at full time, then we
would have collected enough— or at least we
were forecasting that we would collect enough
—to balance our budget.
Now the mills went on short time, or cut
15 per cent, to 20 per cent, less wood than
they cut last year, so that naturally our
revenue is down.
What we are doing now is forecasting less
money in revenue than what we are spending
for this year. I will say again, as far as the
government spending is concerned, that we
are putting back into the forest industries— on
reforestation and on regeneration and all the
other things— and the natural resources of this
this province $2 million more than we are
collecting.
On the other hand the Treasury Department
is collecting in effect a corporation tax called
the logging tax.
I do not know whether that gets the hon.
leader of the Opposition mixed up more than
I am myself, but I think basically that is
what it is.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): I
do not know whether the hon. leader of the
Opposition was suggesting there might be
some question of legality or not, but—
Mr. Oliver: Oh, no.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I will then be
content with the reply of the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
Minister saying in effect that this logging tax
should more accurately be called a corpora-
tion tax?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: That is right. It is a
different type of tax.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I can appreciate his
observations in that respect, but then I say if
that be so, why charge a particular industry
with an additional incorrie tax of 9 per cent.
MARCH 20, 1958
1075
over and above what this government is
charging generally? Our corporation income
tax is 2 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: My understanding
is they get some relief from federal taxation
on it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: But why charge an
extra 4.5 per cent.?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The matters are ar-
ranged with the federal government in the
provincial and federal tax agreements-
Mr. Wintermeyer: But they are charged an
extra 4.5 per cent. Why select this industry?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: In other words,
when they say they got $50,000 tax, they
are only paying $25,000.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, but they are paying
4.5 per cent. now.
Votes 909 and 910 agreed to.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, before the
estimates are finally approved, I have a request
from some of the men working in industry in
Oshawa asking if it would be possible for
the hon. Minister to make a little earlier
announcement than he did last year in respect
to the opening of the deer season? The
reason for this is that they want to arrange
their vacations if they can, in that period, and
if the hon. Minister could give me an answer
on that one, I would appreciate it.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Mr. Chairman, I
thought we announced that almost a year
ahead now.
Mr. Thomas: Well, I do not know.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The fish and game
committee make the recommendations, and
we get busy right away, and it is certainly
made long before anybody would have a
chance to shoot. My impression is we make
that one year in advance.
Mr. Thomas: They did not seem to think
so down there.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Well, we forecast
what the hunting season is going to be for
1959, and we make it in 1958.
Mr. Thomas: For the opening of the deer
season?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Yes. Not in old
Ontario but in— Yes, for opening the deer
season.
Mr Whicher: When is it for 1958?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I do not know when
it is.
Mr. Thomas: When is it then in Oshawa for
1958?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: It has not been set
this year yet.
Mr. Thomas: No, it is not set this year yet.
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: The fish and game
reports meeting was just the other day, was
it not?
Mr. Oliver: Well in respect to the deer
season in old Ontario, does the department
pay any heed, shall I say, to the represen-
tations of the county council?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: Very definitely so.
Mr. Oliver: Well supposing the county
council said no deer season, does the depart-
ment ever override their decision?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: I do not think we
have an instance where we have. I know that
in lots of cases we would like to have a deer
season, but we cannot get the county council
to go along with it, and the sporting public
and the people who like to hunt would cer-
tainly like to have it too, but county council
has said "no."
Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Minister mean
the county councils are not unanimous on it?
Hon. Mr. Mapledoram: No, I do not think
they are unanimous.
Mr. Thomas: They are not.
Mr. Mapledoram: No, they are not. I do
not think so.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the com-
mittee of supply rise and report that it has
come to certain resolutions and begs leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex South): Mr.
Speaker, the committee of supply begs to
report it has come to certain resolutions and
begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr, Roberts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the Chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of the whole; Mr. Allen
in the Chair.
1076
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 70, An
Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 70 reported.
THE TILE DRAINAGE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 118, An
Act to amend The Tile Drainage Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 118 reported.
THE INSURANCE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 87, An
Act to amend The Insurance Act.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 87 reported.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 96, An
Act to amend The Division Courts Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 96 reported.
THE SANATORIA
FOR CONSUMPTIVES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 100, An
Act to amend The Sanatoria for Consumptives
Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 100 reported.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 107, An
Act to amend The Training Schools Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 107 reported.
THE PRIVATE
INVESTIGATORS ACT,
1958
House in committee on Bill No. 115, An
Act to amend The Private Investigators Act,
1958.
Sections 1 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 115 reported.
THE GAME AND FISHERIES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 117, An
Act to amend The Game and Fisheries Act.
Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 117 reported.
THE MINING TAX ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 123, An
Act to amend The Mining Tax Act.
Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
On Section 11:
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
I move that section 11 be amended as follows:
that the words "commenced on" in the third
line of subsection 2 be struck out and "ends
in 1958 following" be substituted so that it
will read:
Subsection 2: The Mining Tax Act as
amended by this Act applies to the whole
or any part as the case may be of the
taxation year that ends in 1958 following
the first day of January, 1958, and to every
taxation year thereafter.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
Bill No. 123, as amended, reported.
Resolution by hon. C. Daley: Resolved
that:
the cost of the administration of The
Ontario Anti - Discrimination Commission
Act, 1958, until March 31, 1959, is payable
out of consolidated revenue fund
as provided by Bill No. 155, An Act to
establish The Ontario Anti-Discrimination
Commission.
Hon. Mr. Roberts (Attorney-General): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to inform the House
that the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor,
having been informed of the subject matter
of the proposed resolution, recommends it to
the consideration of the House.
Resolution concurred in.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, might I just ask has the hon. Min-
ister any estimate at all of what might be
needed or what might be spent?
Hon. C. Daley (Minister of Labour): We
are venturing into an entirely new field, and
that is why I could not estimate, so what-
MARCH 20, 1958
1077
ever is required is to be paid out of the
consolidated revenue fund.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the committee
do rise and report certain bills without
amendments, a bill with amendment, and
a certain resolution, and begs leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex South): Mr.
Speaker, the committee of the whole begs
to report certain bills without amendment,
one bill with amendment, and a certain
resolution, and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to: Mr. Speaker in the chair.
It being 6.00 of the clock, the House took
recess.
Page Column Insert after line 15:
869 2
ERRATUM
(Friday, March 14, 1958)
Correction
Mr. Reaume: I want to say to the hon. Prime Minister
that I did not think he could get so small so quickly.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, all right.
Mr. Reaume: But I will tell him this, now that he
wants to enter into a public personal argument—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Sure.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Reaume: On a point of order—
An hon. member: Let the hon. member for Essex
North state his. point of order.
Mr. Reaume: He has made a personal attack, and I
want to answer him on a point of order. I want to say
to him that at least I drive a car that is made in the
province of Ontario, and that is more than he does.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I may say I do.
Mr. Reaume: He does what?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Drive a car made in the province
of Ontario.
Mr. Reaume: Not the one that is out here.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, well that is all right. I drive a
Chevrolet, and I drive an Oldsmobile as a matter of
fact-
Mr. Reaume: Back home, back home.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now I may say this, I would tell
my-
Insert after line 26:
Mr. Reaume: Oh put that on the garden, put that
on the garden.
No. 41
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, March 20, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 20, 1958
Estimates, Department of Planning and Development, continued, Mr. Nickle 1081
Power Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Connell, second reading 1104
Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1922, bill to amend, Mr. Connell, second reading 1104
Manitoba-Ontario Lake St. Joseph Diversion Agreement Authorization Act, 1958,
bill intituled, Mr. Connell, second reading 1104
Services of Homemakers and Nurses, bill to provide for, Mr. Cecile, second reading 1104
Control of Air Pollution, bill to provide for, Mr. Phillips, second reading 1104
Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 1104
Ontario anti-discrimination commission, bill to establish, Mr. Daley, second reading 1104
Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading 1104
Public Hospitals Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading 1104
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, Mr. Phillips, second reading ... 1105
Trench Excavators Protection Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Daley, second reading 1105
Rehabilitation Services Act, 1955, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, second reading 1105
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1105
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1105
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 1105
'
■
•
....
1081
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, March 20, 1958
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the next order of
business, I see on my desk some Pirate Gold
Silver Honey, and I think that it is from
the hon. member for Simcoe Centre (Mr.
Johnston). Perhaps he would say something
about this.
Mr. G. G. Johnston (Simcoe Centre): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to place
this honey on your desk and those of the
hon. members. We produce good honey in
Simcoe county, and we also produce good
citizens. Five hon. members of this assembly
were born in Simcoe county, and I do not
think that any other county could say as
much. Over and above that, we have pro-
duced a Prime Minister of Ontario from
Simcoe county. We are very happy about
that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
( Continued )
Vote 1301 agreed to.
On vote 1302:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I see on the vote there is a
vote of $393,000 for civilian defence. I think
that the time has about come, as far as this
province is concerned, when we should say
that we are either for civilian defence or we
are going to wash our hands of the whole
affair. I think sometimes that civilian defence
should be entirely a federal responsibility.
With a vote of $393,000 we are only playing
at the great challenge of civilian defence,
and were a bomb to drop on this province,
I am sure what preparations we were able
to erect with one-third of a million dollars
would not help us very much.
It seems to me that, the way we are
voting this money, it is almost wasted, be-
cause it cannot begin to do the task that is
assigned to it, it cannot measure up to the
challenge that is there to provide civilian
defence for this great province of Ontario.
I would like to hear the hon. Minister in
respect to this item. Does he or does he
not think that civilian defence should be
primarily and altogether a federal responsi-
bility?
Once a bomb drops on this country, then
the task of organizing the defence of the
country rests upon federal shoulders. It
seems to me that, inasmuch as that is true,
then civilian defence even in times of peace
or cold war periods should certainly be a
federal responsibility in its entirety.
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development): I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, in answer to my hon. friend, that the
civil defence programme, as we know it
today, was established as a result of repre-
sentations that were made to the hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario by the then hon. Mini-
ster of National Health and Welfare (Mr.
Martin).
We entered into an agreement with hon.
Mr. Martin, and on the federal-provincial
level there have been certain monies ex-
pended, and we have had successful instruc-
tion with nurses, our civil defence workers,
our police, and a system of evacuation on
our roads.
By and large, it seems to me that the
saving of our people in the event of a third
world war is a very important thing. The
programme perhaps is difficult to stimulate,
but on the other hand, it was based on the
representations, as I say, made by hon. Mr.
Martin to my hon. leader.
Mr. Oliver: I would say to the hon. Mini-
ster that the saving of lives in time of war,
or any time for that matter, is a responsi-
bility of government, but insofar as only one-
third of a million dollars being devoted to
the task of preparing this great province
for defence in time of war— the kind of war
that we might expect— is concerned, that is
certainly just peanuts, and I think that we
had better either get into it or get out of
1082
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it. I see no use at all in proceeding further
along this line if this is the kind of support
they are going to give us.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I would
say to my hon. friend that this was done
according to an agreement, and I must say
that I really took his point of view. I think
that in the kind of war they talk about nowa-
days, the civilian population are in the front
line, and therefore I cannot see that we can
relegate the defence of the front line to
methods of purely civil defence.
Now I argued that out with my friend,
hon. Mr. Martin, who was then the Minister
of National Health and Welfare, and as a
matter of fact, this amount represents our
cut. But then, of course, there is the
municipal contribution in addition to that.
Now I think that it would be a fine idea
to have a reappraisal of this whole thing
after March 31, 1958, and I am quite in
agreement with that. I think that is the way
we should look at it.
But, on the other hand, this was done in
accordance with an agreement with hon.
Mr. Martin. With his eloquence he per-
suaded this government to look into it, and
he felt that it was the way to handle it.
That was only a matter of a year or two
ago.
I am bound to say that there are some
places, of course, where they have done a
very good job. I think that probably a
good job has been done here in Metropolitan
Toronto. On the other hand, there are
grave differences of opinion here in Metro-
politan Toronto as to the efficiency of what
we are doing generally in the matter of civil
defence.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): What is Metro-
politan Toronto doing, that is in the way
of cash responsibility, and what is the fed-
eral government doing for Ontario in this?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Federal, 50 per cent.;
province, 25 per cent.; Metropolitan To-
ronto, 25 per cent.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, I am quite sure that all hon. members
would concur, in the light of the figures of
the hon. Prime Minister, and the hon. leader
of the Opposition, that it is about time that
we had a reappraisal of the whole thing.
The hon. leader of the Opposition stated
that the item of $393,000 this year was for
civil defence, but what I would like to
draw attention to is this, that municipal
projects only amounted to $216,000. Now
what on earth can we do with that amount
of money? Further to that question, I
would like to ask how we would grant a
portion to the different municipalities, of
the sum of $216,000 for civil defence?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, one has to multi-
ply that by 4.
Mr. Thomas: But the municipality is
charged 25 per cent, of the total cost, salaries
and equipment?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes.
Vote 1,302 agreed to.
On vote 1303:
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to deal with this
vote for just a moment. Each year, since
I have been a member of the Legislature,
I have expressed my concern for the preser-
vation of the Niagara peninsula, particularly
the fruit lands. Now I know that the depart-
ment has set up the regional planning and
development organizations, but I do not feel—
and I cannot convince myself— that they are
going to be able to do the job that is to be
done, particularly because of the multiple
municipalities in that area. I do not think
that the necessary type of co-operation is
going to be shown.
I read the speech of the hon. Minister and
could find nothing in it referring to the
Niagara peninsula, and I would like to have
some comment on it, in regard to whether
the government is going to take part in the
development of the peninsula. I feel they
have to give the leadership needed to help
the planning group go along in the proper
direction.
Now, I think that it should be declared—
so that we all know what is going on— whether
or not we are in favour of preserving the
peninsula in regards to the proper type of
planning, industry, recreation and all that
is needed, or whether our policy will be to
chop down every tree and bulldoze every
field.
I understand that there was quite a lengthy
survey taken of the problems down there,
and I believe that it was somewhat contro-
versial as to what degree it will be successful.
I want to quote two paragraphs from the
Toronto Globe and Mail, written shortly after
the survey's report was brought down,
because I certainly feel that it needs some
clarification:
The 148-page report which was com-
piled by The Department of Agriculture
has been carefully censored. Valued parts
MARCH 20, 1958
1083
of the original geographical investigation,
which indicated that provisions of The
Assessment Act, The Planning Act and
other existing legislations could be applied
to preserve the fruit lands, have been
omitted. Despite the omissions the re-
ports still showed it would be desirable to
preserve the fruit lands. The missing
recommendations, if they had been adopted,
would have been applicable at the muni-
cipal levels in the first instance rather than
by the province.
However, this newspaper has maintained
that the use of such assessments for farms,
zoning regulations to discourage encroach-
ment on farm lands, and the like, should be
encouraged by adjustments to comply with
provincial grants.
I would like some comment on that and
I think that the government should declare
a policy in regards to the Niagara peninsula.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, I would say to the
hon. member, in relation to the question, that
there are two schools of thought on this.
One is that the Niagara peninsula should
be kept as an agricultural area, having regard
to the fine display of the trees when they
are in bloom in the early part of the season.
There is the other point of view, where people
who have owned areas of land in the fruit
belt have represented to us that they have
had opportunities to sell their land.
We think in the planning department that
there should be a co-ordinated proper plan-
ning approach, and by that I do not mean sell
here and sell there, what I would call pot-shot
sales. I think it should be co-ordinated to
the highest possible degree, that is the policy
of the department on that score.
But I do say this, that it puts us in a
difficult position when a man who perhaps
has reached what might be called the twilight
of life comes along, and says he wants to
sell his property for industrial development,
then it is a very difficult thing for me to
say that he cannot sell.
Now we think that if we develop this
area slowly, taking into consideration all the
inquiries made incidental to good planning,
that perhaps we will have to go along and
have some respect regarding the people who
own the land. There is a Louth report, I
may say, that was prepared for and filed with
The Department of Agriculture. They are
interested in this as it is a rural area; but, as
I say, this is a free country. It is pretty
difficult to say to people who want to, consoli-
date their fortune, to provide for what I
might call an annuity for the years that lie
ahead, "Thou shalt not and cannot sell."
Well, there it is.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): May I make an observation
on that point. It is true that the dispute of
this report has come in concerning Louth
township, which would indicate that there
should be some protection to the farmer and
for those who are growing fruit.
But it is interesting to note that a month
ago a report was handed down by two
geographers from McMaster University. Their
names have escaped me for the moment, but
they came to the conclusion that there may
well be a more economic use for land than
growing fruit.
One of the reasons for the setting up of
these regional planning associations, not only
down there but throughout the province, was
to aid the whole area to get together in a con-
centrated effort to do what was thought best
in a planning way for the area. Speaking
particularly of the Niagara escarpment, a
planning association has been formed, and is
now functioning. I was informed just tonight
that there was a meeting held last night in
order to work out some further details for
planning in that area.
It is true, as these geographers say, that
we can so plan that area that only the part
which is not suitable for fruit land would be
used for industrial or residential development.
There is also the question of extending the
services throughout the whole region.
In fact, persons from that area have visited
me suggesting that they should have some
kind of amalgamation or annexation in the
area around Grismby out in the township.
What they are getting at is this, they pointed
out to me that they already see the results
of the seaway coming. They know that their
area is a vital part in what we call the golden
horseshoe, stretching from Oshawa right
around to Niagara-on-the-Lake. These people
say: "We want to be part of this vast
development." They are willing to co-operate
in a planning way.
But, as the hon. Minister has said, who
are we to say to a small or big farmer: "We
are going to zone you in such a way that
your land can only be used for certain defined
purposes"? If we do that, that farmer can
well say: "Well, if you are taking my land
out of the market and I cannot sell it, who
is going to compensate me for my loss,
because my next door neighbour just recently
said he was offered $5,000 an acre for his
land for industrial or residential develop-
ment."
1084
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There is the problem, and it is my feeling
that this government does not want to say to
a certain group of people: "You are going to
be zoned for certain purposes only", because
as I say, they will come back to us and say:
"You are putting us out of business, now we
want to be compensated." That is a very dif-
ficult question, and if my hon. friend from
Wentworth East has a solution, or part of a
solution, I know I for one, coming from that
area, would be just as glad as he to have
some idea as to how it might be solved.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, I can agree
with the hon. Minister of Planning and
Development and the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs to the extent of encroachment
on these properties and telling the owners
what they must do with it. But I think we
can do something. I think that if we do
develop the area for park purposes— pro-
vincial parks— that it would be very suitable
for maintaining as a green belt. Certainly
one could not find a more suitable area in the
province of Ontario for a scenic driveway.
We have the lakeshore and could develop one
of the grandest lakeside resorts for as many
miles as we wished. The resort could be
brought back as far as the highway, which
would encourage the tourists to stop there
and spend a little money, instead of going on
up to the north if they did not want to go
so far.
Although I agree we cannot tell the farmer
what he has to do, certainly the government
could do something to develop parks or lake-
side resorts in that area, and that would keep
industry in its proper place.
I think it is going to be a sorry day for
this end of the province if industry does
encroach completely in the peninsula. It is
all right to talk about the golden horseshoe
and that sort of thing, and the fact that it is
a grand spot for industry to settle in. Cer-
tainly it is the grandest spot in the province
for them to settle, they have water there and
they have access to the rails and everything
like that.
But it is about time we gave some con-
sideration to at least keeping a portion of the
province where one can drive from the city
and have 5 or 10 miles of scenery before he
reaches another city.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If I recall, within a short
distance of the hon. member, he has 35 miles
of parks. More than that he has the finest
park in America right now, in the Niagara
parks system. Does he want to turn all that
land into parks? Ask some of those people
down there what they think about it.
Mr. Gisbom: I would not spoil the beauty
of the Niagara parks commission by the
encroachment on the peninsula itself.
Hon. C. Daley (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Chairman, that happens to be my riding— a
large part of it over near Lincoln which
extends from the Niagara river up west of
Grimsby, and I think I know the situation
over there. I think I know the people. I have
attended many meetings, some of them spon-
sored by The Department of Planning and
Development, where the farmers got together
and discussed the preservation of this area
for the growing of fresh fruits.
It is a rapidly growing area. The township
of Grantham, which is a part of my riding,
a few years ago had 6,000 people in it.
Today there are 36,000. It is a fact that
some of it has always been considered valu-
able peach land, or fresh fruit land. It has
not been used up for industry and residential
purposes. But there is still a lot of vacant
land over there that would grow peaches,
if the peaches were required. But if hon.
members will recall, every year for the last
several years they have seen pictures in
the paper where they are dumping surplus
peaches, thousands of baskets of them. Last
year, tremendous quantities of peaches were
thrown away.
Now, is the Niagara peninsula the only
place where peaches will grow in this coun-
try? No, there are great areas along the
lake far up the Windsor way that grow
fruit.
Mr. Gisborn: That is only one excuse for
dropping the subject, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Daley: I would say that the
people who own that land, over there, own
it just as much as other people own their
land, and it would be nonsense for any
government to go in there and say: "You
cannot sell your land because we want you
to grow peaches on it. It has grown peaches
for 100 years, and you are going to con-
tinue to grow peaches."
I certainly would not want to be a part
of that government. If this land is wanted
for some particular purpose, then the buyer
must be prepared to buy it at the going
market price. That area, because of its
geographical location and fine transportation
systems, will no doubt grow industrially to
a great extent. We cannot stop that, we
cannot stop progress.
If my thinking about democracy means
what I think it does, we are certainly not
going to go in and take people's land away
MARCH 20, 1958
1085
from them. That is my opinion and I think
the opinion of the people over there. Pro-
gress will come to the land. Look at the
lovely vegetable land along the Queen Eliza-
beth Way. There used to be excellent fields
of vegetables growing there. It is all gone.
They grow the vegetables some place else,
and they can grow peaches somewhere else,
and there will still be, 25 years from now,
plenty of peaches grown in that district, in
spite of what I consider to be almost assured
—great industrial progress in the area.
Mr. Gisborn: Just one final word, I do not
think it is just a question of preserving the
peach growing lands.
An hon. member: Does the hon. member
own any of that peach land?
Mr. Gisborn: I think the problem, Mr.
Chairman, is much broader than just worrying
about the peach trees; it is a much broader
question and I think the government should—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well what is the question?
Let us hear it. Does he want us to turn it
all into a park, is that it?
Mr. Gisborn: I believe a great majority of
it could be turned into provincial parks and
preserved for resorts.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What about that one? Why
does the hon. member not let us mind our
own business and—
Mr. Gisborn: What other lakeside resorts
are in that area of the country?
Hon. Mr. Frost: There is a nice lakeside
resort at Burlington.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Let me just say a word
to my hon. friend. We have in that area the
Niagara regional development association.
Now there are several of those development
associations scattered across the length and
breadth of this province, and the association
is made up of men from all walks of life and
all political philosophies.
We meet with those people— some of my
departmental representatives meet with them
at least once a month, and we are discussing
these people who live in that area, some of
whom own the land and who we think have
a proper approach to this subject. They do
not agree that it should all be parks.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Minister
of Labour. I do not think we can tell people
what to do with their land. Also, we have
very little control of the use individuals will
make of land after they have acquired it.
On the other hand it seems to me obvious
that this area is going to become industrial-
ized more and more as time goes by, I would
think that is quite obvious.
My question is this, what are we doing
about planning some other areas of less
economic value than that particular land to
substitute as a fruit belt, for the future?
There are certain less economic areas of
Ontario at the present time that could be
developed into fruit growing belts for the
future at relatively little money.
I am much concerned that, 25 years from
now, we will suddenly find ourselves in a
position where that area is industrial and is
used as such, and we will have no other
suitable area to which we can turn, after all
there are only a limited number of geographic
locations and climatic areas in Ontario that
lend themselves to growing fruit, and it seems
to me that with a minimum of interference
of property rights, we can accomplish our
basic objectives. That is the substitution of
other areas for what must inevitably be the
disappearance of this area as a fruit growing
belt.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Does the hon.
member want all the industry in Kitchener?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well the hon. member
wanted it in Perth the other day.
Mr. Edwards: Well, sure I do.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, let him not be so
silly.
Mr. Edwards: Well my hon. friend is being
silly now.
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Minister must
be concerned about this problem. I am sure
he is, and I know it is a difficult problem and
I am not here to criticize him personally.
But I think that, as a government, we have
to think about this. Are there any areas in
Ontario that would be developed economi-
cally as substitutional fruit growing belts?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
I am afraid the hon. member for Waterloo
North was not listening to me this afternoon,
when I told him about the lovely garden
area in Norfolk county. It is still there, he
should come over and see it, and watch
our peaches growing there.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Just protect it so they
do not bring their industry into—
Hon. Mr. Frost: There the hon. member
IN-
1086
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. W. Murdoch (Essex South): I think
we should discount the theory— and it is
only a theory— that if the Niagara fruit lands
disappear we will be short of peaches in this
part of Ontario. I think we should discount
it entirely.
I am a farmer coming from the county of
Essex. I know, for instance, that with the
irrigation that will possibly come about by
the introduction of the pipe line and lots of
water in Essex county we can double the
peach production in Essex county any time.
There is all kinds of land all around the north
shore of Lake Erie from Essex county to the
Niagara peninsula which can be used for
growing peaches. There are also fine areas
around Sarnia which can be used for growing
peaches.
Mr. Wintermeyer: We should start protect-
ing that land.
Mr. Murdoch: Let me point out that our
scientists and agriculturists are always
developing different varieties of peaches. Our
scientists are also bringing out different and
better types of fertilizers. I would like to
point out that at one time Essex county
was the only county that could grow and
mature corn. The scientists bred hybrid corn
with the result that today it can be matured
almost anywhere in Ontario.
The same is true of tobacco. At one time,
Essex county and part of Kent county were
the only parts of Ontario that grew tobacco,
but our scientists shortened the ripening
period for tobacco by breeding, and now
we grow it in many places.
So let us not think that our scientists and
agriculturists are standing still. When the
need arises they come through, and we do
not have to worry about peaches in the
province of Ontario.
Mr. W. H. Collings (Beaches): The hon.
member has forgotten the grapes that are
grown.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): If we are
going to start worrying about trees— peach
trees or any other kinds of trees— when
industry is talking of expanding, I can agree
with those who say that this area is a fine
place for industrial plants and if we are
going to let a few trees stand in the way
I think the whole argument is foolish. My
hon. friend from Essex South represents I
think one of the finest areas in the whole
of the province. I do not think that there is
a finer peach grown any place than right
in that area.
I just want to announce that if we could
obtain the plants or industries in Windsor
and the area around it by doing away with
a few trees, why then certainly we will get
the axe out in a hurry and get those trees
out of the way.
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Mr. Chair-
man, since we got the peaches out of the
way, I was wondering if the hon. Minister
could give us a review of the board of review
—something that has been discussed at some
length in this House on other occasions.
I see there is $1,000 allotted to that particu-
lar board, and I would like to know from
him at the moment how many meetings the
board had this year, how many came before
it, and how many cases are pending at the
present time, or if the board is active.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I would say to the
hon. member that the board of review, I
prefer to think, was set up with the hon.
member's enthusiastic support in the St.
Lawrence valley. It was established because,
when the power project and the seaway
were developed, a good many people not
far from the riding of the hon. member
were dislocated, and had to move into new
townsites and new areas. We had to have
new homes and schools, shopping centres,
and roads, the Canadian National Railways
right-of-way had to be changed, and so on.
Now, there was at one time a rather severe
apprehension, on the part of the people who
were going to be moved out, as to just what
the future held for them. They were given
every assurance by the hon. Prime Minister
and this government that they would be fairly
treated.
I do not know whether the hon. member
was in Morrisburg the day I was down
there and they had the meeting in the town
hall. I forget the name of the solicitor,
but in any event it was his opinion that,
in selling a farm, one should put a value
on the house and driveshed, granary, pig-pen
and chicken coop.
Now, with my limited experience in law
in a small place, in a good place like Kings-
ton—something like Kitchener— I always had
the experience that, when one bought a farm
he bought the package inside of the boun-
daries—that whatever was there was part
of the package price.
We then set up the board of review, and
Mr. Wingfelder from my department was
MARCH 20, 1958
1087
the chairman of the board of review. We
had, as a co-ordinator in connection with the
overall programme, Mr. Arthur Bunnell, to
whom I referred the other day in speaking
about my estimates. There were a couple
of representatives from each of the munici-
palities on the board of review.
Some 40 cases came before the board, and
what the board recommended to Hydro as
the fair price to be paid was accepted by
Hydro, and as far as I know there is not
one case outstanding at this moment.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
to say something in respect to community
planning, having in mind the Long Branch
rifle range. For a number of years now, we
have said among ourselves that if we could
just get hold of the Long Branch rifle range
we could really do something there, we
could build a lot of houses, the city of
Toronto could spread itself out there, and
we would really be going places.
The way it is now, the Hydro has moved
in, I understand— am I wrong in that? Are
they not building a big thermo station on
the Long Branch rifle range?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I thought they went to—
Hon. R. Connell (Minister without Port-
folio): As far as I, know, that is the part
the hon. member is referring to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But that was by an
agreement with the city of Toronto, what-
ever was done there, or agreement with
Metro.
Mr. Oliver: I think the hon. Prime Minis-
ter will find it was not an agreement with
the city of Toronto either, was it?
Hon. Mr. Connell: Toronto and the
Dominion government are in full accord on
that.
Mr. Oliver: But was not the acreage on
which the thermo station is to be built leased
from the federal government? That is cer-
tainly my understanding.
But in any event, I think what could be
said on this is this: That if we are to have
community planning, surely there was some
way of getting into that choice area for resi-
dential building, and yet we find now that
the Hydro is moving in and spoiling the whole
thing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, that is not what the
municipality says. I would point out to the
hon. leader of the Opposition that the Long
Branch area provided one of the possibilities
to Toronto, before the creation of Metropoli-
tan Toronto, because it was difficult to get
land. Now, as a matter of fact, the city of
Toronto I think had some ownership down
there of the Long Branch ranges.
Mr. Oliver: They had 100 acres.
Hon. Mr. Frost: But the balance of it was
owned, I think, by the federal government.
Mr. Oliver: 150 acres.
Hon. Mr. Frost: And at that time, when
the city of Toronto was casting around in
despair for some place to go for housing,
they said: "Here, we own this 100 acres,
could we not do something down here?"
With the coming into being of Metropolitan
Toronto, that picture entirely changed.
My own judgment is this, and I think the
judgment of those municipalities down there
is, that that area is really a choice one for
an industrial development. There is land now
in the great area of the 13 municipalities of
Metropolitan Toronto, there is an area now
for building on, that was not there in those
times, and I think that the consideration that
he refers to has disappeared.
I can very well remember discussing that
with Mr. McCallum, when he was mayor of
Toronto, and others. The city of Toronto had
literally no place to go, and people were
living in garrets, and they looked at that 100
acres and asked if we could do anything
about it. Now, that was one of the things
which led to the creation of Metropolitan
Toronto, but I do not think that considera-
tion applies today at all.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask a question. Up in our area, there is an
island known as Peach Island, and I under-
stand that a group of builders had approved
it for building houses on the island. It was
purchased for the purpose of building houses.
Now it is the only island in the area and
there had been some talk of making a park
out of it, and I think that the province was
approached of course and turned the offer
down.
But the question I want to ask is this: Has
the department of the hon. Minister any hand
in the okaying of any plans to build houses
on the island? If so, why have they now
changed their minds, why are they going to
make an amusement park out of the island,
and keep it in the hands of private owners?
I want to find out if they are going to build
houses, if they are going to build a dance
hall out on the island, or what they actually
are going to have there.
1088
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I would say to the hon.
member I do not know this Peach Island. If
he could give me the name of the subdivision,
or the name of anybody who may have
applied for a plan of subdivision, I could
have it looked up—
Mr. Reaume: It is in Sandwich East, and I
understand that a man by the name of
Pruefer was the man who made application.
Mr. H. L. Rowntree (York West): Mr.
Chairman, could I correct my understanding
of what the discussion has been? The hon.
leader of the Opposition was speaking about
the housing project in Long Rranch, and
if I understand him he was referring to the
so-called Long Branch rifle ranges. Is that
right? Just so we will understand that, Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I asked a
question of the hon. Minister and now the
Hon. member for York West is making a
speech.
Mr. Rowntree: Oh, I will come back to
my speech after—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: It is very difficult, as
I say, to identify Peach Island without
further information than the hon. member
for Essex North has just given me. As I
recall it, some application came in for a
plan of a subdivision, then inquiries were
made about the approach to the island— their
sewage disposal and so on. The inquiries were
not answered, and the matter is at a stand-
still. It was never pressed.
Now, if the hon. member would give me
more details on Monday, when he comes
back, I will take him down to my office
and we can go over it together.
Mr. Murdoch: The information I have
about that is that it was a speculative deal.
It all hinged on the municipality building
a bridge, which was a pretty expensive deal,
and the building up of Peach Island de-
pended on obtaining fill from Detroit com-
ing down by barge. The whole scheme more
or less folded up. It was quite a plan of
capital venture, shall we say. It just did
not materialize. It was a dream up to a
point, and that is the way it is today.
Mr. Reaume: That is true, but the point
is that when the province had the oppor-
tunity of expropriating that property for a
park, they should have taken it. It is an
ideal spot for a park. It was approved for
building houses, and that plan stopped.
Now, as I understand it, the island is going
to be turned into some kind of a dance hall
affair, and this would spoil the whole arrange-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why did not the muni-
cipality buy it?
Mr. Reaume: Well, we were a little short
of funds.
Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, just so we
clear the record on this point, there was
reference to the so-called Long Branch
rifle ranges, I believe. That is a misnomer.
Those rifle ranges which belong to the
Dominion government are in the riding of
Peel, and they are not located in anything
to do with the metropolitan corporation, nor
with York West.
Vote 1,303 agreed to.
On vote 1,304:
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, on item No.
6, grants to conservation authorities, as may
be approved by the Honourable Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council. How are those grants
given, what is the basis?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: There are a number
of conservation authorities, as we know,
established in the province of Ontario— I
think there are 19. Until about 12 or 18
months ago the province contributed 37.5
per cent. I use this word advisedly— it was
assumed that the federal government would
contribute 37.5 per cent, and the authority
would put up the other 25 per cent.
Now for some reason the then federal
Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural
Resources (Mr. LeSage) took the position
that, unless the project cost more than $5
million the federal government would not
put up a dime.
So we made a second approach to the then
Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural
Resources and indicated there might be
some pyramiding of dams and so on in
connection with the over-all project, and we
promised him we could consolidate what I
would call the pyramiding programme, and
he said no, the federal government would
only come into it in the event of a dam
costing $5 million or more.
Then the province, realizing there was not
too much financial assistance coming from
the federal level, jacked up our percentage
to 50 per cent, and the authority pays the
other 50 per cent., and that is the situation
at the moment.
MARCH 20, 1958
1089
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, concerning the
50 per cent, to be raised by the authority,
that would be raised from the municipalities
in the area?
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Might I ask
the hon. Minister if the present administra-
tion is a little bit more favourable to this
suggestion than was the former administra-
tion? Have they made any grants towards
this?
An hon. member: Ask them on March 31.
Mr. Innes: Or would they like a little more
time?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Another couple of weeks
and we will get those things all settled.
Mr. Oliver: They might not be so generous.
Vote 1,304 agreed to.
On vote 1,305:
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
coming from a rural area, I am not too
familiar with this housing branch, and I
would like the hon. Minister to give us a
small resume of what he does and just what
the results have been in the last year.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: In reference to the hous-
ing branch, I should tell hon. members that
all land assembly projects come into force as
the result of initiative taken on the municipal
level. The provincial or federal governments
cannot establish any housing project unless
the application first comes from the muni-
cipality.
When that comes, then we make surveys,
there are some borings taken in relation to
the top soil and how deep it is before we get
rock, and what it is going to cost for the
services, so on and so forth. Then the over-all
programme is submitted to The Department
of Public Works in Ottawa, and that is
known as the federal-provincial partnership.
Now that project has worked in a very
satisfactory way between myself and the
former hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Winters) and it has likewise gone along very
smoothly with the present hon. Minister (Mr.
Green), through the federal agency, Central
Mortgage and Housing.
Mr. Whicher: I wonder if the hon. Minister
could tell us how much money the province
puts into this on a percentage basis, how
much the federal government puts in, and
how much—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: 25 per cent, and 75 per
cent.
Mr. Whicher: That is for the land.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes.
Mr. Whicher: What about the building?
What about the actual building of a house?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: After the land assembly
project has been established, we hold the
lots for sale for two months, to be sold
to any individual in the area. At the end
of that time, if there are any lots left
over— if builders would like then to buy
a portion of what is left— we are pre-
pared to sell them to the builder, but not
them all. Now it just depends how many are
left as to how many we sell and, by and large,
we think we have been fair. We hold the lots
for say 10 weeks, advertising them for sale.
The talk in the area and the community goes
around quite quickly, and in the final analysis,
as far as I know, there has never been any
complaint, by people who live in the area
where the land assembly was established, that
they were not given fair treatment by the
Dominion-provincial partnership.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, in this hous-
ing branch annual report, 1957, in one of the
paragraphs it says:
at the same time the high rate of immigra-
tion is resulting in a severe pressure on
the housing market, and has depleted any
surplus housing that is available in the
lower price bracket.
Now, my question is simply this. I under-
stand that the department has purchased land
in co-operation with the federal government.
What I would like to know is what part it
takes in the building of houses, and in the
financing of individual units of housing in
this province, if any?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The only time we take
any part in the building programme is in
connection with low rental projects.
Mr. Whicher: If I wanted to buy a house,
could I borrow any money from the provincial
government?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No, but the hon. member
can borrow from Central Mortgage and
Housing up to I think, 80 per cent, or 90
per cent.
Mr. Whicher: And in Central Mortgage and
Housing, does the province put any money
in it, or does it guarantee anything?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No, but I am quite sure
that in what I say now, I am going to be
accused of being partisan, but on the other
hand, knowing the hon. member for fairness,
1090
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
he will subscribe to this point of view that
the tight-money policy that the former
government put in, at the federal level,
nearly wrecked the housing programme in
this province, several months ago.
Mr. Whicher: Being very fair, I will back
up a little bit and, knowing the hon. Minister
is equally fair, I am going to ask him, is it
not a fact as far as building homes in the
province of Ontario is concerned, that he is
not doing one single thing with the exception
of supplying some land? Is he going to be
equally as fair?
Hon. Mr. Frost: My hon. friend might get
his report and read it carefully, and then he
would come back and he would have a
different outlook.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: On this manual that was
on hon. members' desks the other day, if
they look at the last page on the bottom right-
hand corner, they will see where we built
4,517 units.
Mr. Whicher: How does the department
build them if it does not finance any of it?
I mean, how can it claim that it built, when I
cannot borrow 5 cents from the department?
I mean, is it not just—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: 75 per cent, and 25 per
cent.
Mr. Whicher: 75 per cent, and 25 per cent.?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: That is right.
Mr. Whicher: Well, in other words then,
the hon. Minister has not built anything. All
he did was supply—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that we entered into the second mort-
gage arrangement when the then federal
government defaulted on their obligations.
We entered into the second mortgage ar-
rangement and we loaned some $17 million
or $18 million and I forget how many loans
there were, I think 11,000.
Then the federal government came back
into the field again and, of course, we left it.
It is not our business to be in the mortgage
field. That is really a central government
affair.
Mr. Whicher: I am glad the hon. Prime
Minister has entered into this thing, because
I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Minis-
ter of Planning and Development. I do not
mind calling a spade a spade, and I am
going to say this.
As far as building houses is concerned, in
these reports the province has not done any-
thing. It is completely fictitious. The hon.
Minister has not done anything about it
whatsoever, and he is trying to take claim
for something which he has not done.
Now, I have a suggestion that I would
like to give to the hon. Minister of Planning
and Development, and it is simply this. Since
he is on such friendly terms with the gov-
ernment in Ottawa now, I would suggest
that he try to get the terms and conditions
under which he can borrow money under The
National Housing Act, that they be loosened
to include older homes.
I realize the department is not in the
business of loaning money, but nevertheless
the hon. Minister has such great influence
in Ottawa, may I remind him that there are
thousands-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: He will not have as much
some time.
Mr. Edwards: Where does the hon. mem-
ber stand?
Mr. Kerr: That was the advice he got
last year and he did not take it.
Mr. Whicher: The only thing I can do
is look around, that is all I can say there.
I would suggest this, that I can see no reason
whatsoever why The National Housing Act
should not cover older homes across this
province and particularly in the smaller
centres. There are many, many older homes
that are certainly just as good as newer
ones. Through the natural course of events,
if I want to go and buy an older home in-
stead of a new one, why do I have to get
a mortgage through a trust company or
something like that? Why cannot I get it
through any government agency?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why? What is wrong with
that?
Mr. Whicher: Well, I think it would be a
good idea if one could be financed through
a government agency. The province is in the
business of supplying homes.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Why?
Mr. Whicher: Why? I would say this. Is
not an old home in many instances just as
good a financial risk as a new home?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The point is a question of
building houses.
MARCH 20, 1958
1091
Mr. Cowling: Why get the money from the
government?
Mr. Whicher: Well surely, if it is a worth-
while thing to borrow money on a new home
through the government through The
National Housing Act, it would be equally as
good if one could get it on an older home.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The purpose of the loan is
to build a house. That is the purpose, to
build new housing.
Mr. Whicher: The purpose of a loan is to
provide housing for our citizens.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, but building them,
that is right. It is not to finance all the real
estate in the country.
Mr. Whicher: May I point out that across
Ontario there are many thousands of older
homes that get gradually run down, and if
we could buy them under The National
Housing Act, why it would increase the
standard of old homes by a great deal.
Might I point out that there are such
legislations as The Veterans Land Act, as an
example, and most certainly under that Act
one does not have to buy a new house.
Mr. Rowntree: How would a loan improve
the standard of an old house?
Mr. Whicher: I will tell the hon. member
how it would increase the standard of an
old home, because too many old homes are
owned by people who simply cannot afford
to fix them up, and if I wanted to—
An hon. member: No bathrooms.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Is he talk-
ing about home improvement loans?
Mr. Whicher: There is quite a chorus over
there.
Mr. Grossman: Is he talking about home
improvement loans, that is—
Mr. Whicher: I am not talking about home
improvement loans.
Mr. Grossman: Well, that is what he
is explaining in his description-
Mr. Whicher: No, I am not. If there was
not so much cackling from the other side,
the hon. member could understand.
Mr. Grossman: All right, we will not pay
any attention to the hon. member for Bruce.
He does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
a question?
Mr. Whicher: No, he cannnot ask a
question.
An hon. member: What are we on? Are
we on the federal Act, The Federal Land
and Housing Act or on a provincial Act?
Mr. Whicher: We are on housing.
An hon. member: He is talking about
federal matters.
Mr. Whicher: No, I am not talking about
federal assistance at all.
An hon. member: He is talking about The
National Housing Act.
Mr. Whicher: These people are claiming
that they are building so many houses, when
in reality they have not built any at all, and
I will not—
Mr. Edwards: He is talking about
renovating.
Mr. Whicher: Listen, the hon. member
cannot even ask a question, so I do not know
how he could answer one.
I am only suggesting this, that this is—
Mr. Cowling: Would the hon. member
permit a question, another question?
Mr. Whicher: Just one question. Yes.
Mr. Cowling: I know that the hon. member
for Bruce is a great believer in the free
enterprise way of doing business, the same
as I am.
Mr. Reaume: That is a speech. That is not
a question.
Mr. Cowling: I will get around to it now,
my shower room friend. Let him not go
away, just stick around.
Now, would he say that, when it is an
easy thing— please do not go home, stay
around till tomorrow. My question is this. He
can go to the bank today and he can go to
mortgage companies, and he can go to loan
companies and get loans to improve an older
home. I live in an older home.
Now what right would the government
have to go into the loan business in com-
petition with these people who are in private
business? That is my question to the hon.
member for Bruce.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I am not
suggesting that the government should go
into the loan business. I am only suggesting
this-
An hon. member: That is what he said.
1092
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: No, I beg your pardon. If I
did, I am sorry.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We are in it now.
Mr. Whicher: W7hat I suggested is this,
that it is not possible for a citizen of this
country to go and get a loan under The
National Housing Act to buy an old home
the same way as he can buy a new one. I
say that he should be able to.
Now, I am not suggesting that one cannot
go to the bank and loan companies and
various financial institutions such as that and
fix up older homes today.
But I am suggesting this, that if I wanted
to buy a home, there are many, many people,
myself included, who would just as soon buy
an old one as build a new one. Therefore, I
say if this province is to give housing to the
citizens of the country, and if I happen to
prefer an older home, I should have the
right to go and buy it, and inasmuch as
The National Housing Act is helping out
those people who build new homes, it should
be made so that one could buy an old one.
Mr. Cowling: It is a federal Act.
Mr. Whicher: I know it is a federal Act,
and I agreed with that when I started. But
what I was suggesting was this, that inasmuch
as the hon. Minister and the hon. Prime
Minister have so much to say as far as Ottawa
is concerned these days, they should try to
give this suggestion to the people down there.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Might I ask my hon.
friend why he did not get that done during
the last 22 years?
Mr. Whicher: Twenty-two years ago, I was
a little young to start on that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, he has been sitting
around here for 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Whicher: There are a few people
around here too old to start it, I will tell the
hon. Prime Minister that much.
An hon. member: Let us find out.
Mr. Whicher: Now, I do not want to take
a lot of time about this. I just want to point
out this fact, that under The Veterans Land
Act, old homes are quite permissible, and
it has been one of the fairest bits of legislation
that ever has gone through in Ottawa. I
would suggest that this would be equally as
good legislation and a benefit to the people
if it were passed through.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Is the hon. member for
Oshawa in favour of loaning on old houses?
Is he thinking about that proposition?
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, let us get
down to the business of the evening. With
the increasing population, from the cradle and
by immigration, I do not think that anyone
can deny the need for low rental homes in
Canada today.
When the hon. Prime Minister announced
his great programme in 1951, I had a great
deal of confidence, at that time, that he
would get somewhere, but since that time,
I am disappointed.
Mr. Whicher: Everyone else is too.
Mr. Thomas: Now here are the headlines—
an announcement by the hon. Prime Minister:
Planned 2,000 Unit Housing on Long
Branch Range
On June 12, 1951, 5 months before the
election in November, 1951—
Hon. Mr. Frost: It was not on June 12,
it was on June 11, 1951. I want the hon.
member to be correct there.
Mr. Thomas: June 12 down here. Well
anyway it was on June 12, 1951, Mr. Chair-
man, just 5 months before the election on
November, 1951, and I quote:
Some 25,000 new homes for rental to
people of moderate means may be built
in Ontario as a result of the new Ontario-
federal government deal, announced by
Prime Minister Frost last night.
In the initial stages of the plan, Toronto
could expect to get 2,000 homes.
Here is another item, at the time the hon.
Prime Minister I think was speaking in Lon-
don to the mayors and reeves association.
Prime Minister Frost said it was hoped
that the houses of two and three bedrooms
could be built for a maximum cost of
$9,000 and be rented at a rate of $50 to
$60 per month.
So we had great hopes, at that time, that
we would get some houses built in Ontario,
and at the start of the session the hon. mem-
ber for York South (Mr. MacDonald) put a
question on the order paper asking how many
homes had been constructed under this plan
sfnce 1951.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would the hon. member
read the question?
MARCH 20, 1958
1093
Mr. Thomas: Yes, wait a minute. The
hon. member for York South inquired of the
Ministry:
1. How many low rental housing units
have been completed on the 25,000 objec-
tive announced by Prime Minister Frost
in London June 12, 1951?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Would the hon. member
read the answer now?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, sure. It was answered
by the hon. Minister of Planning and De-
velopment :
Number of rental housing units com-
pleted and occupied since 1951, were
2,623 in 38 projects.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Read on.
Mr. Thomas: Now that is the number
completed and occupied in 7 years. The
answer goes on:
Number of rental housing units under
construction 1,804 in 10 projects; 215 in
one project approved but awaiting con-
struction; approximate number of rental
housing units under negotiation, 1,082 in
15 projects estimated the total number of
units.
Now some of them are not even built. It
says the number of units totals 5,724, but the
fact is this, Mr. Chairman, that this govern-
ment has been instrumental in 7 years in
building only 2,623 homes.
I am quite sure that the hon. Prime Min-
ister, not so much the hon. Minister of
Planning and Development because he has
not been in that position too long, but I
am quite sure the hon. Prime Minister must
be very, very disappointed with that record.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I would say that I
am not disappointed. This is what happened
back in 1951. The great problem really was
here in Metropolitan Toronto, and I would
say we talked of 2,000 houses in this area.
We attempted to do that, and I would say
it was impossible for the city of Toronto,
despite their good professions and their de-
sires to do it. That brought about Metro-
politan Toronto and the construction of
thousands of houses, in this area. There is
really no shortage of housing right now in
Metropolitan Toronto, with due respect to
my good hon. friend from across the way
here, who knows about building and so on.
Mr. Thomas: Oh, there is a shortage of
low rental housing, for the lower income
group of people. There is a shortage of
housing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let me give my hon.
friend this, here was the proposal. I have
here the speech, it was a real good speech
that I made on that occasion. Here was
the problem, here is the composition. The
financing of the houses will be on the basis
of the federal and provincial government
advancing 92.5 per cent, and the munici-
palities 7.5 per cent. But remember, it was
dependent upon the municipalities coming
into the deal and financing 7.5 per cent.
Mr. Thomas: Plus the servicing of the
land?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, no, that was all taken
in, that was all in the deal. The municipal
contribution is arrived at as being roughly
the cost of the services which will be the
project cost. Roughly, their service costs
were estimated at the time to be 7.5 per cent.
The agreement said:
The municipalities will therefore be part-
ners in the scheme in each area for cost,
profits and losses to the extent of 7.5 per
cent, and the management will be through
the local housing authorities above referred
to.
I am familiar with the way that works out.
For instance, if we take the town of Lindsay,
their housing authority was set up in agree-
ment between the federal, provincial and
municipal governments, a small housing
authority which is not paid by the way, and
then if they wanted the houses erected they
financed it to the extent of 7.5 per cent, and
the other partnership advanced 92.5 per
cent, and paid 92.5 per cent, of the losses,
and of course got 92.5 per cent, of the profits,
that was the deal.
That was a very generous deal. I think
my hon. friend will agree that there could not
be a more generous deal with the municipali-
ties than that.
The municipalities, through their actions,
have indicated a lack of interest in the scheme
for this reason, that other housing is being
built in very large quantities.
Now, take this city. If we go back 5 years
to the time of the introduction of the Metro-
politan Toronto bill which I would say was
opposed by all those hon. gentlemen opposite-
well, I would agree that my hon. friend from
Oshawa supported it— but all of those others
1094
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
around him opposed that great plan for the
betterment of this community.
At that time in Toronto, we had this prob-
lem, we had people living in Toronto with no
possibility of any place to go, because if they
went to the outskirts they could not get sew-
age, they could not get the necessary muni-
cipal services. People were living in garrets
in this community— the poorer people were
actually living in garrets and places that were
not fit for human beings.
With the setting up of Metropolitan Toron-
to, tens of thousands of houses were erected
in this area. I suppose that no area in Canada
in the last 5 years built the number of houses
that were built in this area, and certainly
there is no area in Canada comparable with
that area which stretches from that fine com-
munity of Oshawa right around to the Niagara
river, in the building of houses.
This is why the municipalities did not take
up the rental housing plan to any great extent,
and I must admit I agree with them. With
the building of new houses, the older accom-
modation became available at comparatively
low rentals, and today those crowded condi-
tions of 5 years ago have been pretty well
eliminated, with the result that the older
accommodation which before housed people
who have since moved is now available for
low rental housing, so that none of the muni-
cipalities are running wild about getting into
a subsidized class of building.
That has happened right across this prov-
ince. I could name a municipality that we
were a bit interested in the other day. I think
there were some 40 serviced lots that had not
been used in that community. The proposal
was made to the municipality that we should
erect houses— I mean moderate rental, I am
not talking about low rental housing, but I
am talking about moderate -rental housing,
which would be low rental housing in the
terms of what we are talking about here
tonight.
That municipality made a survey and said
to us that they would prefer not to erect the
houses because they were not needed. A very
short time ago that municipality was short
of houses.
What this was directed at disappeared be-
cause of other reasons. It would be a very fool-
ish thing for a municipality to build unneeded
housing. This plan was an option for them—
if they wanted to subsidize, then we would go
along with them, and their liability was only
7.5 per cent. The fact that there were com-
paratively few houses built— of course, 5,700
houses is a considerable number after ail-
but over 7 or 8 years, 5,700 houses, in view of
the tens of thousands of houses erected in this
province, is a very small thing.
Now, why did not the municipalities go
into this? It was because the pressures were
relieved, and they did not have to do it, and
they did not do it and I agree with them. I
think it was very wise that they did not.
Mr. Thomas: But the hon. Prime Minister
realizes he did not build 5,700 houses.
Mr. Cowling: On that point of the hon.
Prime Minister and that point that the hon.
member raised, I would like to support what
the hon. Prime Minister said because I hap-
pened to be on the Toronto council in 1950.
I am going to get around to the hon. member
in just a minute-
Mr. Thomas: I thought he just supported
me.
Mr. Cowling: —and I was thoroughly
familiar with the Toronto situation, and what
the hon. Prime Minister said is absolutely true.
The situation was not good, but I do feel
this, that the results of the speech he
made in London in June of 1951 must
have been very satisfactory to all the muni-
cipalities and particularly the voters of the
province of Ontario, because my hon. friend
must recall that in June, 1951, the party he
supports had about 36 members in this House.
Mr. Thomas: No, 21.
Mr. Cowling: Twenty-one in 1951. Well,
in November of 1951, and I well remember
the date because it was my privilege to be
elected at that time, the party he supports
wound up with two members. Now let him
wait until I finish— so I think that is a pretty
good indication that the people generally
must have been very satisfied with the hon.
Prime Minister's speech. I think that is
enough said.
Mr. Thomas: That is because the electorate
believed the hon. Prime Minister, but since
that time they are disappointed.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let me continue the story
that in 1955 there was another election, and
in the meantime may I point out to my hon.
friends opposite that we had introduced the
Metropolitan Toronto bill, and the group
opposite opposed it. I would say to my hon.
friend that every member of the Opposi-
tion group who opposed the bill was defeated
in 1955, and in this whole great metropolitan
area there was only one Opposition member
elected.
MARCH 20, 1958
1095
Mr. Wintermeyer: If we accept the hon.
Prime Minister's philosophy, I presume it
would be fair to infer that he feels the pro-
vincial government had some responsibility.
Now specifically I am not prepared to define
it as such.
What does the hon. Prime Minister think
of the many suggestions that have been made,
that one of the disturbing things about hous-
ing development is the increased cost of
serviced land? I believe many representations
have been made upon the government to do
something about relieving the municipalities
of the investments required in land for the
purpose of bringing it to that stage where
housing developments can be undertaken.
Does the hon. Prime Minister feel that the
provincial government should or can bear
any responsibility in this respect?
Hon. Mr. Frost: What does the hon. mem-
ber mean by responsibility?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Many representations, I
believe, have been made to the hon. Prime
Minister. I had one, the urban development
institute of Ontario. That brief was circulated
here, but I do not think that is the first by
any means wherein they conclude that one
of the disturbing things about housing
development in Ontario at the present time
is the fact that land values have increased, so
that actually they are out of proportion of the
total value of the land and residence. That
increase is not due to any monetary inflation
or any increase in the value of the land, but
basically it is due to the fact that, in many
municipalities, the entire service of the area
is required to be paid in one lump sum.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think that is a point, I
must admit there is some reason in that argu-
ment. I think myself that sometimes we set
up too high standards from a planning stand-
point—now I am not talking about The
Department of Planning and Development,
but I am talking about the idealistic
approaches we make to things— and when I
say we, I do not mean the government, I
mean society as a whole.
Our standards are, in many ways, much
too high, and we are insisting on the installa-
tion of various services to residential land
which people might well do without at the
time, and the matter might be brought along
over a period of say 5 years or so and reduce
the cost.
Now that is the point of some of those
arguments, and I think there is a good deal
of sense to them too.
Vote 1,305 agreed to.
On vote 1,306:
Mr. Oliver: On vote 1,306, I want to give
the hon. Minister full scope. Can he tell me
what this institution does with its $230,000?
Hon. Mr. Frost: A great deal.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I want to hear it. I
think it would be good if we heard all the
story in some detail, because it needs some
elaboration.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, I would say to
my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition,
I think it was in 1956 I was in London, and
I spent a day or two at Ontario House. In
my opinion, they operate one of the very best
public service relation bureaux not only as
far as Ontario is concerned but as far as
Canada is concerned.
Now, other provinces have their agencies in
London. In my view, having been there, the
agent general for Ontario, with his director
of trade and industry and his director of
immigration, plays a most important part in
relation to two things that concern my depart-
ment of government vitally. One is in getting
new industries from the United Kingdom,
and the other is in getting the type of immi-
grants from the United Kingdom who can
best be absorbed in the economy of this
province.
Now, I think my hon. friend will go along
with this comment that if we are bringing
people to a new land, it is well that they be
instructed and told, when they leave their
homeland, what to expect in regard to the
type of weather and conditions, what they are
going to need for clothing during the winter,
and so on. There should be some decision
as to whether they are going into the
townsite area, the rural part of the country, or
into the urban centres. It is one of my points
of view that it is not sound to adopt a policy
of being penny-wise and pound foolish. Every
other province has their agency there. As far
as Canada House is concerned, they take the
position that they represent the 10 provinces,
and they do not play favourites. Now I think
that it is a sound investment to have our
people go to the continent, visit the German
Minister of Trade and Commerce, go to the
Hague, interview the Minister for Trade and
Commerce of Holland, and so on.
The reports that we get from Ontario
House give us information that helps us
very much in dealing with the councils here
in Toronto who represent France, Norway,
Sweden, Holland and Belgium.
I think that perhaps the hon. leader of the
Opposition will go along with the view that,
1096
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
if we have nobody in London to go to the
plants in England; visit the office of the
president of the British Board of Trade who
is a member of the British Cabinet; go up to
Scotland and visit the industralists there;
and to Wales and to Ireland and the conti-
nent, it is bad business unless we have a good
public relations service, taking with them
the latest pamphlets from every department
of government to give information to the
potential capitalists who are interested in
investing in this country. If we were not to
have that agency, in my opinion, for what
it is worth, it would be bad business. With-
out reservation, having been there and having
been with the agent general on the continent
and in Scotland, and having met the people
that he knew and introduced me to, and
appreciating what they knew about this
province through the Ontario House agency,
without any reservation whatsoever, I say that
is money well spent.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I am almost persuaded.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I think that I had better
stop there then.
Mr. Oliver: I would just like to say this to
my hon. friend, that I remember when he
was speaking the other day, he extolled the
part that the Ontario House played in relation
to the trade mission when it was overseas.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I repeat that.
Mr. Oliver: Would the hon. Minister tell
us what they did in that connection? Then, I
think, we could let him have his vote.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I mean to say that in
giving the hon. leader of the Opposition in-
formation I much prefer to delay the vote,
if I must put it that way, for it is a pleasure
to have these little formal chats.
When the Canadian trade commission,
headed by the hon. Mr. Churchill and with
the vice-chairman of Hydro, Mr. Duncan,
went to the United Kingdom, by and large
the itinerary was to a very large extent pre-
pared, arranged and carried out as a result
of good public relations with the people whom
the agent general, director of trade and
industries and the director of immigration in
Ontario House knew.
Mr. Nixon: Rt. hon. Mr. Drew has the
responsibility for that work.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, he has not been there
very long.
Mr. Nixon: I do not think that Rt. hon.
Mr. Drew will appreciate what my hon. friend
has just said. Mr. Duncan in his famous
speech mentioned in particular the services
he got from his excellency Mr. Drew.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I am not taking credit
away from his excellency Mr. Drew. Do not
misunderstand me, but I am giving further
credit where, in my opinion, credit is due,
(md I think that that is a fair point of view.
Vote 1,306 agreed to.
On vote 1,307:
Mr. Gisborn: I would like to ask a ques-
tion. I do not know whether I am in the right
place or not, but it is in regards to the
joint international waterways commission in
the province of Ontario.
Is there a policy or agreement between this
commission and the government in regards to
the water levels situation when damages
arise out of high water levels?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that actually the control of the lake
levels is a matter between Canada and the
United States. We have not the fixing of
the levels. As a matter of fact, the provincial
interest was very probably one of keeping
the level high, for the reason that we got
more power at the dam or on the St. Law-
rence river. I forget the exact number of
feet, but the joint international waterways
commission, after hearing all of the evidence,
fixed the amount at a certain level. Now, it
was somewhat below the level that Hydro
had asked for. I forget, but I think it might
have been a matter of a foot or two less than
Hydro asked for. But nevertheless the inter-
national body have the jurisdiction, and they
did not consult us or Hydro on it, beyond
hearing what the representations would be.
They fixed the level, and that is now the
level at which the water will be controlled.
There are conflicting interests— the power
interest, perhaps, want it at a higher level,
from the standpoint of getting the full utility
of the fully-developed dam on the St. Law-
rence river.
But, on the other hand, there are other
interests. Property owners are another. I
should think that property owners and others
on the Great Lakes, or on the St. Lawrence
river, and rivers around Lake Ontario, ought
to be quite satisfied. Generally speaking,
the level that has been set must be a pretty
satisfactory one.
Mr. Gisborn: I would agree, Mr. Chair-
man, that if the level is maintained at 248
feet— between 244 and 246 or 248 or what-
ever it may be— we may not have a problem.
MARCH 20, 1958
1097
But I am quite sure that there is no set
decision that it can be held at 248 feet.
I think that the concern of the people on
Lake Ontario is that, if it is not kept at 248
feet and there is a higher level, and it does
cause property damage, there is no way of
telling what the damage would be unless
there was a survey to establish some yard-
stick at the present time. I think that it
should be determined by a survey at the
present time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out to my
hon. friend that the water levels have been
much higher than the 248 feet which was
set by the international waterways commis-
sion, the levels have been much higher than
that.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, they set their levels
on the 249 point something and 240 some-
thing, and they have agreed that when we
had 248 feet in 1954 it was just a normal
storm. Considerable damage was done.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I mean if it is
maintained at 248 feet there could not be any
damage.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, on vote 1,307,
is this for the maintenance of old Fort Henry,
or is this going to help with a little face lifting,
or what is this $210,000 exactly for?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, as my hon. friend
knows, Old Fort Henry for a great number of
years was under the jurisdiction of The
Department of Highways and we took over
Fort Henry as part of the St. Lawrence
development commission.
The other day, we referred to the terms of
that Act that I spoke about in the House,
and which all hon. members know about.
If any hon. members have not yet visited
that very fine historic spot, I hope that they
do so during the summer months, and see
the very outstanding Fort Henry Guard which
is certainly something to see.
There was a certain amount of equipment
and so on that The Department of Highways
had purchased, and we are taking that over
from them. If they do not want to charge
us for it, then perhaps we can reduce our
estimates. But, on the other hand, in case
we are asked we will have to have the money.
In a fort as old as that, I will say it was
built about the year of 1837, there is a lot of
pointing falling out from between the stone
work. The old lift bridges are not what they
used to be, and are continually having to be
repaired. Painting has to be done.
By and large, this tourist attraction has to
be maintained, in the future, in the high
level efficiency that it has been in the past
years, so we are going to need that money.
On the other hand, I say that when we get
the financing of this matter on a basis advo-
cated by my chief accountant who sits here
in front of me, it may be that from the
charges at the gate which the tourists pay, we
may be able to get sufficient money back that
we will revise that estimate another year.
At the moment, I just do not know where
we stand, but I have to be in a position
to carry on during this coming season.
Mr. Nixon: What is the charge? Is any-
thing sold there?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes, sir. Toy soldiers, toy
guns, they are not loaded.
Mr. Nixon: What is the charge for entry?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Twenty-five cents.
Vote 1,307 agreed to.
On vote 1,308:
Mr. J. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion with regard to industries coming into
the province last year. We have a lot of
towns and villages that would like to get an
industry, and I was just wondering if the
hon. Minister could tell us how many indus-
tries came into the province, and how many
industries settled in the rural areas in 1957?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I thought my hon. friend
would never put me in a position that he
would ask me to play favourites, because as
far as my department is concerned, in rela-
tion to any new industry that wants to estab-
lish in the province, we furnish to them as
best we can, sir, all information that we have
from every municipality across the length and
breadth of the province.
Now, my suggestion to him would be this,
that having asked this question and having
received the information, when this House
prorogues, that he go back to his riding,
get his chamber of commerce together, have
them prepare a brochure— if he needs any help,
let me know— and I will give him what assist-
ance I can, so that his area can be considered
on the same fair, equitable basis as any other
municipality in this province.
Mr. Spence: I thank the hon. Minister.
Mr. Wintermeyer: May I ask the hon.
Minister where, by and large, the inquiries
are coming from? I notice there is a Chicago
1098
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
branch, and a New York branch. How do these
compare with the European branch? Is he
receiving more inquiries from American con-
cerns than he is from continental concerns?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Is the hon. member
talking about inquiries?
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes, maybe my question
was not quite specific. By and large the hon.
Minister receives inquiries. Now I would
presume that the big bulk of those inquiries
would be inquiries from persons residing
outside of Ontario. How do they divide
themselves?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: They come from the
United Kingdom and from the 6 states that
border the boundary of the province of
Ontario.
The New York office was established, the
Chicago office was established, and we have
given the bankers, the trust companies, and
the loan corporations over there, all informa-
tion that we think is worthwhile, to encourage
people from that republic to invest their
money in this country.
We have indicated that we think it is
the part of wisdom that, if they are going to
invest their money in our country, they
should employ our people, and that a fair
number of the personnel on the executive staff
should be Canadian, and what is more, if they
invest in this country and their shares go on
the market, they should be available to the
Canadian investor.
We also get inquiries, as I indicated a
moment ago, from Holland, Germany, France,
Scotland and England.
Hon. members will not like this I know, but
upon my soul it is the truth that, if there was
a little less nonsense of people talking about
the state of this country and making people
who do not live within our borders apprehen-
sive about our economic stability, we would
be doing better than we are.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Specifically, what I
would like to know is this, does the depart-
ment keep a record of the inquiries, for
example?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Yes, but—
Mr. Wintermeyer: The hon. Minister prob-
ably would not have that here.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well, how about the
number of industries that have come from
outside of Ontario into Ontario, in the course
of the last year, how many such have there
been?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: 115.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Of that 115, how many
came from the United States, how many
came from the United Kingdom, and how
many from the continent?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, the best information
I have is that during last year there were
115 new industries established in this prov-
ince, 61 Canadian, 46 from the United States,
5 from the United Kingdom, and 3 from
Germany, and that in no way represents the
additions or extensions that were built to
existing industries.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I think that is an excel-
lent record. It just demonstrates the fact that
our industrial expansion— at least in terms of
new industries— comes from this continent.
He said there were 45 from the United
States, I believe, and 61 from Canada.
Does he think he is doing enough to
encourage American industry coming here?
What is he doing in Chicago and New York?
Frankly, I do not specifically know, but in
fairness to my question, I would say that
there is some thinking that the banks are
doing more than the department. I have
heard of two or three people who have made
efforts to gain knowledge of industries that
might be interested in coming, or in terms of
financing industries that are here, who found
that their real help was in the branch banks
of our own banks in cities like Chicago and
New York. Now specifically, what does the
department do in those cities to assist in this
respect?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well now, the hon.
member knows just as well as I do that every
chartered bank having a branch in this
province sends over, not only to the United
Kingdom but to the continent and to the
United States their very best trained
economists and salesmen, with a view of
indicating their desire to lend the potential
investor money, so they will not have to
arrange for the exporting of the currency of
the country where the people come from,
so they will have it here in their bank
account.
The banks are very interested in doing
all they can to get the industries, but they
want the bank accounts too.
Mr. Wintermeyer: That is right, no ques-
tion about that.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: It would be utterly
wrong, I think, if we were to say that this
chartered bank or that chartered bank was
preferable to the other. I think we would
MARCH 20, 1958
1099
probably be in hot water and trouble. All
we say is that there are so many chartered
banks, and if they want to inquire, we give
the addresses of the head offices, if they want
to make some inquiries here in Toronto,
that is the best we can do.
Then we have something I think perhaps
the banks have not got, because our people
go around every year and visit all, generally
speaking, the municipalities of this province.
Somebody said something the other day
about the diversification of industry. Little
places like Maitland are getting new industry.
Maitland is a little village between Brock-
ville and Prescott, and I think a tremendous
Dupont plant has been built there.
Then there is a little place out near the
village of Bath, where the United Empire
Loyalists landed in the Bay of Quinte area.
A tremendous plant has been built there by
Canadian Industries Limited.
Those plants were established in these little
places as a result of information they got
from the little brochure which gave them
the soil information they wanted, the type
of base there was in the lake, because they
wanted stone foundation as against mud for
these plants, the depth of the water, the
flow of the water, the temperature of the
water, and those simple little bits of infor-
mation gave those two little towns great
industries.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Did those towns send
the information to the hon. Minister or did
he inquire of the towns?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: We asked every town
to send us their brochures and then when
the inquiry is made, I mean to say if they
want fast, cold running water, well we say:
"Here are all the brochures of all the areas
where there is that type of water." On the
other hand, they may not want such a
stimulated fast flow of water, and then we
give them something else.
Where I come from, we are very proud
of our outcroppings of limestone because it
is the limestone city. Other people might
not thank us for that sort of rock, but where
I come from we are proud of it.
Some people want to build their factories,
their industries, on a soil foundation so that
their vibration will not interfere with the
walls. That sort of a factory cannot be built
on a limestone foundation, and we disclose
I think more than the banks will ever do
the breakdown of simple, detailed informa-
tion which is the greatest possible help to
potential industrialists.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Does the department
do anything for Ontario residents in the
stimulation of information they may want
about American firms?
It does not. If a person went to New York
for the purpose of raising money, and went
to the hon. Minister's office and said, "I
want so much money to expand in Ontario,
and I will require some capital assistance
and probably American investment," would
the hon. Minister do anything about assisting
such a person?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I would tell him all
the institutions he might get money from,
I would tell him the names of the trust com-
panies if they wanted to have a first mortgage
on the building as collateral to the prelim-
inary building.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Would that serve any
purpose if he did?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: One never knows what
purpose is going to be served until he finds
out afterwards, and this is peculiar, it is the
small piece of information that so often is the
most influencing.
People are interested for instance about
the highways and bridges and railroads, and
our highway system is interesting people,
because of the freight that can now be
moved by transport and truck. The hon.
member knows that just as well as I do.
Mr. H. F. Fishleigh (Woodbine): Mr.
Chairman, do you mind if I tell a short story
about Holland?
Mr. Chairman, I have travelled to Europe
and tried to get industries to come to Can-
ada. As a matter of fact, I had an office at
Sir Robert Macalpine's for a month, and
I went far and wide and called and called
upon various industries and I could not sell
them on the idea of establishing in Canada,
they were too busy in their own homeland,
they had stacks and stacks of orders. All the
small towns in Ontario desire industries and I
do not blame them. But it is the most difficult
selling job I have ever tackled. For example,
I also went to Switzerland once with a
group and called on the Union Swiss Bank. It
took us 3 days to make an appointment and
we sat in their board room and got out a map,
and told them we were from Canada, and they
all smiled at each other as the board of direc-
tors knew Canada.
So then we said: "We are from Ontario."
They looked at each other and they smiled
again, they knew Ontario.
1100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But then, we said, "We are from Toronto,"
and they all looked at each other dumb-
founded. "Where is Toronto?" they asked.
So we whipped out the map, and said:
"There is Toronto right there," and they all
smiled again. "That is Toronto."
We were kind of deflated by that time.
"Well," we said, "in Toronto there is a great
boom." We said it half in German, half in
French, with a little English. When we said,
"big boom!" they all looked at each other
again, and asked: "Big boom, all go bust?"
"No, no, no," we said, "great expansion,
great expansion of industry."
"Oh, oh," they answered, "why the great
expansion of industry?"
Well, we were kind of nonplussed at that
remark, but in reply we answered: "In north-
ern Ontario we have the pre-Cambrian shield,
and in that pre-Cambrian shield, we have
almost all the nickel in the world, we have
the gold and the silver and we have the pulp
and the paper mills, and we have uranium
mines. All this wealth comes down to To-
ronto," which, in fact, is true.
After that interview, we shook hands, and so
on. Actually they were not as ignorant about
Ontario as they appeared to be; that is one
of the things they do to you over there,
because one of them has a very large insur-
ance company here doing very well and calls
on his offices, but it is a difficult undertaking
to sell in a foreign land.
Hon. members cannot very well criticize
the amount of money spent in Ontario House,
London. It is money well spent, as it is
difficult to get Europeans to see our point of
view. But little by little they are coming
here and investing their money.
I think, as the hon. Minister said, we should
not cry "wolf, wolf," because if we do we
will frighten foreign capital away. They will
make up their minds today or tomorrow. It
is not like going to the United States where
you can make a deal overnight; Europeans
take weeks and months to consider what they
are going to do. They investigate and they
investigate and when they make an investment
they want to make sure their capital is safe.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Chairman, before you go on please, I cannot
compare with my hon. friend from Woodbine
who represents the great Metropolitan Toronto
district with its many millions, but I want
to congratulate the hon. Minister on his
northwestern Ontario development association
project in my city.
We have a manager there, Mr. Phillips— I
will mention him by name— who is a real go-
getter in the hon. Minister's department. Now
then, they have been responsible in the last
3 years for bringing in one large British firm
to our city, and I think the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests ( Mr. Mapledoram ) will
bear me out when I say they were greatly
responsible for the establishment of a plywood
mill in the town of Nipigon and a plywood
mill outside the town of Dryden.
These are absolutely concrete examples of
what the trade and industry branch is doing,
and I am not going to mention the names
of departmental officials, but I have every
reason to know that they are doing a tremen-
dous job for this whole province and especi-
ally northwestern Ontario.
The biggest job outside of attracting indus-
try is the fact that our development association
manager is going to our small towns and
enthusing them, making them conscious of the
natural assets they have, which they should
stress to direct small industries to their places.
He has enthused the chambers of commerce
and the boards of trade, and made them
aware that they have something in that great
part of Ontario to sell.
To my mind, that is the big, big job he
is doing, not alone in the 3 industries that
he has attracted there already, which are giv-
ing employment to a considerable number of
men, but the whole feeling throughout the
district is this, that they have a central point
to go, to get information on what industries
may be established in their little towns,
villages and how best to attract them there.
In other words, Mr. Phillips is selling north-
western Ontario and all its potentialities. So
this is a branch of the department that has
proved itself worthy in my mind and in the
mind of my citizens up north, and I want to
congratulate the hon. Minister and his staff,
and to tell him that our local manager is one
of the best I have seen in this province.
Now, the money that is being spent by this
province is being spent well in the trade and
industry branch, and I am all for it, and I
think that it is going to prove in the future
that we have great attraction for industries
coming into this province.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Minister
how many regional industrial development
associations he now has?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Seven.
Mr. Whicher: Seven, well I would like to
associate myself with the previous hon.
speaker, because I think these development
MARCH 20, 1958
1101
associations in many instances do a good job.
If they do a good job, why, I humbly sug-
gest that the hon. Minister give them a little
more money.
Now I believe that the situation as it now
stands is this, that the department will give
any association an amount up to only $10,000
providing they put in the same amount, and
if they put in $20,000 the department will
still only give them $10,000.
Now I think that we have to look at this
from a large area point of view. This is one
way that we can assist the smaller muni-
cipalities towards a diversification of trade in
this province. It gives, as the hon. member
for Port Arthur has said, the manager of the
association— whoever he may be with his
staff— an opportunity to travel around to the
small towns and villages and make them
enthusiastic over this. He can advertise in
papers in Europe or in the United States or
wherever it might be, in order to try to
sell his own place to industry.
Now, I humbly suggest to the hon. Minis-
ter that $10,000 is not enough money. That
is the one thing that holds these fellows back.
They breed enthusiasm wherever they go,
but after 6 months of the year have gone, they
start running out of money, and they are not
able to advertise in the way that they should
be able to.
Now then, for many years, practically every
politician, whether he is municipal, pro-
vincial or federal affairs, has been talking
about the diversification of industry. This is
one way that the department can accomplish
it, by allowing these people in the outlying
centres in the province of Ontario to have
enough money, and with that money they
will have the ability, because money is ability
in this particular instance— at least, most of
the ability. They will have the ability to go
out and sell the places where they live, and
bring industry, not only from Europe or the
United States, but in many instances, from
the larger centres in Ontario. They will be
able to bring them from Metropolitan
Toronto, for example, into the little hamlets
and small towns and smaller cities across this
province.
I said this to the hon. Minister last year.
In fact there were several hon. members on
his side of the House who agreed with me
—that $10,000 for each association is not
enough— and I would ask that the hon.
Minister review that vote and, if at all pos-
sible, attempt to persuade the government to
at least double the amount.
Even if it insists that the association put
up more money on a per dollar basis, it
would be better than nothing, but by all
means, let them double that grant because
they certainly need it, and it is a good thing
for the province.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I remember
the other day, when the hon. Minister was
speaking, that he suggested that his depart-
ment did not actually place industries in
various localities of the province. He gave
a very good reason as to why it was impos-
sible, on the one hand, and unwise on the
other, to designate where industries should
go. He set his department out before the
House, as I recall it, as a service department,
a department that provided information to
would-be customers and would-be industries.
Now I agree with that point of view.
Sometimes one is inclined to wish that it
could be otherwise, and that decentralization
could be practiced in a cold practical way,
but that, of course, is not feasible.
Now the point I want to leave with the
hon. Minister, and I rather think I know
him well enough that I can say now that
he will agree that what I am relating is
not the way he would have his department
run in respect to certain matters.
Last fall I remember an industry located
close to one of the towns in my riding. That
industry was secured, as the hon. Minister
suggested tonight, by the local organization
being in contact with his department. It was
a normal arrangement, so far as the working
out of the activities of his department was
concerned.
What amazed me about this whole thing,
Mr. Chairman, was this. One day the local
paper carried a very large headline, and it
quoted the federal hon. member of Parlia-
ment as saying that he had been advised by
the trade and industry branch of The Depart-
ment of Planning and Development that such
and such an industry was to be placed at
such and such a spot, and giving himself
the credit for getting the industry through
the hon. Minister's department. No credit
at all was given to the local organization.
Now I would say to the hon. Minister that
I know something about political patronage,
and I am quite willing to say that much
of it is accepted so far as the old parties are
concerned, at any rate. But it seems to me
that this is going altogether too far, and I
do not think the hon. Minister would want
it to go that far— when a federal hon. mem-
ber says, in the local paper in a bold head-
line, that he has been in touch with the
trade and industry branch, and as a result
of his being in touch with that department,
1102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a new industry is to be established in a
certain place.
Now, he had nothing whatever to do with
getting the industry, nothing whatever. He
was simply the mouthpiece by which it was
announced.
I want to ask the hon. Minister, and quite
seriously, if that is the way he gives out
information as to the location of new in-
dustries in the province?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, we are each saying
that we know the other. May I ask the hon.
leader of the Opposition— I suppose it is
the game of animal, vegetable and mineral
we are playing now— does he refer to the
Imperial Tobacco Company at Guelph?
Mr. Oliver: No. I can tell my friends,
but I do not think I will tell it across
the full House. I will if the hon. Minister
wants me to, but I will tell him in private.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I will put it this way to
my hon. friend. There have been cases that
I know, where information was disclosed in
areas where new industry was going to estab-
lish, and the inference was left as if there
had been some leak from some branch of
my department. But the facts, when I looked
into them, as best I could, may I say, were
to the effect that the industry themselves
made the announcement to local people, for
reasons best known to themselves.
Now I think the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition will agree with me that if this is done,
there is no criticism.
Mr. Oliver: That would be a different
matter.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I guess that federal hori.
member is a bright fellow. He must be.
Mr. Oliver: I will tell the hon. Prime
Minister what it is, if he wants me to. We
have a bright new young senator up in that
area, and he really is running things. It is
not the federal hon. member who is making
these announcements, it is the new senator.
He is quite close to this government, and he
sees to it that, if he does not want to make
the announcement himself, he makes it
through his prodigy, the federal hon. member
in that particular riding. I would think that
situation should be cleared up before very
long.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I never heard of such a
thing.
Mr. Oliver: Oh, the hon. Prime Minister
has heard of the senator, I will tell him that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, never heard of him.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Will the hon. leader of
the Opposition put his name on a piece of
paper?
Mr. Oliver: I will.
Votes 1,308 and 1,309 agreed to.
On vote 1,310:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
ask the hon. Minister another question.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Those fellows are likely
community leaders and they are right on the
job.
Mr. Oliver: They did not know a thing
about it, except what they were told. Not
a blooming word of it.
An hon. member: He did not know any
more about it than we know about it, as a
matter of fact.
Mr. Whicher: They were just there when it
happened along.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well if the hon. members
opposite know all that, why does the hon.
leader of the Opposition ask the question?
Mr. Oliver: Now why does the hon. Prime
Minister suppose I asked it? Now I will give
the hon. Prime Minister one good—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not know.
Mr. Oliver: No. The hon. Prime Minister
knows right well why I asked it, and I
had every right to ask it.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question I would like to ask the hon. Min-
ister. I listened very attentively to his re-
marks about Ontario House in London, and
to a large extent I agree with what he said.
However, I cannot help but ask this ques-
tion now:
The total expenses for the New York and
Chicago offices are in the neighbourhood of
$60,000, and I believe 46 American firms
came to Ontario through that expenditure.
In Ontario House in London, the depart-
ment spent $230,000 and only 5 United
Kingdom firms came to Ontario.
Does the hon. Minister not think that there
is considerable difference in those figures,
and perhaps we should have a little more
life in England?
An hon. member: Carried.
Mr. Whicher: No, it is not carried at all.
MARCH 20, 1958
1103
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Minister is pon-
dering.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No, the Minister is not
pondering very much.
Mr. Oliver: Well, why should the hon.
Minister not ponder? That is not a nasty
remark at all.
Mr. Nickle: No, no. I mean to say, I
will put it this way to the hon. member.
In Ontario House in London, we have some
35 or 36 people. The British economy has
been pretty rigid. The British income tax
has been pretty high, and I may say that
I am still prepared to go out and do my
best to get industries from the United King-
dom.
The going is rougher and harder. There
is not the available money. The field is
larger from the point of view of public rela-
tions on account of the continent, as I in-
dicated a moment ago.
I am not so sure that these amounts are
out of proportion because, after all, as my
hon. friend well knows, there is more land
in this country available for industrial expan-
sion than in some of the congested areas in the
republic to the south of us. I cannot put
it any differently than that.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, one other
question that I have. I quite agree with
some of the hon. members who have said
that in order to get industry, we must stop
crying "wolf" and we must be critical of
our own country and attempt to sell it.
Is it true that there have been fewer
inquiries from the United States since the
Rt. hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr.
Diefenbaker) cried "wolf" and said that he
was going to divert 15 per cent, of the trade
from Canada to the United Kingdom?
Hon. Mr. Frost: They have started being
nicer to us since that.
Mr. Whicher: The department has had
far fewer inquiries, that is what they say.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: If I attempted to an-
swer the hon. member's question, I may
say on a very friendly basis, which I trust
my hon. friend will understand, that it is
the desire of his party to try to get into
power, which they will not; therefore they
have "shot" a lot of confidence for personal
reasons, hoping they will form a government
at the end of this—
Mr. Oliver: It was a friendly observation.
Vote 1,310 agreed to.
On vote 1,311:
Hon. Mr. Frost: Might I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, if the hon. member for Bruce is going
to ask a question about that vote 1,310? He
usually approves of more expenditures under
the federal-provincial partnership agreement
as set out in The Housing Development Act,
RSO 1950, and the administration thereof—
$5.5 million, and he says that we have not
built a house in Ontario. What does the
hon. member think we do with the money?
Mr. Whicher: I have the question, which I
will put to the hon. Prime Minister. How
much of that money is the government get-
ting back?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I hope every cent of it.
Mr. Whicher: Well, then, what is the hon.
Prime Minister boasting about?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Of course, we are building
these houses-
Mr. Whicher: The government is building
them something like this—
Hon. Mr. Frost: My hon. friend likes to
argue about this.
Mr. Whicher: I never said any such thing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The way we balance the
books here—
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister
does not balance the books-
Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, just before
you call the vote-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: In speaking of that hous-
ing item, I wonder if the hon. member for
Bruce would accept an invitation from me
to come and see some of the beautiful houses
and so on built under vote 1,310, in con-
nection with operations under the depart-
ment of the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr.
Spooner). It is really a picture to see laid out
in the middle of the bush, these beautiful
homes that please the people, the streets well
laid out. All in all it is a lovely town, where
a few years ago we had shacks that were a
disgrace.
I think that this is a great item, Mr. Chair-
man, and I am very glad to see that amount
of money in there and I am very glad to
know that the majority has been paid back to
the people of Ontario, and it has served its
purpose, because we have heard from the
Opposition that we do not want any more of
this deficit financing.
1104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, the appropria-
tion for the estimate for last year, the fiscal
year ending March, 1958, was $5.9 million.
The question that I would like to ask the hon.
Minister is this, how much of that was spent
and how much is not spent?
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister
should put his newspaper down and pay
attention.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The whole amount will be
spent by the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Thomas: By the end of March?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: By the end of this year.
Vote 1,311 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the committee
do rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report that it has come to certain
resolutions and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
SERVICES OF
HOMEMAKERS AND NURSES
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 148, "An Act to provide for the
services of homemakers and nurses."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
Hon. M. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 152, "An Act to provide for the
control of air pollution."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DAMAGE BY FUMES
ARBITRATION ACT
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves second reading of
Bill No. 153, "An Act to amend The Damage
by Fumes Arbitration Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE POWER COMMISSION ACT
Hon. R. Connell moves second reading of
Bill No. 110, "An Act to amend The Power
Commission Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL
BOARD ACT, 1922
Hon. Mr. Connell moves second reading of
Bill No. 141, "An Act to amend The Lake of
the Woods Control Board Act, 1922."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MANITOBA - ONTARIO
LAKE ST. JOSEPH DIVERSION
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1958
Hon. Mr. Connell moves second reading of
Bill No. 144, "The Manitoba-Ontario Lake St.
Toseph Diversion Agreement Authorization
Act, 1958.'"
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ONTARIO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
COMMISSION
Hon. C. Daley moves second reading of
Bill No. 155, "An Act to establish the Ontario
anti-discrimination commission."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL
DIRECTORS ACT
Hon. Mr. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 163, "An Act to amend The Em-
balmers and Funeral Directors Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC HOSPITALS ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 168, "An Act to amend The Public
Hospitals Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
MARCH 20, 1958
1105
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES COMMISSION
ACT, 1957
Hon. Mr. Phillips moves second reading of
Bill No. 169, "An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Commission Act, 1957."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TRENCH EXCAVATORS
PROTECTION ACT, 1954
Hon. Mr. Daley moves second reading of
Bill No. 170, "An Act to amend The Trench
Excavators Protection Act, 1954."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): In
moving the adjournment of the House, I
would advise that tomorrow morning the
estimates of The Department of Travel and
Publicity will be considered, and after that
in the afternoon if there is any time, there
will be a budget debate. On Monday, we
will have the estimates of The Department
of Municipal Affairs and on Tuesday those
of the hon. Provincial Secretary.
In the meantime, other business will be
business on the order paper, budget debate
and the various committee meetings.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
before the adjournment of the House, I won-
der if it is too much for the hon. Prime
Minister to state the day we are likely to
prorogue here.
THE REHABILITATION SERVICES ACT, Hon. Mr. Frost: I had thought tentatively
1955 next Thursday would be the day.
Hon. Mr. Cecile moves second reading of
Bill No. 171, "An Act to amend The Rehabili-
tation Services Act, 1955."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CROWN ATTORNEYS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 172, "An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 173, "An Act to amend The Sum-
mary Convictions Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Thomas: Not earlier than that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I do not know,
I do not want to hurry the business of the
House.
Mr. Thomas: We are getting a little tired
and we would like to get out, as the hon.
Prime Minister knows.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I said weeks ago that
we would take our time, and we would do
the business of the House carefully and con-
scientiously, and that is the situation, Mr.
Speaker. I may say this, that if we run out
of business, of course we would prorogue
but we still have a lot of things to consider
and it would look to me like next Thursday
afternoon or evening.
I move the adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 10.20 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 42
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Betiate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Friday, March 21, 1958
Morning Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, March 21, 1958
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Insurance Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Sanatoria for Consumptives Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Private Investigators Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Came and Fisheries Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Tile Drainage Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Mining Tax Act, bill to amend, third reading 1109
Estimates, Department of Travel and Publicity, Mr. Cathcart 1110
Recess, 12.45 p.m 1128
1109
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, March 21, 1958
10.30 o'clock a.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, may
I say that it is very nice on this spring morn-
ing to be here, and to see the hon. members
of the Opposition, whom I have not seen
since last winter. As a matter of fact, that
applies to the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald), too.
An hon. member: He does not get it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: This early in the morning,
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, that it is a pleasure to see,
in the morning paper, an award won by the
president of the Queen's Park press gallery,
of which you and I are members. I think that
is a wonderful thing, a great tribute to our
own press gallery.
Without being fulsome in any way, I might
say that over very many years of my own
experience and of yours and that of the hon.
member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) and the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver), we
have learned to appreciate highly the
Queen's Park press gallery. I think it is
a great honour to see Mr. Kinmond receive
the reward which he has, a reward which is
partly based upon— as the award said— some
personal danger, or apparently some personal
danger, certainly a great trial and tribulation,
to produce for the people of the newspaper
world a story of what is going on elsewhere
on this planet, and something that we are
all very greatly interested in.
In other words, it is a devotion that was
there, a devotion to duty in his acquiring
those reports which were widely published
here in Canada, and I congratulate him.
I also congratulate Mr. Reidford for his
award, because he is a contemporary in this
matter. I mention that because primarily Mr.
Kinmond is the president of the press gallery
here.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third reading
upon motion:
Bill No. 70, An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act.
Bill No. 87, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Bill No. 96, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Bill No. 100, An Act to amend The Sana-
toria for Consumptives Act.
Bill No. 107, An Act to amend The Train-
ing Schools Act.
Bill No. 115, The Private Investigators
Act, 1958.
Bill No. 117, An Act to amend The Game
and Fisheries Act.
Bill No. 118, An Act to amend The Tile
Drainage Act.
Bill No. 123, An Act to amend The Mining
Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do now
pass and be intituled as in the motions.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I might repeat
what I said last night on adjournment, that
on Monday we shall deal with the estimates
of The Department of Municipal Affairs, and
on Tuesday we will deal with the estimates
of The Department of the Provincial Secre-
tary. It will likely take all day for that,
because I know the hon. members of the
Opposition will have a great many questions
to ask on these matters.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Vital
statistics.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right. Then there
will be other items. Any of the items on the
order paper are subject to call and, of course,
there will be speeches on the budget debate,
of which there are a very large number.
1110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave
the chair and the House resolve itself into
committee of supply.
In making that motion, the business today
will be the estimates of The Department of
Travel and Publicity, to be followed by budget
debate speeches, at the conclusion of which
there will not be any further bills today.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRAVEL AND PUBLICITY
Hon. B. L. Cathcart (Minister of Travel
and Publicity ) : Mr. Chairman, I would like
to take just a moment to join with the pre-
vious speakers in congratulating our Speaker
for the excellent manner in which he presides
over the House. We are all pleased with
the splendid attendance in the galleries, and
are indebted to our Speaker for the good
impression our visitors must carry away with
them as a result of his rule in this House.
I would like to add, as well, that our
Speaker does meet many, many people of all
levels of life in his office, and I question if
we could have a better personality for that
particular job. In our department, which is
after all promoting travel and publicity and
those good impressions that our people may
gain on a visit with us, it is of vital impor-
tance that we have just that kind of man
there to take care of it.
May I also extend my best wishes and
congratulations to that very fine looking group
of new hon. members who have entered the
Legislature by way of by-elections since the
last session. The ridings of Glengarry, Middle-
sex North, Lanark and Elgin can well be
proud of them as their hon. representatives,
and the by-election returns can be accepted as
a great tribute to our hon. Prime Minister and
his leadership.
It is good evidence that the people of this
province of Ontario feel the government is
in good hands, and the regular attendance
and active participation of these hon. mem-
bers in the affairs of the House is proof of
their very keen interest in the future of this
province.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Is this a speech on the estimates? Or
is it the wrong speech?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The hon. members of
the Opposition can pat themselves on the back
I have not taken too much of the time of the
House leaving it pretty well to others to
take up that time and I wanted to get in
these one or two things.
May we become serious for a moment. I
take a further moment to pay a very sincere
tribute to one who is greatly missed in our
department, a soldier and officer in the truest
sense of the word and a loyal and devoted
civil servant, the late Deputy Minister, Col.
C. D. Crowe, who served The Department
of Travel and Publicity so faithfully for
many years.
At the same time I want to welcome his
successor, Mr. Guy Moore, on his first appear-
ance in this House as Deputy Minister of this
department. I was happy indeed that we were
blessed with the calibre of personnel that
enabled the promotion from staff, rather than
having to bring in someone for this important
position.
As a matter of fact, because of the high
calibre of the personnel, it was very difficult
to make a selection, however, I can tell the
House that Mr. Moore is doing a splendid
work and the directors and staff are all work-
ing with him in a most co-operative way.
From recent press reports, it would appear
that the public may have gained the impres-
sion that The Department of Travel and Pub-
licity is not receiving full co-operation from
other departments of government, and, if
this is the case, I want to correct that impres-
sion and correct it very strongly. Let me say,
on behalf of this department, we would not
be too successful in our efforts if we did not
have their whole-hearted co-operation. I
could give the hon. members experiences we
have had with every department of this
government with whom we are closely allied
that would prove my point; however, this
would take a great deal of time so let me
mention just a few.
First, may I say it has been a great pleasure
and privilege to have had the complete and
sympathetic hearing of our hon. Prime Mini-
ster (Mr. Frost) in connection with the many
problems having to do with this department.
Those who have sat in this House for any
length of time know full well that the hon.
Prime Minister, as Provincial Treasurer of
the province, watches with an eagle eye every
expenditure made, and the personal considera-
tion he has given to our problems is good
evidence that he appreciates the great value
of this industry to the economy of this prov-
ince.
Because of the close liaison necessary in our
types of work, I would like to mention also
how much we have appreciated the help and
co-operation of the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram), the hon. Mini-
MARCH 21, 1958
1111
ster of Highways and Transport ( Mr. Allan ) ,
and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Griesinger), as well as their respective officials
for their very fine co-operation to our depart-
ment.
As a matter of fact, the good work carried
out by every department of this government
in the development of the province is a
great help to our job of promoting the travel
industry. We can well be proud of the fine
schools, the old people's homes, the develop-
ment of our parks and so on. These things
really do leave a good impression on the
minds of our visitors as to the kind of people
we are and the kind of progress we are
making.
There was considerable talk in the House
yesterday on the housing problem and what
success has been achieved in this province
of Ontario with respect to housing.
Since I happen to have one of those very
fine land assembly projects underway in my
own city of Sarnia, under a joint partnership
between the federal government and The
Department of Planning and Development of
this government, I would particularly like
to mention it, because it has proved of real
value.
There are some 500 fine, well-constructed
homes completed, with all local improvements
installed, and located in a good part of the
city. The families living in them are happy
because they have no fear of additional local
improvement costs added to their annual
expenses. A second part of this project is
about to be undertaken which will provide
something over another 500 homes.
Believe me, it is a pleasure indeed for we
of that area to take our visitors out to this
project and show them the great development
that has taken place there, and to introduce
them to the people living in that project
because they are a happy people.
We all know of the experiences we had
previous to such a project, how so often our
people purchased a home in a subdivision
thinking that they would have a certain
monthly payment to make, and at a later
date found the municipality moving in con-
structing local improvements that added
greatly to their cost and certainly caused
them worries.
Mr. Chairman, you can understand that, as
Minister of this department, I travel very
extensively, and particularly by automobile,
not only in the province but down through
the United States, and through our sister
provinces. Therefore, I feel I am in a posi-
tion to say we can well be proud of the net-
work of paved roads stretching across this
province.
As a matter of fact, this is not only my
personal opinion, but also that of many others
who have visited with us. The hon. Minister
of Highways and his officials are doing a
tremendous work in improving existing high-
ways and building new ones.
We do have the odd complaint, possibly
during construction, where a contractor is
careless and causes inconveniences; or some-
times the directional signing is not exactly
perfect. But when things of this kind happen,
the local areas very often intercede through
this department, realizing that it is of impor-
tance to the job that we are trying to do
in the way of the promotion of the travel
industry.
May I say that in every case where we
referred these matters to the hon. Minister
or his officials, corrections were made without
delay wherever possible.
I would like to emphasize that neither
my officials nor myself have hesitated at
any time to get in touch with the hon.
Minister or his staff, because their attitude
has always been that of perfect co-operation
and, in fact, that of appreciation to us for
bringing these matters to their attention.
Of course, The Department of Lands and
Forests is very closely allied with our efforts—
in fact they could make or break our business
—and may I tell this House that no item is
too small or too big for the sympathetic
hearing and quick action on the part of
the hon. Minister and his officials.
The hon. Minister of Public Works and his
officials have been also more than co-operative
in carrying out the many jobs we ask of them
in connection with landscaping, repairs, and
renovations to our buildings. In fact, they have
plans at the moment for new reception centres
for this coming year, and I want to pay par-
ticular thanks to them for the very fine land-
scaping job around our other reception centres
throughout this province. Those hon. members
who have visited them will have noticed that
they do spend considerable time and we
appreciate it as it does add much to the
whole atmosphere wherever the reception
centre is located.
While on this subject I would like to point
out that this department does need the help,
not only of the government, but of every hon.
member of this House, particularly out in their
respective ridings, where they can help win
the support of every individual. Both the
officials and myself travel a great deal out
through the province, to meet the people in
1112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
their own communities, with the hope that we
may be helpful in inspiring even greater
efforts towards providing finer attractions that
will bring more visitors to their particular
areas.
We also try to encourage them to extend
every effort, while they have the visitors with
them, to be courteous and warm in their
greeting, in order to assure them of their
welcome because, if we are ever going to do
a job, it will be due to the fact we are
building up a repeat business.
Our visitors returning to their homes after
a happy vacation will be more likely to bring
back some of their friends with them next
year. On the other hand, each visitor who,
through some carelessness or lack of courtesy
on our part, could return home dissatisfied,
unhappy and disgruntled, and, as a result,
keep a dozen of his friends from paying us
a visit.
I have been happy indeed in my travels to
attend gatherings and functions in this prov-
ince, where the local hon. member nearly
always finds time, out of his busy life, to be
with me. This is appreciated and certainly
makes my job much easier.
As I look around the House it seems to
me that I have been with a great many of
the hon. members at one time or another in
their own ridings, and this applies regardless
of what their political faith may be. It would
take too long to name each one of them,
but I do want to thank them all for the
kindness and co-operation extended to me
whenever I have had occasion to visit their
areas. Their fine support of the travel in-
dustry at all times has been very helpful in
promoting local interest in our programme.
I know that when the local hon. member
is with me, we are simply saying together
how important it is for the local people to
encourage the tourist travel business, and
that we are there as a team to assist them
in every way possible to achieve this result.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a
moment to give the House a brief outline of
a report on what we consider to be one of
Ontario's biggest assets— the travel and vaca-
tion business— an industry that governments
all over the world generally accept as being
of prime importance to their economy.
As far as Ontario is concerned, I am proud
to say that we are holding our own, and, in
fact, that we have enjoyed an increase in
this business over the past years— this, in
spite of unco-operative weather for the past
couple of years.
In 1956, we had anything but summer
weather, and last year— right at the start of
the season— hon. members will recall that high
winds or tornadoes slashed through the south-
central part of the province causing extensive
damage and resulting in the kind of publicity
that caused many cancellations. We can
understand why people living 1,000 or 2,000
miles away, who had made reservations,
would wire their cancellations when they
heard about the weather conditions existing
here.
Regardless of this, however, my report
from spot-checks and personal conversations,
with a great many tourist operators, convinces
me that they ended up with a good year.
In fact, I have yet to meet one operator,
who has up-to-date facilities, who did not
tell me he had come out better financially
last year than in most of the previous years'
operations.
We, in the department, gauge or forecast
the travel business to a large extent on the
number and kind of inquiries received, and
last year for the months of January and Febru-
ary, as compared with the same two months
in 1956, inquiries were down 1,000 or so,
which resulted in some concern to us.
However, in spite of this, our reservations
were very extensive and our reports show close
to a 4 per cent, increase last year.
This year of 1958, for January and Febru-
ary, inquiries are away up. This is certainly
indicative of a good summer ahead, and
would lead us to believe that people generally
are looking forward to their vacations, and
certainly have an eye on Ontario for a good
place to spend them.
Total inquiries received for these past two
months are 21,066 as against 13,367 in the
same two months of 1957. Of course, should
we again run into difficulties through bad
weather, such as that experienced by the state
of Florida this past winter— resulting in some
serious problems for them— we, too, would have
difficulties with cancellations. However, since
we went through this type of experience last
year as a result of the tornado, and things
turned out very successfully, we would hope
everything would work out again for us.
From the standpoint of passenger cars cross-
ing the international border into Ontario, we
were up more than ever before, with approxi-
mately 5.5 million. I am happy to say that
the larger increase of these cars was made
up of parties spending two or more days in
the province of Ontario, and intending to
leave by a different customs port. This group
was up some 3.3 per cent, over 1956, and
MARCH 21, 1958
1113
exceeded the average of the previous 5 years.
Entries made by common carrier were up sub-
stantially with the exception of those by rail
which showed a slight decline.
It is always difficult to really assess the
true value of the tourist business in this
province, or, as a matter of fact, to assess
the true value of the tourist business. The
department made a survey a few years ago,
which proved that expenditures, made in
Ontario by visitors from outside our borders,
amounted to at least $250 million.
Returns from a survey started by the depart-
ment last year would indicate that this is a very
conservative estimate and should be at least
$300 million a year. Of course, these figures
apply only to visitors from beyond our inter-
national borders, and do not include visitors
from our other provinces, or the travel of our
own people.
We are anxious to obtain figures that will
give us a better estimate on the whole situa-
tion and for that reason we have joined with
the Canadian government travel bureau, the
other 9 provinces, and the Canadian tourist
association, to carry out a Canadian tourist
industry survey at a total cost of $40,000.
The Canadian government travel bureau con-
tributed $15,000; the provinces combined
contributed $17,000; and the Canadian
tourist association contributed $8,000.
This survey was started last year, and we
should have the results this fall. It is being
carried out by the Business Planning Associ-
ates Limited of Toronto, under the super-
vision of a committee of 5, representing the
Canadian government travel bureau, the
provincial governments, the Canadian tourist
association, transportation companies, and the
Dominion bureau of statistics.
We shall also have figures and information
from our own department questionnaire which
was distributed to our visitors last year for
completion and return. So far we have
received some 4,000 replies and they are still
coming in.
Added to this, we are hoping, with the co-
operation of the tourist operators of this
province, to obtain information on our present
facilities and available accommodation in
relation to actual occupancy; as well as to
try to ascertain the expenditures made in
Ontario by our own people on vacation, as
well as by Canadians from other provinces.
We feel that the returns from these surveys
should provide us with factual information
that would give us a better overall picture of
the tourist situation, and enable us to deter-
mine whether or not there is a need for a
different approach of any kind.
I would like to mention once again that
we feel that our own Know Ontario Better
campaign, and the Canadian tourist associa-
tion Know Canada Better campaign, which
followed our lead, are paying off— both pro-
vincial-wise and by interprovincial travel.
Both are contributing greatly to the tourist
industry.
There is not only a financial return but, as
a result of such travel, our own people learn
more about our province and should be our
best advertisement when talking about On-
tario to their neighbours and friends from
other countries.
We have entered an era in the travel
industry that has become extremely compe-
titive. Every country in the world is spend-
ing more money, and using every attraction
at its disposal, in order to convince people
they should pay that country a visit. So,
because of this challenge, we, here in On-
tario, will have to meet the competition by
every means at our disposal.
While we presently enjoy over 60 per
cent, of the total Canadian tourist business,
we could lose this position unless we work
together in a programme that would keep
people coming to our province. We are con-
tinually encouraging area organizations to
develop attractions wherever or whenever
possible, and more and more areas are recog-
nizing this and doing something about it.
To mention just a few, we have our Shake-
spearean festival in the city of Stratford;
the Santa Claus village at Bracebridge; the
Indian village at Midland; the Barry's Bay
ballet festival at Barry's Bay, which was
started two years ago, and last year they
were very happy with the success that they
had met with in their second annual festival.
I understand they plan to carry it on in the
years to come. Then there are the Penetang
winter carnival; the blossom festival; the
colour cavalcade, and many others.
In that great part of the province known
as Lambton county, they have organized the
Lambton county historical society during the
past year, and plans are under way for the
construction of an historical museum at Oil
Springs, in the riding of my colleague, the
hon. member for Lambton East (Mr. Janes),
to commemorate the drilling of the first oil
well in North America.
The county of Lambton and city of SarniaP
with the assistance of oil companies, have
great plans for this site, not only because
of its historical value, but also because it
will serve as an interesting tourist attraction.
1114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. members might be interested to know
they are planning to hold the formal open-
ing of the oil museum of Canada at Oil
Springs on June 28 of this year. We extend
a warm welcome to each and every hon.
member.
Our ski jumps and winter sports are becom-
ing increasingly popular, and, of course, this
is important because it extends the vacation
period over a longer period of time. The
attendance at some of these events has been
in the thousands. I recall one at Midland a
year ago where they told me there were over
10,000 people present.
To come now to my estimates. Hon. mem-
bers will note I am again asking for just a
little more, in order that we may keep up
the momentum of our effort and not lag
behind our competitors, who, as I said before,
are putting forth intensive efforts to gain
business that might just as well be ours.
I have a good example right here— a full-
page ad appearing in our Canadian papers
across the province on behalf of St. Peters-
burg, Florida.
My department is composed of 5 main
branches and each branch has the usual
overhead. In connection with travel expenses,
I encourage all senior members of the staff to
travel freely, and to spread all over Ontario
the message that travel and vacationing make
up one of our leading industries— and one well
worth fostering and promoting. We have
many requests for speakers from local bodies,
and try to fulfil them all when possible. For
example, the personnel of one branch alone
participated in 201 meetings of tourist organ-
izations and other bodies allied with the tourist
industry, and at 30 of which they were
engaged as the principal speaker.
Regarding salaries, I consider myself for-
fortunate in the calibre of men and women
of the department, and I like to recognize
their ability by the usual annual increase of
pay sanctioned by the civil service commission.
In every one of the 5 branches of the
department, not only is the volume of work
increasing annually, but costs are rising
annually. This is particularly true in the
fields of advertising and printing.
There are many promotion projects that
we are tempted to try, but up to this moment,
we have pretty well restricted ourselves to the
basic proven media: newspapers, magazines,
radio, TV, and billboards.
A very gratifying thing to me is the gener-
ous editorial support we have enjoyed from
our Ontario newspapers, not only from the
editorial standpoint, but from the standpoint
of column writers as well. They have all
given a great deal of space on behalf of the
travel industry. There is no doubt they are
thoroughly aware of the importance and
value of this industry and, believe me, we
not only need their support, but we greatly
appreciate it.
In this connection, I also want to say a
sincere thank you to radio and TV, because,
as I have pointed out, the travel industry in
Ontario has been increasing, and a great
deal of the credit certainly goes to those I
have mentioned.
This coming June we will be conducting our
15th annual U.S. editors' goodwill tour of
Ontario, with one editor from each of 30
states. I regard this goodwill tour as one of
our most valuable promotion measures.
Our guests are met at a border point and
taken over a 12-day itinerary, which we
endeavour to vary from year to year to include
the maximum number of stopping points
possible without imposing too much on our
guests' endurance.
We do not carry these tours out single-
handed, but always have the most generous
co-operation from the Dominion government,
the Royal Canadian mounted police, the
Ontario provincial police, the Ontario hotel
association, the transportation companies and
municipalities, chambers of commerce and
industry.
Our advertising programme in 1957 pro-
vided for a total expenditure of $273,000 in
newspaper paid space, magazines, radio and
television in both Canada and the United
States. To meet the rapidly mounting com-
petition for the tourist dollar, we are planning
some expansion. Of this total amount,
approximately 73 per cent, was spent in the
United States and 27 per cent, in Canada.
The latter includes our Know Ontario Better
campaign within our own province, as well
as advertising in nearly all of Canada's
national publications and special programmes
in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba
where proximity plays an important part.
Our daily direct mail inquiries for last
year showed an increase of 14,022. They went
up to 163,391 in 1957 as compared with
149,369 in 1956, and the majority of increases
were from the United States. We feel that this
came about to a large extent because we
changed our programme last year and used
a greater and wider frequency of insertions
by the way of smaller advertisements.
While there has been some question about
the influx of United States visitors, I would
like to point out again that from our Dominion
MARCH 21, 1958
1115
government statistics, we are still enjoying
here in Ontario over 60 per cent, of the total
Canadian travel business.
Our development branch has been con-
tinuing its programme of tourist conferences
and area development and promotion, and it
is expected these will be expanded because of
popular demand and the great need for
increased activity in these fields.
Our tourist reception centres, operated by
the information branch, and located at border
points of entry, will continue to serve what
we feel is a very valuable service to the
incoming visitors. The total number of regis-
trations in the books for last year were
555,965 and is an indication of the kind of
service they are rendering.
The activities of our mobile information
unit, since its inauguration last year, prove
to be very gratifying. Its popularity and the
increasing demands being placed upon its
time are convincing proof of its value to the
travel industry of the province, and it cer-
tainly enables us to be in touch with many
additional public affairs, giving additional
publicity to Ontario.
The photography branch will continue their
programme of special promotion, as it has
been found to be a most valuable means of
advertising Ontario in the United States for
a very small outlay of money. Also, a new
film will be prepared this year and added
to our extensive library. These films are avail-
able for showing over in the United States or
in Canada.
I am very happy to say that our archaeolo-
gical and historic sites advisory board is
carrying on a very important work in an
excellent way, with the result that 50 plaques
were erected last year, in addition to the
10 erected the previous year, making a total
of 60 historical plaques.
As you can understand, Mr. Chairman,
there is great deal of research necessary
before an inscription can be placed on a
plaque, and the board, through its secretary
and staff, collects information from every
available source, which includes excerpts
from, or references to, books, newspapers and
manuscripts, as well as statements received
directly from persons having a specialized
knowledge of the area in question.
The board is extremely anxious, at all times,
that the records supporting the inscriptions
provide information that is reliable and
authentic, and, while there is always a pos-
sibility that it might err, the archaeological
and historic sites advisory board is doing its
level best to eliminate such a possibility.
Each member is an historian and appre-
ciates the great value of preserving our his-
torical past.
We feel that a great contribution is being
made to the province through this work, and
I want to pay the highest tribute to all who
are serving under the very able chairman-
ship of Mr. William Cranston of Midland.
In fact, we of the department are so im-
pressed with the fine work that is being
done by this advisory board that, in order
to facilitate matters and to carry out the
responsibilities which have accrued to the
department, it has been decided to form an
historical branch.
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to give this
House some outline of our past activities,
as well as our ambitions and objectives for
the future, and I hope what I have had to
say has been of some value. I would like to
mention that to point up maybe or empha-
size why I become more and more impressed
with the value of this industry. Of course
the financial return is of vital importance,
and along with that the circulation of our
people and the circulation of other people
with us, to me, is of great importance inas-
much as only by personal acquaintance do
we get to know each other.
We are spreading, in our opinion in the
department, goodwill and better understand-
ing in the promotion of this travel business.
I received a letter— I am sure the particu-
lar association would have no objection to
me quoting from it— a few months ago. It
comes from the North Bay tourist resorts asso-
ciation, and in that letter they were taking
certain matters up with me— in fact a deputa-
tion came down and met with us in the
department— and they have this to say:
The capital value of the 44 resorts on
the lakeshore is in excess of $4 million.
Indicative of the amount of tourist busi-
ness in all the North Bay area is the fact
that more than $6 million of United States
money passes through the North Bay banks
each summer.
They are rather remarkable figures. We
all know the city of North Bay. Some $6
million of United States money passed
through the North Bay chartered banks'
hands. That money can come from no place
except from our good brothers from below
the United States border south of us.
Mr. Chairman, in support of my remarks,
as some hon. members may have noticed in
the Financial Post of this week, they have
written a paragraph or an editorial there:
Big Tourist Year Ahead
1116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Then they go on to express the thought
that everything is indicative, everything points
to one of the best tourist years that we have
ever had this coming year of 1958.
As I have said before, in spite of the fact
that we face competition— there is no question
about it, very keen competition— we have
bright prospects ahead. I think that competi-
tion will give us all the more reason to put
our shoulders to the wheel, as it were, to
retain the business that we are now enjoying
which is as I have stated, some 60 per cent, of
the total of Canada's travel business.
I thank hon. members for their patience in
listening to my perhaps long monologue.
I, of course, will move down to the front
desks now to go through our estimates, and
that will give me the opportunity to explain
anything that I may not have touched on up
to the moment.
I thank hon. members very much again
for their attention.
On vote 2,101:
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I
have very few remarks to make about this
department, and in general I would like to
congratulate the hon. Minister on doing a
very reasonably good job across the province.
I might say that I was one of the members
who had the pleasure to have the hon. Minis-
ter of Travel and Publicity visit our area. I
might say it was very much appreciated and,
any time the hon. Minister can come back he
will be very welcome indeed.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that this is entirely
out of order because the orders of the day
have long since passed. But I think my hon.
friends across the way will excuse me, if very
humbly, I tell them that seated in the gallery
are the members of the Wiarton town council
and I wish the hon. Chairman would welcome
them in the way I know he can.
I have to bring that point out to show them
that, even though we may be somewhat criti-
cal of each other, we are really not a bad
lot of fellows.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I notice some of them there who attended a
dance I had out there when I visited Wiarton
in connection with game and fish.
Mr. Whicher: Was it a Tory dance?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I say that some of the
same gentlemen are here who attended the
dance when I attended the banquet in Wiar-
ton. I enjoyed it very much, they are a won-
derful bunch.
Mr. Whicher: Well, that is not what the
hon. Provincial Secretary called me in the
past.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Oh no, but the hon.
member is not in the running there.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to endorse to a large extent what the
hon. Minister has said. I believe that the
tourist industry in the past year has been
most successful. I know it has been in my
area, and I think that the only thing that we
have to look to— and be at all critical of—
are the plans that may be in the office of the
hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity for the
future, because by and large the tourists who
come into Ontario, and indeed the tourists
from Ontario, are well looked after. They
spend a great deal of money and the tourist
operators, I believe, are happy and financially
successful.
When the hon. Minister said that he had
received great co-operation from the other
departments of his government to help out
this great industry, may I remind him that
I think that he could be a little critical of
them. Perhaps he should keep prying at
them, because the other departments of
government are the ones which really make
the tourist industry a success or failure, what-
ever it might be.
May I remind the hon. Minister he could
very well tell the hon. Minister of Highways
that, while we appreciate all the new roads
across this province, a great deal of work
could be done on the old roads. No visitor
likes to travel on roads that are full of pot-
holes, and according to the hon. member
for Windsor (Mr. Reaume) there are a
number of potholes in this area and I wish to
assure him that there are quite a number in
mine, too.
The hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
has certainly co-operated with the hon.
Minister's department in the establishment
of these parks, and as I said yesterday, the
Sauble Beach Park is a credit to our own
area, and has done a great deal for the
tourist population who come into Bruce
county.
Might I say to the hon. Minister, that I
would appreciate very much his help in
the development of a further park in the
Bruce peninsula because it would help the
tourist industry immensely.
The tourist industry is going to be de-
veloped further only through private enter-
prise and—
MARCH 21, 1958
1117
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
about the provincial parks?
Mr. Whicher: I am talking about the
accommodation that provincial parks provide;
these are a small part of the great tourist
industry of this province, but it is to a large
extent going to be developed through private
enterprise.
I hope that the hon. Minister, through his
department, encourages people, for example,
who own private golf courses which are
most important to the tourists, and munici-
palities which have large areas of beaches,
because these certainly are most important
for the tourist industry. They need encourage-
ment by visits of officials of The Department
of Travel and Publicity. A pat on the back
does a great deal for them, and by improving
these services we will, in the long run, have
more visitors to this province of ours.
The fishing is one of the main reasons why
tourists visit us, and I ask the hon. Minister
to keep telling the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests to get all sorts of fish into our inland
lakes and rivers because many, many people
—thousands and thousands of them— visit us
for the sole reason of a little holiday and a
fish, and if they catch that fish they will come
back next year.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I just hope our present
hon. Minister retains his good health so he
can stay on the job, because I do want to
say sincerely that the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests is very co-operative with us, and
that he is always ready to listen to our pleas.
Mr. Whicher: Now, I have one suggestion.
In order—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I think hon. members
well know that he is fat and good natured.
Mr. Whicher: I have one more suggestion
in order to try to sell our province, in order
to get more people here, and obviously that
is the prime desire. If we have the people
here they are going to spend a certain amount
of money.
Last night in the estimates of the hon.
Minister of Planning and Development (Mr.
Nickle) he told us about die offices that they
have in Chicago and New York to promote
new industry in this province. I believe that
there was some $60,000 expended in the
promotion of industry by those two offices.
I suggest that the hon. Minister of Travel
and Publicity could very well have some man,
from his department, in each of those offices to
promote the tourist industry in this province.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: May I say we do, if the
hon. member will pardon me. We do, in the
Canadian government travel bureau office,
in New York, keep a staff of one or two all
during the summer to distribute our literature.
We do not run an office of our own, but
we do have personnel from our department
to do that. I realize what the hon. member
means; we maybe could go further, but—
Mr. Whicher: In our particular area, we
have a large number of tourists who come
from Chicago or Cleveland and Detroit, and
if the cost is not too large, I believe it
would certainly pay to have, in co-operation
with the offices of other departments of gov-
ernment now in those cities, representatives
of the hon. Minister of Travel and Publicity
to advertise in the local papers and tell the
people of Cleveland, for example: "If you
would like to have a holiday in Ontario
this coming year, visit our office at such and
such a street." In that way he could really
sell the proposition to the people.
Various shows such as sportsmen shows
are held in Detroit and Cleveland. We have
men from our own area who go down there
for perhaps a week during the year, and
attempt to sell our area to those people.
But, at a very minimum cost it seems to
me, the hon. Minister could have his men
there all the year round, who could sell this
province to them and give them any advice
and as to where they want to go. These men
could tell the people there about the various
forms of entertainment, the fishing possi-
bilities in certain localities, and any other
information that might be required.
That, I think, is the prime effort that he
should devote to this purpose. As far as
the people who come here now are concerned,
in a general way they are being well looked
after, and we appreciate it. But if we wish
to increase the tourist industry, I think
we should go to the American cities and sell
Ontario to the citizens there, and then they
will come.
Mr. Oliver: I want to say just a further
word on vote 2,101. Is it too late?
Mr. Chairman: No, we are not in too big
a hurry this morning.
Mr. Oliver: I notice in 1956-1957 in the
memberships in and grants to travel organiza-
tions, the hon. Minister spent $965. In 1957-
1958 he estimated he would spend $1,500,
and this year he intends to spend $10,000.
1118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now is the department going to become
a department of joiners? I mean, why this
great increase in this particular amount?
What travel organizations is he going to join
this year that he did not know existed last
year?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, off-hand for
instance, the contribution to the CTA— the
Canadian tourists association — towards the
Canadian travel tourists survey, is underway,
our contribution there will be part of that. I
have, some place here, the amounts of which
that is made up.
While we call it a grant, it is a contribu-
tion towards the Canadian tourist survey.
Then we are increasing our grants to the
association of tourist resorts, the northern
tourist outfitters, the Lake Erie vacationland,
Canadian tourist association, and the Missis-
sippi parkway.
Hon. members probably know of the great
Mississippi road or parkway commission,
coming up through the United States, that
ends up in our great province, just outside
the city of Kenora where we unveiled the
plaque there commemorating the joint inter-
section of two or three highways.
We are tying ourselves in with the Missis-
sippi parkway association, a grant of $1,000
I think we are making to them. Manitoba
is doing the same thing, and so is each one
of the states around there, in order to promote
that extension of the highway into our prov-
ince of Ontario, where a great many of our
tourists visit today. It plays a very important
part in the industry up to the Rainy River
district.
Of course, we pay to the Ryerson scholar-
ship and the American society of travel
agents, and the national association of travel
officials. Those are the associations we are
making grants to, including the Mississippi
parkway, the Canadian tourist survey that is
being carried out plus some increase of grants
to the larger associations such as the outfitters,
the association of tourist resorts, and those 3
or 4 groups.
We feel, as the hon. member for Bruce has
just said, the local organizations do a
tremendous job. Without them I do not know
how much good our work would do. We just
have to appeal to them and encourage their
support, because here at Queen's Park our
job is leadership and advertising, and doing
what we can, of course, to say to the world
that Ontario is a great province, and then we
have to leave it pretty much with the local
areas to do the encouraging part of it locally,
so that I feel that we should give all the
encouragement, not just by word of mouth,
but by a little financial assistance to those
larger organizations that are carrying the
ball for great areas.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, hearing the hon. member for Bruce
speak reminded me of something here in
Toronto I thought I should bring to the
attention of the hon. Minister. I know that
we are interested in having our tourists go
to some of the far-flung areas of our great
province, but we are also interested in getting
some of them into little old Metropolitan
Toronto for so many reasons. It is just a
great place to come and visit.
As the hon. Minister knows, we are in the
process of having a great stadium here in
Toronto, where we can have all kinds of
sporting events— this will interest him too—
and naturally, if we are providing the right
type of sport, both amateur and professional,
we encourage many, many citizens from
across the line to come here and witness these
games.
As hon. members know, there has been a
great deal of discussion about Toronto having
a professional ball team, and for that reason
we would need large stadium facilities.
For professional baseball— that is, major
league ball— we would draw fans from all
along the border points, Buffalo over as far
as Detroit, southward into New York state.
Naturally, in a place as large as Toronto and
in a city where we have so many sports-
minded people, it seems to me that maybe
our Department of Travel and Publicity
could give a little encouragement to this
proposition. It is something in which our
Toronto papers, in particular our Toronto
sportswriters, are very much interested.
I do know that the Toronto council have
approved money to assist in the enlargement
of the stadium at the Canadian National
Exhibition to accommodate certain sports.
I think that probably we should go all the
way, over a period of a few years, and make
ample room to accommodate, say, a crowd
of 40,000, or 50,000 or 60,000.
I do not think that is too big for Toronto,
and then we could have the people come down
from Bruce county and enjoy it. The hon.
member could bring the council down, every
now and again, to see the ball games. But it
would mean revenue to our province, Mr.
Chairman, through people coming over the
border, by the tax on the ball games, and
so on.
This thing needs a bit of a lift, and I know
of no one better from the provincial side to
MARCH 21. 1958
1119
give it that lift than the hon. Minister of
Travel and Publicity and I bring that to his
attention now.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: May I just say to the
hon. member for High Park that we recognize
of course that Toronto is a great city. It is
the capital city of this great province. I can
assure him that the city of Toronto is not
overlooked by our department. As a matter
of fact, I say, without hesitance, that the
Toronto tourist association works very closely
with us, and I am sure that if they were here
they would say we do give them a lot of
encouragement and help in one way or
another.
Vote 2,101 agreed to.
On vote 2,102:
Mr. W. G. Noden (Rainy River): Mr. Chair-
man, on this item I would like to congratulate
the hon. Minister for the fine job that he is
doing. I remember last year that this estimate
had been increased further, that is, to send
more money to the south of us in publicizing
Ontario. In the past year, to the south of us—
say in Minnesota, that is south of northwestern
Ontario— they have put up billboards and used
TV.
I might say that the tourist industry for
1957 was never in a better conditon. It
was healthy and it has been expanding.
I want to commend the department for its
assistance; they are giving tremendous encour-
agement to this industry. I might say that
our own people, like chamber of commerce,
for instance, the one at Fort Frances this year,
put on an ice carnival to attract people to our
area and I know the other centres are doing
the same thing.
We are also attending the sports shows in
the southern part of the United States, spend-
ing our money and doing our part in trying
to co-operate with his department.
In doing this, I might say that we realize
what the potentialities are in the future, with
the great river road that is now being built
from New Orleans— the Gulf of Mexico— and
I understand that the joining point at the
border will be at Fort Frances, and that the
terminus will be on highway No. 17 and
highway No. 71, as the hon. Minister has
announced. This is a good job and I com-
mend this department.
Mr. Oliver: On this vote, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Minister proposes to spend upwards
of $700,000. Now I want to know from him
two or three things.
In the first place, how is this vote divided
as between the different mediums of advertis-
ing—newspaper, TV, radio and magazines—
and also what proportion of the vote is
spent in Canada, what proportion in the
United States and, thirdly, who handles the
advertising account for the department? Is
it with one advertising firm, or is it dis-
tributed around? Could the hon. Minister
give us some information along that line?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Our money goes out
in this way. United States magazines $120,-
000; United States newspapers and billboards,
$55,000; radio and TV, $25,000. That is
not all over the United States. What we try
to do to a large extent, with radio and TV,
is maybe to advertise with the border sta-
tions. They may be Canadian ones that beam
over into the United States, and beam over
into our own province, because we feel that
we derive greater benefits from it.
Two years ago, two or three years ago,
when we first went into TV, we used the
stations pretty much down through the
southern states, and we did not feel that
we got sufficient returns, judging from the
number of inquiries that came back to us.
So we have changed it and we are using
pretty much the border points so that it
beams both ways, because we are bending
our efforts to the Know Ontario Better cam-
paign.
To a very large extent we feel that it is
very important. As I said, our people, in
learning more about their own province,
become our best ambassadors when they go
abroad and visit with their friends over in
the other countries.
Radio and TV, $25,000; Canadian papers
and magazines, $100,000; general and other
papers, $50,000; making a total of $349,500.
Printing amounts to $300,000. With regard
to the printing, I guess we come up with
something in the neighbourhood of 30
publications altogether, and they are pretty
much art work, not just plain printing. Our
director of publicity, Mr. Hogarth, has the
responsibility of that particular branch of the
department. He comes up with a design of
some kind— maybe last year's mostly— and
puts it through the Queen's printer, and asks
for tenders on that particular publication.
We have been trying to broaden that
in the last couple of years. This is a little
difficult because printing plants throughout
the province are not all equipped, when we
get outside the city of Toronto, with the
facilities to handle certain publications. But
we are expanding it, and we find, too, that
1120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
printing companies out through the province
are extending their facilities much more
than they were just a few years ago. They
are looking for extra business.
Tenders are sent out by the Queen's
printer on these jobs. They are returned and
we, of course, then select the companies to
do the job, depending on the design— not
necessarily the lowest prices— design and price
are both very important to our decisions. In
other words, we do not just say: "Well, these
are the tenders and this is for $10 and the
other one is for $20 and we will take the
$10 one," because— and I do hope that hon.
members will agree — our publications are
improving over the years.
I am sorry that our newer book is not
off the press because, while last year's work,
I felt, was an improvement— many hon. mem-
bers told me that anyway— I think that this
year's is even better, and is being printed at
approximately the same price.
As I said, I have here McKim, Locke
Johnson, McConnell Eastman, Hayhurst,
those are pretty much—
An hon. member: What are they for?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh, those are our agen-
cies for advertising. We put our advertising, in
most cases, through an agency. In doing that
the papers pay the agency their commission-
Mr. Oliver: What agency?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: McKim, Locke John-
son, McConnell Eastman, and Hayhurst,
they are all in Toronto. Oh, I am sorry, Mc-
Connell Eastman, I forgot, is over in
London. They do our billboards. I am sorry.
Mr. Oliver: Has the hon. Minister the
amounts that are paid to each one of those
agencies?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We do not pay them.
Mr. Oliver: The department does not pay
them at all?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We do not pay them,
do we? Well, it is not deducted from the
total cost of—
Hon. Mr. Frost: We get it done for nothing.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No, I have the papers.
Of course, coming up with the billboards we
pay McConnell Eastman because that is com-
pletely ours, is it not? In distributing adver-
tisements they design it in co-operation with
Mr. Hogarth, and I understand that the
papers pay that agency the commission. We
pay for the ad, but they collect a portion of
it.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): But the agency
handles the money.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Oh, of course.
Mr. Nixon: Well, that is what we wanted
to know.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: We pay the agency and
then they get a commission from the
magazines.
Mr. Oliver: Good. Well I think that is
better. Now, how much does the department
pay each agency?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Those are the figures
I just gave.
Mr. Oliver: Will the hon. Minister give
them to us again?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: McKim $120,000; Mc-
Connell Eastman $55,000; Hayhurst $25,000;
and Locke Johnson $100,000.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that commission?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: df course, that is in
round figures.
Mr. Oliver: I will say it is round, all right.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): In the public
accounts for the year ending 1957, the amount
received by the McKim Advertising Limited
was $69,000 and this year the hon. Minister
says they are going to get $120,000. Well,
does he intend to step it up that much?— from
$69,000 to $120,000?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Our advertising will
be expanded a great deal this year, as hon.
members can tell by the estimates.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the hon. Minister if the department has
officials at Ontario House in London?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No.
Mr. MacDonald: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: In London, England?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Now, we use the
facilities of our Ontario House. It is always
available to us, and they do a great deal of
work for us over there.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words they do
the job without the department having actual—
MARCH 21, 1958
1121
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Yes, without us having
actual personnel from our department.
Mr. MacDonald: I wonder what proportion
of the work of Ontario House is in this field?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, I would not say
any part is particularly allocated to them, as
matters arise during the summer or during
the year, we use them. The agent general
and his offices are available to us at any
time. We are continually in touch with him.
We distribute literature to that office; we
have it available there and he and his person-
nel are our contact people with the associa-
tions.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs ) : I was in Ontario House in
London, I cannot give the exact proportion
of time devoted particularly to travel and
publicity, but I do know that a great deal of
time is given to it through their officials in
the front office. People come in, and there are
tiers of pamphlets and booklets there, and
if a person goes in and is interested in a
certain part of Ontario, or is making general
inquiries, they have the pamphlets there
which they hand out to describe that parti-
cular area.
May I also say that under this new
Ontario development association set-up, each
of these associations is now preparing a large
brochure, which sets out the merits of their
particular areas. Those brochures are filed
there, and a person interested could take
one of those brochures and find out in a
general way about the whole of one area.
They do quite a fine job in that field.
Hon. L. M. Frost: (Prime Minister): I
might also add to what my hon. friend has
said in regard to Ontario House, and it might
have reference to an aside made last night
by my hon. friend from Bruce, who said
that Ontario House was spending $246,000-
I think that was the amount— and was getting
5 industries. Now I would not want him to
mislead himself, or get himself into any
trouble, on that question.
May I point out that the $246,000 that is
spent in Ontario House covers very many
things. Now there is the federal Department
of Citizenship and Immigration, for instance,
where people in the United Kingdom and
indeed from the continent go if they want
to come here.
There is a very great service there for
placements in this country.
I think that it adds up this way, that it
is a contribution to a selected type of immi-
gration. People know that there are vacan-
cies for instance in certain things, like maybe
school teaching or nursing or mechanical
work, and the work of the Ontario House
is a very great liaison in that regard.
It also makes a contribution in connection
with such things as travel and publicity.
Now that might be a comparatively minor
part of their activity, but nevertheless it is
an important part, so I point out that the
whole work of Ontario House is not a
matter of getting industry here into the
province.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon.
Prime Minister this question? If my memory
serves me correctly— and I may be wrong in
this— last summer, when the agent general
was with us on the trip up north, I think he
told me that some 17 of the staff of 38
were engaged fully, I assumed, in immigra-
tion work.
Now it strikes me that this is a pretty
serious duplication of something that is basic-
ally a federal responsibility, and the reason
for my question to the hon. Prime Minister is
to find out what proportion of the work is on
travel and publicity, because it seems to
me that too much of the work over there is
on immigration and duplicating what is a
federal job.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would reply to my
hon. friend's question this way, that the
subject of immigration is a divided one in The
British North America Act, as is agriculture,
and the matter is arguable.
In fact, it is more than arguable, it is the
function of both the province and the federal
authorities.
I took the position, some 8 or 9 years ago,
that we should not embark provincially upon
great and extensive matters relating to immi-
gration here, and thus duplicate federal
efforts.
Mr. MacDonald: Such as flying immi-
grants in?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now that, of course,
served its purpose in those days, but I do
not think that there would be a place for a
plan like that in 1958. The matter of flying
immigrants over here was to meet a situation
which existed a dozen years ago and it served
its purpose.
When it came to be my duty to direct
things, I thought that particular purpose had
been served at that time, and we therefore
eliminated as much as possible in the way
of duplication.
1122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that we eliminated all duplication.
At that time, we were doing a great deal of
X-ray work and other things in connection
with the physical examination of people com-
ing to this country, which was a highly
important matter. But it seemed to me that
we were doing work which other people
should be doing. As a result, that work was
assumed by the federal authorities, at least
that is my recollection.
The work of Ontario House, with the 17
personnel which my hon. friend mentioned—
which might be about half the personnel of
Ontario House— really got down to the work
of guidance for these people coming into our
province, so that they would know about the
conditions they were going to meet.
Nearly 5 years ago, at the time of the
Coronation, I was there, and visited at Ontario
House for some time. I was interested in the
work they were doing, where a person inter-
ested in coming to Ontario with certain
qualifications discussed the matter with
people who were able to tell him what con-
ditions he is likely to meet here.
That, I think, is not a duplication. It is a
very necessary work. We have to remember
that, from a standpoint of the federal
authorities, their position is going to be this,
of bringing people and facilities and move-
ment of people into Canada. They, of course,
are not going to get into the provincial
matter.
Our attractions in relation to those of the
various provinces, seems to result in the fact
that we in Ontario are getting about half of
the immigration coming into Canada.
Through Ontario House, we have been able
to provide ways and means so that people
could sit down and discuss things, and fur-
thermore we have made it possible for indus-
try to contact the people and interview people
with an idea of making job placements in this
country in fields where there is a shortage of
skilled helpers and so on. That, I think, is the
position of Ontario House.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): I would
like to make a couple of observations on the
tourist establishment part of the estimates. I
want to congratulate the hon. Minister and
his staff very highly for the job they are
doing, and I am very pleased to see that the
Opposition commenced their remarks this
morning by congratulating the hon. Minister
and saying how efficient he was and what a
good job he had done, and I thoroughly
agree.
Mr. MacDonald: He has joined the mutual
admiration society.
Mr. Wardrope: Well, I agree with the hon.
members that every one of the hon. Ministers
in this government are doing a great job.
I do not think there is any doubt about it.
An hon. member: That is not what he said
down at the committee.
Mr. MacDonald: Is he trying to get him-
self back into society?
Mr. Wardrope: I would say that the hon.
Minister of Travel and Publicity is in the
right position because he is so strong on good
public relations. He meets people well. If
any hon. members have noticed his picture
in the publicity folders, and if he were an
American of the opposite sex, and saw him,
that person would want to come to Canada,
figuring that all male Canadians looked like
our hon. Minister. That is a prize picture of
the hon. Minister and I congratulate him on
it.
I also think that he is a great person. I
call him the "Ontario Greeter." He is in the
right job and is doing it amply.
Well, now we must remember, Mr. Chair-
man, it is a $300 million tourist business in
this province, and it a most important way
of attracting American and foreign dollars to
this province which is so badly in need of
those dollars.
Mr. Thomas: And of the opposite sex.
Mr. Wardrope: And of the opposite sex,
that is right. I am glad to see that my hon.
friend's mind is centred on things soft and
pleasant this morning, rather than harsh
statements that he often makes.
I would tell the hon. member that, up in
my area, most of the tourist resorts are at
the moment owned 90 per cent, by United
States citizens. The reason for that is this,
that tourist operators in this province cannot
find any avenue through which they can
borrow money to improve their premises, and
to make them attractive for winter occupation.
Mr. Thomas: We are in the same boat.
Mr. Wardrope: They borrow from their
American guests, and that in turn is bad be-
cause the ownership then reverts to American
authorities.
I believe that with our highway No. 17
being completed and that great Fort Frances
causeway that the hon. member for Rainy
River is so proud of being completed, we
are going to see a tremendous new influx of
tourist traffic through this province. We can
see it developing. We can hear the con versa-
MARCH 21, 1958
1123
tion south of the border if we go down there.
I hear them asking when that road is going
to be finished and when we will be in a
position to have tourist establishments which
can properly look after them, and of which we
will be proud.
That is going to take money, Mr. Chairman,
and there has to be some way found, if it is
at all possible, to see that these tourist
operators can borrow money.
I know this that none of the mortgage
companies, banks or the lending institutions
will loan money to many of the tourist opera-
tors. Why, I cannot say, because they have
a record of looking after their obligations and
spending their money wisely and well.
I was wondering if some avenue could not
be worked out similar to our municipal im-
provement corporation, whereby these men
could obtain money to make these proper
adjustments and enlargements, which are
going to help us increase that total of $300
million which we have already arrived at.
That is one thing that I would like to see the
committee or somebody give some very
serious consideration to.
The second thing is the matter of liquor,
and I am glad to be advised by the chairman
of the liquor control board this morning that
there is going to be a meeting with the
different tourist associations to see if some
more readily workable system can be found
to look after the regulations in these tourist
establishments.
Mr. MacDonald: To get rid of the boot-
legging.
Mr. Wardrope: Well, perhaps the hon.
member for York South is right. I often
think that some of the regulations at the
present time force these people to be in that
category, against their will.
But I think those are two important things
and I would like to see very serious thought
given to them.
Now, in conclusion, again I congratulate
the hon. Minister and his staff for the fine job
he is doing and I hope that he will seriously
consider these possible improvements that I
have mentioned.
Mr. MacDonald: More sex appeal in Know
Ontario Better.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr. Chair-
man, I wanted to ask one thing. Up in
Sarnia, a very beautiful place, of course, as
one is coming over the bridge, he will
immediately see a nice building there. It
was built by the people of the province and
I think it is something we ought to have in
every place of entry. After all, Sarnia is just
one place in the province.
Indeed, I think probably Windsor has about
twice as many people coming over as they
do there, and yet when one comes over our
bridge in Windsor, or the tunnel, he sees a
couple of old frame buildings that would be
more suitable for keeping pigs in than it would
for advertising our part of the province.
I am just wondering if the department is
ever going to do anything at that port of
entry? After all, there are more people who
enter at the port of Windsor than there are,
as I understand it, at all of the other ports of
entry combined. Yet— well, who is smiling
now?
The department has a couple of places up
there, one at the tunnel and one at the
bridge. They are nothing but second-hand,
dilapidated old places run down. Now, would
it not be proper and feasible— and I think
equitable— that at the most important entry
of people coming from the United States into
Canada, the department should have a respect-
able looking place? Yet neither of the places
are any good.
The question is this, when is the hon.
Minister going to do something about it?
Mr. W. Murdoch (Essex South): Mr. Chair-
man-
Mr. Reaume: No, I asked the hon. Minister.
Mr. Murdoch: All right.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Now this particular hon.
member who has just been speaking comes
from Essex North. In the first place, he and
I had a little chat about this, and I explained
pretty well what the situation was. A very
nice reception centre, probably the best in
all of North America, is situated at Point
Edward.
Mr. Reaume: Oh, Point Edward, I am
sorry.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: That is where the tourist
crosses the blue water bridge. That informa-
tion bureau was built before my time. Please
do not leave the inference in the House that
it was built since I came in as the Minister
of this department.
Mr. Reaume: Oh, I do not care who built it.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: For the hon. member's
information, it was built some years before I
was the Minister, may I take the credit for
that-
Mr. Reaume: I think he could—
1124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I bent my efforts,
realizing the importance of the tourist busi-
ness, the tourist industry to Ontario and to
our area.
I have lived adjacent to the border line
most of my life, and I can well recall the
tourists of the old days when only the fellow
with the silk hat and cane could afford to
have a vacation. He came over and spent
a month or two, and he had plenty of money
to pay his way.
Conditions have changed, and most of us
now can enjoy a vacation and look forward to
4t. I just mention that to say that I always
appreciated the value of the influx of our
visitors to Ontario, and I spent a lot of time
in order to get that because we have a
beautiful, as the hon. member will agree,
location for it. The government owned the
property so we had no problem there whatso-
ever. It was a matter of working on The
Department of Travel and Publicity and The
Department of Public Works to win their
approval and that was an example of the
kind of reception centre that I feel we should
have located at every entry point.
Windsor, at the moment, is one place that
is being given very serious consideration.
The hon. member may have noticed, in the
Windsor Daily Star, the announcement that
it is possible that his building may be
constructed during this coming summer. The
problem, of course, is to get the proper loca-
tion. He has been blessed over these past
years with at least two reception centres, one
at the bridge and one at the tunnel.
Mr. Reaume: They are a couple of old
barns, that is what they are.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: At the Point Edward-
Sarnia entrance, just in order to let our hon.
members know the facts, we do and have
enjoyed over the past number of years— and
that was previous to the building of the
present reception centre— the largest registra-
tion of visitors crossing into Ontario over any
other centre. Let the hon. member get this
straight— registrations, I am not talking about
the people passing back and forth.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I am not talking about
people—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, these are
people.
Mr. Reaume: I know, but I say—
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: They come in and
write their names-
Mr. Reaume: That does not mean any-
thing.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Well, any time I sign
my name it has meant something, I will
tell the hon. member that, particularly on
cheques-
Mr. Reaume: I am talking about people
coming back and forth.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: To satisfy the hon.
member, and to answer what he has said,
the information bureau over at the bridge
entry will be moved back from where it is
presently located. It will be properly land-
scaped and beautified, and I am sure it will
present a very nice picture when that work
is done this spring.
Serious consideration is being given to
an Ontario building in Windsor which would
house not only the reception centre or the
information bureau, at the front, but the
other Ontario office.
Mr. Reaume: I thank the hon. Minister
very much, that is fine.
Mr. G. Innes (Oxford): Could the hon.
Minister tell me how many inspectors and
tourist establishments they have in his de-
partment, and how often they inspect these
tourist establishments?
Mr. Murdoch: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to dispel the impression that is
being created by the hon. member for Essex
North that the two tourist reception buildings
in the city of Windsor are— as he says— not
fit for pigs to be in. I would like to dispel
that entirely, because the two buildings are
very well built and are respectable. They are
well appointed and equipped with a good
staff. They have all the literature and infor-
mation that the tourist wants, and serve a
very useful purpose.
As a matter of fact, they were the first
two constructed and put into operation, I
believe, in the province of Ontario. Since
that time newer buildings have been built.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point
out that I think that one of the great jobs
of the department is the liaison and the
assistance it gives to the various tourist or-
ganizations and agencies throughout the
province, and particularly to the Essex county
tourist association, which is a very live
organization.
I might point out that the United States
visitors who entered Canada through Essex
county at various points last year amounted
to 4,922,311 people. This is indeed a lot
of visitors.
Now the board of directors of the Essex
county tourist association has just concluded
MARCH 21. 1958
1125
an agreement with the department of busi-
ness administration, of Assumption Univer-
sity of Windsor, for a survey of the visitor
industry in Essex county to be made in
1959, and preparations are already under
way.
The senior students of the 1958-1959 class
in marketing research will conduct this survey
and, as I say, details of procedure for the
survey are being discussed at the present
time.
One of the purposes of this survey will
be the determination of capital investment
in facilities catering to the tourist trade and
the degree of service given. It will show
what this total investment means in assess-
ment taxation and employment, and how
much is spent in Essex county by the average
visitor.
Also, as to what the visitors expect to find
there, it will show what we do not actually
have, in meeting these expectations, and per-
haps we could provide in the way of beaches,
parks, recreational facilities and so forth.
So the whole purpose of this survey is to
put the visitor industry through a clinic, to
find out its present state of health, and
what is needed to cure any deficiencies in
nutrition, or correct any organic troubles.
Perhaps it is not receiving sufficient promo-
tion to bring more people into Essex county,
or the framework of the general facilities
here is defective in Essex county in some
respects.
I just wanted to point out this matter to
the hon. members that I think that the work
which the department— the hon. Minister and
his officials— does with the various organiza-
tions on the local level is really excellent,
and I think that this is where a lot of the
work can be done in the promotion of the
tourist industry.
Vote 2,102 agreed to.
On vote 2,103:
Mr. Thomas: On item No. 4, the admini-
stration and enforcement of The Tourist
Establishments Act and The Department of
Travel and Publicity Act.
This year, the appropriation is up I think
some $1,000. In 1957, the appropriation was
the same $12,000 but I see in the public
accounts that the department expended only
$5,656, leaving an unexpended total of $6,343.
Now, as the appropriation last year was for
the same amount, $12,000, how much did the
hon. Minister spend out of that last year?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am told that there is
an expansion programme taking place in that
particular department. The development
branch will be putting out a booklet of their
own this year, which they did not do last
year, plus the fact that we will have costs as
a result of the licencing of the tourist out-
fitters which in the past we used to just
inspect. We will also licence them this year,
which will add to our administration costs.
Mr. Thomas: Further to that, the appro-
priation last year was $12,000. How much
did the hon. Minister spend of that, and how
much is still unexpended?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I am told about $10,000
of the appropriation.
My hon. friend for Oxford has asked me
a question, and everybody else has been
getting in. I think one of the questions was
—how many inspectors? We have 16 perma-
nent inspectors full-time. We take on 12
additional in the summer, and these inspectors
inspect each operation at least once a year.
But where we receive individual complaints
or from an association in regard to any
operation, the inspector then is put on the
track of that, and pays a personal visit as well,
and takes care of that complaint.
Mr. Innes: Well, the reason I asked is that
there are bound to be some conclusions all
the time. I think it is essential that we try to
force the sanitary conditions as much as we
can in these tourist establishments. I know
there are some that are 100 per cent,
sanitary and I just wondered how many
rechecks do they come back on, on com-
plaints or otherwise?
Might I put it this way, how many have
been rejected last year?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: The hon. member is
perfectly right about a few being not 100
per cent, sanitary. But by far the greater
majority of greater operations are on a very
high level, and it is those others that the
inspectors spend some time with. I know each
year we refuse a certain number-
Mr. Innes: Does the hon. Minister know
how many last year?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: Last year, 30 licences
were refused, one licence was suspended, one
was cancelled, and 22 licences were re-issued
that had been previously refused, suspended
or cancelled. No prosecutions were under-
taken by this department against operators in
1957.
Votes 2,103 to 2,105, inclusive, agreed to.
1126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, before the vote
is finally approved, I was interested in the
remarks of the hon. Minister in respect to
the low-rental housing project in Sarnia. I
am just seeking information on this.
He stated that there were 500 now
occupied, and the question I would like to
direct to the hon. Minister is this, how are
the tenants selected and what is the monthly
rental of them?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I would not have those
figures available. All I want to say is approxi-
mately 500 have been or are occupied, and it
is a very happy situation that exists there,
because these people residing there have no
fear of future additional taxes. I often take
my visitors out there. The hon. member can
stop at any one of the homes, go in, and shake
hands with them, and he will find happy
people living in those surroundings.
Mr. Thomas: I am aware of that, but the
hon. Minister does not know the rentals
charged.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: No.
Hon. Mr. Frost: They must be happy about
them though.
On vote 2,106
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): I would
like to refer just a moment to the Stoney Creek
women's historical association. Their associa-
tion has, under their charge, the grounds and
buildings of the Stoney Creek battlefield, and
they are highly concerned with the proposed
subdividing of some properties immediately to
the west of their grounds.
I do not know if this is in the jurisdiction
of the provincial government, but I under-
stand they were going to approach The De-
partment of Travel and Publicity in regards
to some assistance in obtaining this piece of
property to be added to their charts. Has the
hon. Minister any information in that regard?
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I have not heard any-
thing about it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In response to what my
hon. friend says, the Stoney Creek battlefield
memorial park is a very interesting place. I
think it is a federal park, owned by the battle-
fields commission which is an emanation of
the federal government.
Actually speaking, it is away from the
general run of traffic but it is very well
worthwhile going to see. The old original
house is there as it was in 1812, and I would
be very sympathetic toward doing anything
that we can provincially to preserve that area
and that park.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
just has to watch that we do not run a
speedway through it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I do not think we
should. If there is going to be a speedway
around here, I think it is going to miss that
battlefield and that park by all means.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought the problem
was closer to home.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What does the hon. mem-
ber mean by "closer to home"?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I was born in little
old Stoney Creek, and I know something of
this situation.
The fact is that some subdividers, as the
hon. member for Wentworth East said, tried
to buy the property which lies immediately
to the west of the monument.
It was discussed by the Wentworth
suburban planning board, and they decided
that it would be unwise to let this develop-
ment go on, and that they should preserve
that historical site and I agree with that.
Furthermore, they finally got the city of
Hamilton interested in it, and the city of
Hamilton said in effect that they, too, were
opposed to this development.
I got in touch with Mrs. Krierer who is the
president of the Wentworth historical society,
and she said that they do have some
grant made years ago, by some lady, and
they do have control of the maintenance of
that area. They were opposed to this develop-
ment, too.
It was suggested that an appeal should be
made to the federal hon. Minister— I just
forget under whom this comes down in
Ottawa— to have the whole area declared a
national site. When I asked Mrs. Krierer
about it, her answer was: "We wish it to
remain as it is under our maintenance and
care. We think we are doing a good job."
I wanted to assure the hon. member that,
so far as the subdivision is concerned, I have
heard that that is definitely off, and that
attempts are being made to have that area,
where they proposed to subdivide, added to
the Stoney Creek historical site.
Furthermore, the local people— that is the
Stoney Creek council— are doing their best
to popularize this place, and it is hoped
by appropriate signs to get United States
citizens who are interested in the famous
battle of, I think it was June 6, 1813, that
MARCH 21, 1958
1127
the famous battle of Stoney Creek took
place, to come into that area and to view
the spot. May I say this, that I think un-
fortunately they have started a little too late
in some respects because, as the hon. mem-
ber knows, immediately to the east of the
monument there has been permitted a de-
velopment. Some of the houses are very
close to this area, and it is most unfor-
tunate.
The only way that could be overcome is
by getting enough money to buy out those
places and broaden out the part to the east,
which I think some day should be done.
Mr. Noden: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a comment in connection with this sec-
tion. I think it is very important, and I know
that the hon. Minister is much interested in
this matter. When the archaeology and
historical board was originated under The
Department of Education, in our area at
that time we assembled, or had created, a
stone cairn commemorating the Athabaska
House or Fort Lac La Pluie, which was the
turning point in the trade between the east
and west.
Perhaps the hon. member for Port Arthur
will say that Prince Arthur landing was that
point. But, at the same time, we could say
that Grand Portage also had that very same
distinction.
I would like to say that there has been a
little controversy between the hon. member
for Muskoka (Mr. Boyer) as to which was
the first historical plaque unveiled in the
province, and he made the statement that the
hon. Prime Minister unveiled the one in his
area. Of course the present hon. Minister
unveiled the one in our area previous to
that. It is a good thing that we are far apart.
I would like to further comment on a
book that was sent out, I imagine, to every
hon. member of this House by the hon.
Prime Minister and which was compiled by
the government in co-operation with the
Champlain society, sponsoring a series of
documentary facts of early history of Ontario.
I think it is a wonderful work, and that
it should be continued by this department,
because as we move along day by day, and
year by year, we are apt to forget the his-
torical facts pertaining to our province.
It is very important that the hon. Minister
of Travel and Publicity should be erecting
plaques here and there, keeping this ever
before us, because I think a great many
people today are interested in this form of
our society.
One has only to think of the write-ups
that have taken place about old Fort York
down here, and only yesterday the hon.
Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of
Education presented a scroll to a former
member who was in this House in 1911, who
is now in the city. This gentleman is respon-
sible, I would say, for the building, or having
the building of the present road system set up
within the Rainy River district, which at
that time was used for the taking out of
timber. Today it is the agricultural area of
our district.
The facts of that time can be incorporated
in a book and can be kept track of.
I might tell hon. members I have read
this book, Valley of the Trent, because I
was interested in it. I read it from the front
page to the last. There may be only a few
who will want to do that, but, after all, that
book is there for those who want to look
back over the history of this grand old
province. As someone has said, the history
of the people makes a nation.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): I would
very much like to congratulate the hon. Min-
ister upon making the historical branch a
separate branch of his department because
that work is very important indeed.
The hon. member for Rainy River said
that he and I were far apart. But I think
he meant our constituencies are far apart.
He and I are not far apart on anything.
We are not going to argue about a plaque.
But, Mr. Chairman, my purpose in rising
is to refer not particularly to the plaques,
although we hope that we are going to have
one this year to commemorate the 100th
anniversary of the building of the first Mus-
koka road from Washago to Gravenhurst.
This route is very largely still in use as part
of the great north highway No. 11.
But I would like to refer to this particular
vote, which amounts to about $80,000. It
represents part of the great increase in the
total estimates for The Department of Travel
and Publicity this year. That increase has
been noted by those who, in all parts of the
province, are interested in the tourist business.
I am glad to say that I find, in reading
newspapers from all areas, that there is more
than ever before a recognition of the value
of the tourist business. I say that the recog-
nition by the government of this matter,
reflected in the increased departmental esti-
mate of this year, is another indication of the
great faith in the future of Ontario shown
by the Frost administration.
1128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Oliver: I am just going to say, Mr.
Chairman, that I find myself wondering why
we cannot get all the votes for historical sites
under one department.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think we are.
Mr. Oliver: Well, is not the vote for the
historical sites and monuments under the
Treasury?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think that is the publica-
tion, not The Treasury Department.
Mr. Oliver: Well, my information is that
the vote for historical sites and monuments
is still under Treasury for $25,000. There is
a vote for the Champlain society under The
Department of Education for $5,000. When
we have a department such as The Depart-
ment of Travel and Publicity, we would be
wise to have all these votes under one
department. What is the reason they are
distributed around amongst several depart-
ments?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think that will be done.
As a matter of fact, we have to develop this
matter actually from scratch. I think there is
much to say in transferring the matter gener-
ally to The Department of Travel and Pub-
licity. No doubt that will come about. We
have approached this matter from several
different points of view. The Department of
Education, for instance, in the first days had
charge of the archaeological sites.
Mr. Oliver: Now, has that been transferred
to The Department of Travel and Publicity?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, in main it has been
transferred to The Department of Travel and
Publicity, but in the meantime The Depart-
ment of Education has the archives depart-
ment, which is under Dr. Sprague, which may
be the proper place for it.
The development of these publications for
the Champlain society was something which
came about when I was the Provincial Treas-
urer and it remained there. It might be well
some of these days to consolidate these mat-
ters, but in the meantime they are going
along and I can assure my hon. friend that it
has been with some difficulty that these things
have been developed.
It has been because of the interest of
various persons and various departments, and
I admit that perhaps the estimates are some-
what spread out. Perhaps it would be well to
consolidate them some time in one place.
Hon. Mr. Cathcart: I might say for the
benefit of the House, Mr. Chairman, that
over and above the establishment of the
plaques that is going on, the unveiling which
we encourage and the interest in the local
area, they do a lot of the ground work.
We are also providing a library, as we
might use that word, with information having
to do with each historical plaque. For in-
stance, the inscription may be limited to some
30 odd words— that is just as many as we can
get on. I find that the branch over there
has many, many inquiries from people. As
soon as an historical plaque is erected, letters
are received which give us some more infor-
mation on this, so we are setting up what
might we classify as a library with a little
more lengthy story on that particular plaque
or historical site. We also want to be able
to tell that individual or person where they
can obtain what books they might require to
get more information on it. The library
record will be as important as the plaque
itself.
Vote 2,106 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move the
committee rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to. The House resumed;
Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs leave to report certain resolutions and
begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
It being 12.45 of the clock p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 43
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Heuatefif
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Friday, March 21, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, March 21, 1958
Travelling Shows Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Roberts, first reading 1131
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1131
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953,
bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 1132
Pipe Lines Act, 1958, bill intituled, Mr. Spooner, second reading 1132
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Gisborn, Mr. Cowling 1133
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Child, agreed to 1146
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Allan, agreed to 1146
1131
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
2 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the
House would revert to the order of introduc-
tion of bills.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE TRAVELLING SHOWS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to repeal The Travel-
ling Shows Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to
simply repeal The Travelling Shows Act,
leaving the field open to a municipal admini-
stration under The Municipal Act.
The reasons are that the province is not in
a position to give the service of inspection
that should be given for the safety of the
public. Municipalities are requesting regula-
tions that would require carnival shows to
carry public liability insurance as a mandatory
condition for receiving a licence, and munici-
palities, being closer to the operation of these
shows, would be in a better position to
licence them, inspect them, and give the
service to the public that they are requesting.
Section 413, paragraph 5, of The Municipal
Act permits municipalities to pass by-laws
and to licence travelling shows.
THE LOAN AND TRUST
CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 177, "An Act to amend The Loan
and Trust Corporations Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon.
member for Waterloo North (Mr. Winter-
meyer) is not in his seat, but I would like
to give an explanation for the records, and
he may be particularly interested in it.
The purpose of section 136 of the Act is
to replace certain restrictions on the invest-
ment powers of trust companies and loan
corporations. The restrictions are designed
to prevent too great a portion of the com-
Friday, March 21, 1958
panies' assets being invested in any one
security of a company, or in several securities
of one company. In other words, from
putting all their eggs in one basket.
In the opening words of clause A of the
section, hon. members will notice there is no
restriction on investments and securities
issued or guaranteed by the government of
Canada, or any province of Canada, or any
municipal corporation of Ontario.
Subclauses 1 and 2 are the same as the
present law, and provide that the maximum
amount the trust company or loan corporation
can invest in any one security of a company,
or in several securities of one company, is 50
per cent, of its own paid-in capital stock in
reserve.
Subclause 3 is new, and its purpose is to
enable a trust company or a loan corporation
to invest in short-term securities maturing in
one year or less with certain limitations. The
first limitation is that the maximum amount
that may be invested in these short-term
securities is 20 per cent, of the paid-in capital
and reserve.
The assets of a trust company or loan
corporation are approximately 10 times its
capital in reserve, so that the 20 per cent,
represents about one-fiftieth of the assets of
the company.
Then, in the case of trust companies, there
is an additional 5 per cent, of its monies
received as deposits for guaranteed invest-
ments that may be invested in short-term
securities, and in the case of loan corporations
an additional 5 per cent, of its monies are
borrowed on debentures and by way of
deposits. This makes a maximum for invest-
ments in short-term securities 20 per cent,
and 5 per cent., as I have indicated.
Then there is a further restriction on the
trust companies and loan corporations, if they
already hold long-term securities maturing in
one year or more of the company whose short-
term securities they wish to purchase. In this
case the maximum of 20 per cent, and 5 per
cent, must be reduced by the percentage that
has been invested in long-term security.
For example, a trust company has 15 per
cent, of its paid-up capital and reserve in-
vested in several long-term securities of one
company and, wishing to invest under the
1132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
new short-term security clause, it decides to
invest in the short-term securities of the same
companies in which it has 15 per cent,
invested. Therefore, the amount the trust
company can invest in short-term securities is
the difference between the 20 per cent, and
5 per cent, and the 15 per cent, or a maximum
10 per cent. Of course, if the trust company
desires to invest in short-term securities of a
company in which it holds no long-term secur-
ities it may invest up to the maximum of 20
per cent, and 5 per cent.
Now I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there
are a fe\v_ Ontario companies under this Act
that at the present time are not able to do
legally that type of short-term investing while
their counterparts who hold licences to do
business in this province are in that same
field, and it seems only fair and reasonable
that our own companies should have the same
rights as other similar companies operating
in Ontario.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT, 1953
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves second read-
ing of Bill No. 174, "An Act to amend The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act,
1953."
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Is this bill going to committee on muni-
cipal law, or just what is the hurry?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes, I might explain that
we are anxious to advance this bill so that
it may go to the municipal law committee on
Monday.
Mr. Oliver: Does the government intend to
have many more bills?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, just one more for the
same reason— The Pipe Lines Act, 1958.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PIPE LINES ACT, 1958
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves second reading
of Bill No. 182, "The Pipe Lines Act, 1958."
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Did I understand
the hon. Minister to say, when he introduced
the bill, that this extends the powers of ex-
propriation to pipe lines for oil services?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, I did not say that this new bill
extended the powers of expropriation. It
proposes to deal with them in a different
manner, and also to provide for a new method
of dealing with the question of compensation
and damages.
This bill will go to the mining committee
on Monday morning, and it will be distrib-
uted to hon. members in a very few minutes.
Now I would appreciate it if hon. members
would give this bill as much consideration as
they possibly can, because it is very important
legislation, and we would like to have the
guidance of hon. members' advice in dealing
with it in committee.
Mr. Nixon: Well, the hon. Minister has not
exactly answered my question. My recollec-
tion is that oil companies building pipe lines
for the conveyance of their products— oils of
various kinds— have never, up to now, had
powers of expropriation. Now I have not
seen this bill, of course, Mr. Speaker, but
under this bill, will those pipe lines companies
have power of expropriation?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, may I
refer back to the Act which this bill replaces,
or will replace?
When a corporation had received a certifi-
cate from the fuel board, and when a
certificate of "public convenience and neces-
sity" had been issued by the board, it is my
understanding that then the corporation could
enter upon lands to make surveys, could ac-
quire by purchase, lease, expropriation or
otherwise, and hold off and from, any person,
any lands or other property. The principle
of expropriation was there before.
We have in this new bill established a new
method of dealing with the matter of dam-
ages, and we are also providing for approved
easements agreements and many other condi-
tions that we will be glad to explain to the
committee in full and complete detail, para-
graph by paragraph.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
members of the Opposition would have no
objection, we might have second reading of
orders 60 and 61 which are routine.
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to
table a report on the diesel fuel tax in
Ontario, and may I say just a word of ex-
planation concerning this study.
It is a study that was conducted by the
Ontario research foundation in co-operation
MARCH 21, 1958
-
1133
with operators of diesel trucks and diesel
buses. The purpose of the study was to
endeavour to arrive at a tax on diesel fuel
which would bring to The Treasury Depart-
ment, for the revenue of this province, the
same amount of money that would come from
the gasoline tax for a similar vehicle. This
report covers details of these studies.
Inspectors from The Department of Trans-
port rode with the operators of the trucks,
and made notes of the consumption of fuel—
and a study of quite some detail was con-
ducted and, as a result, a recommendation as
to the proper tax on diesel fuel is presented,
having in mind that it would bring the same
revenue for the use of the highways with a
diesel-powered vehicle as would arise from
the gasoline-powered vehicle.
Mr. Oliver: Might I ask my hon. friend
what is the comparable figure?
Hon. Mr. Allan: It is 18.5 cents per gallon.
These reports will be distributed to hon. mem-
bers of the House.
I move Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,
and the House resolves itself into committee
of supply.
Motion agreed to.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. D. M. Kerr (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, may I join with those who have
already done so in expressing to you my
congratulations and commendation for your
actions in the chair and in your office as
Speaker.
In rising to take part in this debate on
the budget, I want to pay a particular com-
pliment to the hon. Provincial Treasurer, the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost), in present-
ing this budget.
Unless hon. members should get the idea
that I am going to talk about something of
which I know nothing, my next remarks
will be along the line of agriculture. It is
customary in good farming that certain fields
in rotation should lie fallow, in other words
they should not be used for cropping during
a particular year.
The result of that fallow process means
that we have, when the field is brought into
production again, a greater abundance of
crop and less weeds, and the laying aside
for 3 years of the hon. Provincial Treasurer
of this province in fallow assured itself in
the presentation of this budget.
We had presented to us in his clear, dis-
tinct and understudying terms what a budget
really means. The hand has not lost any
of its skill nor has he, in 3 years' rest, lost
any of his ideals in presenting a budget to
this House and to this province.
Taking the last statement of his budget
address and his quotation from the Holy
Writ:
For the Lord thy God brought thee
into a good land, a land whose stones are
iron and out of whose hills thou mayest
dig brass,
such may be said without fear of contra-
diction about this wonderful province of
ours.
The budget dealt with 3 services: educa-
tion, highways and health, with emphasis
upon each one of them, and the total expen-
diture for these 3 services amounted to two-
thirds of the revenue of this province.
Might I speak about two particularly—
the first and the last— education and health.
In his budget address the hon. Provincial
Treasurer states, and I quote:
Whether the child comes from the farm
or the city, from a wealthy residential dis-
trict or a relatively poor one, he has an
opportunity of developing his talents to
the fullest extent of his ability.
This, I may say, is the foundation stone
upon which good government is built. The
province has always sought to foster stand-
ards of education that make the most efficient
use of the intellectual resources and poten-
tialities of her people.
The aim of this administration has been,
and will continue to be, the greatest good
for the greatest number of people of this
province, and as we watch year after year
the development of the different pieces of
legislation, one can see that it is not for
one particular class or any one particular
condition of people, but for the whole good
of the whole province.
In regard to taxation and the administra-
tion of this province, particularly in our
grants to municipalities, I am going to take
two examples to illustrate what this govern-
ment has done. First of all, I take a fairly
prosperous little town known as Renfrew. I
am sorry that the hon. member for Renfrew
South (Mr. Maloney) is not here, but in
slicing their tax rate this year, they not
only did not have to increase their tax rate
but they had a substantial balance on hand
from last year to be applied to this year's
expenditure.
1134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now we go to the other extreme, a large
city that is industrial, the city of Kitchener,
and I quote from a newspaper dated March
17, Kitchener:
City council tonight set its 1958 tax
rate at 46 mills for residential assessment
and 49.5 mills for business, industrial and
commercial purposes. It was the first time
since 1943 that Kitchener did not increase
its mill rate and in doing so, council set
aside $125,000 for reserves.
That is the result of the policies of the
present government.
Let me also say that I have raised my
voice in this House, time and time again,
as the records will show, asking for some-
thing to be done on the provincial level as
well as the federal level for those citizens
of ours who are less fortunate than the rest,
the elder citizens, to be precise. While the
then government in Ottawa seemed deaf to
the cry and the need of these particular
citizens, this government made it possible
to increase old age assistance to the extent
of $20.
Then, lo and behold, last June 10 there
came a bit of sunshine down on Ottawa,
and with that sunshine there came relief
to these elderly citizens, not enough just
yet, but at least a step in the right direction,
and this government made it possible that
no one had to wait for months for the increase
to be granted. The Department of Public
Welfare was ready at a moment's notice to
increase their share to those receiving aid
to equal that of Ottawa. We have time and
time again given to Ottawa an example that
they should, if they would follow it, make a
better Canada.
May I just digress for a moment and go
back to something that happened earlier in
this session? May I go back even a little
further? When I came into this House first
in 1951, the then chairman of the Hydro
commission was making weekly broadcasts to
the people of Ontario in regard to Hydro.
I do not know what it is that is in the
Opposition, but as soon as the public official
gets onto the air to make a report about
anything, there has to be some criticism about
it. But I can remember the late Bob Saunders
being criticized by the Opposition in this
House and the question was asked as to
who paid for those broadcasts, why they were
being made, why they were being used for
political purposes, and all the rest. Alas and
alack, history repeated itself this year when
the present chairman happened to be speaking
at a club of which I am a member. He was
broadcasting at the club the speech he was
making in regards to the trip to England. I
wonder if history will continue to repeat
itself and if we will get the same old story
every time this public official speaks in public.
It seems to matter not so much what an official
may do, and what contribution he may make,
providing he keeps quiet about it and no
one else says anything.
In answer to the criticism of the hon.
members of the Opposition in regard to The
Department of Education and the educational
policy of this government, may I distinctly
say that it is my conviction that there is
nothing wrong with our educational system as
it is. What is wrong is the soft society in
which that system has to operate. When one
considers that the population of this province
has increased within the past year by 210,000,
and that the school population since 1945
has increased over 100 per cent., it becomes
obvious that the problem of education in this
province has been growing greater and greater
every year.
The government believes, and The Depart-
ment of Education believes, that our schools
should prepare young people for earning a
living by developing their character, nourish-
ing their intelligence, and passing on to them
the cultural traditions of the community.
That in itself is a large task.
Every boy and every girl in our province,
with the ability to profit from a university
education, should be given that opportunity.
That has been implemented with the loan
system that has been pursued by the hon.
Minister, and Canada needs every one of these
young people to make their contribution in
this great land of ours.
But let me say that there is a responsibility
outside of education and that responsibility
lies with industry. Industry should recognize
education as essential to them and to Canada;
this must be emphasized. Support for educa-
tion from industy is not a charity, but should
be considered as a necessary expense of that
industry if industry is to grow and to be in
business a generation from now. It is expected
that industry should not only recognize educa-
tion as necessary to growth, but should be
interested enough to support education
financially.
The university graduate represents an
investment of $25,000 to $50,000. Should
industry expect to take this investment, the
graduate, and pay only a monthly salary for
his services? Graduates in all fields are needed.
The University of Toronto just recently had
to announce to one of its faculties that a
MARCH 21, 1958
1135
certain day would be set apart— not only to
the faculty but to the industry— one day only
to interview would-be graduates that they
were interested in.
I am happy to say that some industries do
recognize their responsibility along this parti-
cular line. I am thinking of the Union Carbide
Company Limited who have 60 students at
19 universities and 8 post-graduate students,
all are receiving from them a yearly bonus or
bursary of $500, and in the post-graduate
course a bursary or scholarship of $1,500. The
total programme is costing the firm $50,000
annually, to help graduates in our universities.
International Nickel spend in Canada, in
scholarships and bursaries, $2.5 million
annually.
A special one, as far as I am concerned,
is the Copp Clark Publishing Company, who
have a scholarship fund of $5,000 which is
applied particularly to the teaching profession
that teachers may be trained more efficiently
and without the worry of finance.
It is a source of some satisfaction to realize
that there is an interest being taken in our
teachers and the renumeration that is being
paid to them, and a scholarship fund such
as the Copp Clark Company has set up could
well be duplicated by other funds.
I am fully aware of the work of the Atkin-
son foundation and the Bickle foundation,
along with the many schemes worked out by
the various boards of education, where
scholarships and bursaries go a long way to
help our young people in this vast field.
But may I say that we have a long, long
way to go. Recent statistics show that in the
British Isles about 70 per cent, of the students
attending university do so on scholarships or
bursaries, while here only 15 per cent, receive
such help.
There is one group, one organization, which
is seldom if ever mentioned and yet has done
much for education m the past, and can do a
great deal more in the future, because of the
needs of the pupil as well as the needs of the
school. That organization is the home and
school federation. Here we have an organiza-
tion with admirable policies and the loftiest
ideals of service, having a relationship with
the school that is not anywhere duplicated.
It is a well-managed organization existing only
to serve the children who come from their
homes to the schools. Too often we fail to
give them the recognition they need.
Might I pay a tribute to the unselfish work
of the teachers, particularly the teachers
among our ethnic groups who attend and
work in our night schools and I have many of
them living in my riding.
These ethnic groups are the people who are
going to make a contribution to the Canada
of tomorrow. From every country in the
world, they bring their culture and their skills,
and these cultures and skills enrich our
culture, and make us richer because they are
here. One of our greatest assets, in my opinion,
is that we are able in this province of ours
to take these people and absorb them into our
way of living, enriching ourselves and enrich-
ing our land.
And may I say that there are many of them
residing in the riding of Dovercourt. Living
in the midst of them, I can say without con-
tradiction that they are fitting into our way
of life as good citizens and will and are at
the present time, making their contribution
to our Canada.
Turning to the matter of health and human
betterment, I need hardly say anything about
the introduction of the hospital insurance plan
that has been presented at this session of the
House. But there are two items which I
would like to mention.
One of them has been mentioned before,
by the hon. Provincial Treasurer. In yester-
day's paper we have an artists's sketch of the
new dental building to be built in the
University of Toronto. This building will be
ready by 1959, a building that is to cost in
the vicinity of $7 million or $6 million, and
the hon. Provincial Treasurer tells us that,
when it is opened, it will be paid for and
complete.
The other matter, in regard to health, is
the progress that has been made within this
last two to three years by The Department
of Health and by the various hospitals in
establishing eye banks for the cornea opera-
tion that means so much to people who are
blind. There has been a slow but neverthe-
less steady progress on the part of those
interested, and at the present time we have
these eye banks all over our country, and
particularly in this province and this city
where hope is held out for those who are
deprived of the great sight that God intended
we should have.
It is estimated, in The Department of
Health and The Department of Public Wel-
fare, that the majority of today's population
will live longer than did our grandparents.
It is figured that in 1970, 10 per cent, of
our population will be over 65 years of
age. We hear so often about a person being
"too old at 40," and where there is a maxi-
mum age restriction of 65 years in most
1136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fields of employment, something ought to
be done.
The Deputy Minister of Welfare, Mr. Band,
has made a suggestion that deserves con-
sideration by all right-thinking people. It
is this: That a subsidy should be paid to
employers of persons over 65 years of age.
Our present economy, with the concept of
a man being through working at 65, is
forcing people into retirement, and it is a
very unwise one. They could be continued
in a useful contribution to our economy.
In the field of nursing and homemaking
care, an innovation has been brought for-
ward under The Department of Health, and
in this we will be looking forward with
interest to the opportunity of seeing at work
these home care nurses going in and out,
alleviating the pain and suffering and ten-
sions, something that is so much needed in
a day and generation such as this.
Mr. Speaker, we have a great province;
in the people of this province we have a
great potential for tomorrow. By proper
guidance, wise administration and an en-
lightened population, we can go forward to
greater and better things.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, in saying a few words to the hon.
members of the House this afternoon, I
would first take the opportunity to add my
congratulations to those of the many
bestowed upon the Speaker of the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested
or stated more than once in the House that
the CCF has assumed the role of the official
spokesman for the trade union movement,
and many times we have said that is not the
case. We are interested in the welfare of all
citizens of this province, and accept their
responsibility in that regard.
But as an active trade unionist and an
executive officer of one of the largest single
local unions in Canada, I feel this afternoon
I should say a few words on their behalf, and
I may stray afield somewhat from what we
term the budget speech, or the province of
Ontario, but I feel that has been done more
than once and that I will not be too far out
of order.
I would just like to say a brief word in
regard to the unemployment situation. I am
not going to play ping-pong with figures, as
has been done up to now to sort of cloud the
issue, because I do not care whether it is
800,000 who are out of work, 500,000, 2,000
or 10,000, I feel there is no justification for
people not having jobs if they are able and
willing to work.
The destiny of people in industry, and in
factories, depends on their ability to earn,
they have not too much to say about whether
they have a job or not. They are hired on
and are laid off in the same fashion.
I think the comments from government
leaders such as "I am sick and tired of hear-
ing about unemployment" and that we
should not speak about it, are very unbecom-
ing to leaders of government. I think it is the
responsibility of all levels of government to
be fully interested in the unemployed. It is
their right to have jobs, and we should not
deprive them of their right. If they are will-
ing to work, we should be able to find jobs
for them.
Now I want to refer to the speech of the
hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Macaulay)
because in some way my remarks are centred
around it. I want to congratulate him on the
good speech he made; it dealt in generalities,
of course, and was without very many facts
or figures to substantiate some of his rea-
soning. I want to end up this afternoon in
giving a few facts and figures in regards to
wages and productivity.
The hon. member for Riverdale, in giving
his second reason for the cause of unemploy-
ment, said this—
There was a second cause and this, Mr.
Speaker, was the most direct of them all,
and it lies at the feet of management and
labour.
For years, labour has demanded increased
wages of management, and management
has paid them irrespective of whether it
was brought on because of increased pro-
duction, or because competition in the
world or in the nation justified it. Labour
demanded increased wages on this basis.
Why not? If management can find a way to
slough them off and pay them, it is up to
management.
And management did find a way, it
poured it into the increased cost of goods.
Now the situation has backfired because
management and labour together have
priced many of our goods out of our own
market, and out of the foreign market. We
cannot develop trade unless we have buyers.
That is a pretty general statement and many
are using that statement, but I never heard
anyone yet say when the proper time is for
labour to ask for a wage increase. To sort of
bring that point, I want to read just a
paragraph from a very worthy document, and
I would ask the hon. members of the House
MARCH 21, 1958
1137
to get a copy. That is Labour Research,
produced by the Canadian congress of labour.
Wages and inflation: according to Holy
Writ there is a time for everything under
the sun, but according to some employers
there is one exception to this, there is never
a time for wage increases. There should
be no wage increases when prices are stable
because that would cause inflation. There
should be no wage increases when prices
are rising because that would cause more
inflation. Wage increases are what make
the prices rise. More wage increase would
only make them rise still more. There
should be no wage increases when prices
are falling, because that would put prices
out of the market and cause unemploy-
ment. The logic is irrefutable. Or is it?
Let us look at some of the facts.
When do they ask for wage increases and
when are they entitled to them? It is
common knowledge that in the past year
spokesmen for the Canadian manufacturers'
association and the Canadian chambers of
commerce have continually made the hue
and cry across the country that the trade
union movement is responsible for infla-
tion, and if they continue to ask for wage
increases they will bring chaos to our
economy and all the rest of that sort of
bunk.
I wonder why they put the emphasis on
the organized trade union movement? Out
of the 6 million in the labour force in Can-
ada there are only 1.25 million in the or-
ganized trade union movement. In Ontario,
out of the approximately 2 million in the
non-agricultural field, there are about 500,000
in the organized trade union movement.
How about all of the rest of the un-
organized? It is obvious to the trade union
movement that it is propaganda to intimidate
the unorganized and to confuse the Cana-
dian public so that they can cover up some
of their own greedy evils, and it is about
time that this sort of stuff was stopped
and some of the facts were given to the
public.
As far as tying wages to productivity is
concerned I do not know whether the hon.
member for Riverdale has ever been into
some of our basic industries— steel, rubber,
automobile, electrical or what have you—
and observed the way they produce things.
He will find that the working man in industry
today, particularly the highly organized and
the highly wealthy ones, have very little to
do with their rate of production. The mach-
ines are set to go at a certain rate and the
working man keeps up.
I mentioned taking a look at some figures,
and I want to mention some facts published
by the trade and industry branch of The
Department of Planning and Development,
which disclaims the propaganda of some of
the spokesmen for the Canadian manufac-
turers' association. I am disappointed that
these sort of stories and arguments are being
echoed in this House by hon. members of
the Legislature.
In 1946 there were 498,000 employees in
manufacturing, with an average weekly wage
of $30. They produced a gross value of
production of $3,755 million. In 1957, with
an increase of 160,000 in the employment
picture, bringing the total number of
employees in manufacturing to 658,000, with
an average weekly wage of $67, they
produced a gross value of production of
$10,780 million.
Can labour be blamed for production here?
I should say not. That is an increase of about
one-third in employment, with almost 3 times
the gross production.
Hon. members can see that, when we are
talking about tying wages to productivity, we
do not look at the other problem— the prices.
There is no price index published in Canada,
no one knows just how they base their prices,
where the yardstick is for what they are going
to charge. In the United States they are
published, and we can tell where the inequi-
ties are. In Canada there is no price index
published, and that is one fault of our Domin-
ion bureau of statistics.
Now I want to give a few more facts to
substantiate my argument. These are facts
from the Dominion bureau of statistics. The
Canadian weekly average of wages and sal-
aries is about $69.81, Ontario's is $71, with
a range from $102 a week high in petroleum
and coal production to $37 in the service
trades, hotels and restaurants, laundries, dry
cleaning plants and other sorts of services.
Well, let us take a look at the average and
may Providence help those below it.
Suppose we set a budget of something like
this per week— rent or mortgage payment
$20; heat and electricity $7; instalment pay-
ments on a car or TV, $10; food, $15; enter-
tainment, $5; and clothing, $5. This totals
$62, and we have a balance of $8. I have
said nothing of income tax deductions, life
insurance deductions, car insurance or medical
costs. These are some of the things we have
to start and look at when we talk about
labour pricing us out of the market.
1138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would say that if any hon. member in the
House feels that the average rate, or that high
high rate at $102 a week, is too much for a
working man, then he should stand up and
give us some reason why. I think the wage
earner— those working in factories in this
country— are under an economic stranglehold
that they cannot get out of, and their only
salvation is in the organized trade union
movement, and then it is tough going to get
their share.
There is something else that the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale forgot to mention, and I
have never seen it mentioned by any of our
statisticians and these great spokesmen for
the Canadian manufacturers' association. That
is the unproductive occupations and profes-
sions.
Many professional services— legal, medical,
dental, realtor and such other professional
services— have their organizations. They have
their unions. But how do they bargain for
their wages or fee? They just meet, sit down
together, decide from statistics what the
public will bear, and they take it.
Now, have hon. members noticed— and I
am sure many of them have— the number of
firms in the real estate business today, the
number of salesmen on their staff, the num-
ber of staff for large industry? Have they
noticed the amount of new and used car lots
that are in the country, the salesmen sitting
around by the dozens? Some hon. members
talk about tying wages to productivity. I
wonder what these groups produce.
Let us take another look at some figures
from the Dominion bureau of statistics. It is
a favourite cry, as I said before, of
spokesmen for our big corporations, that the
wages have risen out of all proportion to
productivity, and that labour is killing the
goose that lays the golden egg and all that
sort of thing.
Now let us take a look at the percentage of
wages paid to the total net value, that is
added to manufacturing production, from
1924 to 1953. The year 1953 is the last
related figure available. I think on a percent-
age basis the adjustment up to the present
time would be the same. In 1924 the pre-
centages were 37.6 per cent.; 1925, 37.4 per
cent.; 1926, 37 per cent.; 1953, 36.8 per cent.
Those figures show plainly that the per-
centage of wages to value of production
added has varied surprisingly little over the
past 30 years, but the average of this period
1924 to 1953 is 32.2 per cent., which is also
the same percentage in 1953. The actual
wage bill in those years, 1924, 1925, 1926, is
slightly higher than what it was in 1953, and
certainly more than it is now.
Because of the increased technological
improvements and automation, we are going
to find the cost of labour to be decreasing
steadily, and we are going to have to do
something about finding jobs for the people
when they have not got them in industry.
We must take a serious look at new tech-
nological changes and automation.
I attended the opening of the new slab
mill in Stelco two or three weeks ago. It was
a $25 million project and when the mayor
cut the ribbon— and I would say I have been
in bloom mills several times and I know how
they operate— I was standing right next to the
works manager and I said: "Alex, did you
give the boys a day off today for the open-
ing?" He said, "Why?"
I said: "I just cannot see anyone here to
run this mill," and he turned around and said,
"Gosh, you are right."
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are only about 3
or 4 men needed to run this mill. There was a
craneman and two men in the pulpit, this is
a new slab mill which, with very little
mechanical improvement, at any time they
wish they can completely double its output.
Any time they wish, with just a very littie
mechanical change to that mill, they can
completely double its productive output.
Let us take a look at a few other figures.
Let us make another point to disclaim some
of the arguments of the hon. member for
Riverdale that wage increases are unneces-
sary. Let us take a look at some taxation
figures.
Taxation statistics showing distribution of
all income-taxpayers by income classes is
always two years or more behind. However,
if we take a look at the latest taxation statis-
tics available for the year 1954, and I am
sure that the percentages have not changed
up to the present time, we will find that
the basis of both taxable and untaxable re-
turns on income was distributed as follows:
The percentage of all persons who filed
income tax returns under $2,000 was 38.5
per cent. Under $3,000, 64.2 per cent.; under
$3,500, 75.6 per cent.; and under $4,000,
83.8 per cent. Only 16.2 per cent, of salary
and wage earners in Canada make over
$4,000 a year.
Now, as I said, on a percentage basis that
might be slightly higher at the present time.
Does that say that industrial workers are
receiving too much money? I should think
not.
MARCH 21, 1958
1139
Well, let us have another look at some
figures. In the past 10 years, profits of Cana-
dian corporations have gone up substantially,
and in many cases have skyrocketed. Profit
figures of the following corporations repre-
senting a broad cross section of the Cana-
dian industry show what has been happening.
International Nickel Company: Their net
profit after taxes in 1946 was $29,681,352; in
1955, $91,566,566, an increase of 208 per cent.
Imperial Oil: 1946, $17,326,112; in 1955,
$62,145,140— for an increase of 259 per cent.
Aluminum Company of Canada: 1946,
$11,581,237; 1955, $41,160,799-for an in-
crease of 255 per cent.
Bell Telephone Company of Canada: 1946,
$8,274,370; in 1955, $31,978,042-for an in-
crease of 286 per cent.
The British American Oil $3,319,572, that
was in 1946; and in 1955, $20,615,219, or a
percentage increase of 521.
The Steel Company of Canada in 1946,
$2,450,178; and in 1955, $21,818,638, for a
percentage increase of 790. I am very familiar
with that company because I have been on
the negotiating committee since 1947, and
each year without fail when we opened negoti-
ations they just cried that we were going to
wreck them, that we would certainly retard
their expansion, that all economy would go
out of kilter. But every year, from then on,
their expansion has been great and their
profits have been great.
To go on with my figures.
The Massey Harris Company in 1946,
$2,125,570; and in 1955, $7,521,031, for a
percentage increase of 254.
Now here is the daddy of them all, the
Industrial Acceptance Corporation. In 1946,
the net profits after taxes was $253,542; and
in 1955, $7,394,892 for a percentage increase
of 2,817.
Falconbridge Nickle Mines is next with a
percentage increase of 1,463.
Traders Finance Corporation follows with
a percentage increase of 931.
Now, I was looking at the paper last night
and I find that for the year 1957, Falcon-
bridge profits were $9,953,000 an increase of
38 per cent, over 1956 and before taxes they
have paid $3.5 million production write-off,
so they are not doing too badly.
Now let us look at the average weekly
wage in this same period and see what
happens to that.
In manufacturing in 1946, the average
weekly wage was $29.87, and in 1955 it was
$52.95 for a percentage increase of 98.
In mining, in 1946 the average weekly wage
was $47.71, and in 1955 it was $69.60 for
a percentage increase of 84.
In the services the average wage in 1946
was $19.87 a week; and in 1955 it was $34.58
a week, with a percentage increase of 74.
Now I would like some of the hon. members
to look at some of these figures some time, so
that we do not have echoes from spokesmen
from the Canadian manufacturers' association
in this House.
I would just like to give a few facts regard-
ing the industries that I am interested in,
and these also are from the Dominion bureau
of statistics.
Between 1945 and 1956, labour's share of
the sales dollar in the primary iron and steel
industry dropped from 30 cents to 24 cents.
In 1945, each Canadian steel worker turned
out an average of $6,545 worth of goods, for
which he received an estimated $1,969 in
wages and salaries. In 1956, the average
Canadian steel worker produced goods worth
an average of $18,877, and he received back in
buying power an average of only $4,495.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my answer to this cry
of tying wages to productivity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when does a man
deserve a wage increase? I ask because I
have never heard any of these people yet say
when a person is entitled to a little more
money.
Now there is just one other comment I
would like to make. I would like to quote
from an expert, and at least I think these
people are experts. Some of the hon. members
do not believe in experts, but this is a quote
from the former governor of the Bank of
Canada, Graham Towers, when he was speak-
ing to a joint meeting of the Life Under-
writers Association of Toronto and the Toronto
chapter of the institute of chartered life
underwriters on November 14, 1957. He
said this:
Labour quite properly, I think, resents
being saddled with a Targe share of the
blame for the lower value of money. They
are certainly not responsible to any greater
degree than all the rest of the population
for what occurred during and immediately
after the two World Wars.
It is not worthwhile to argue about the
extent to which increases in wages in excess
of increases in productivity of labour has
contributed to the rise in the cost of living in
the last year and a half. Now I think that
the report of the present governor has also
added some argument to what I have said,
1140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
because he says in part of his report, and I
quote:
Since inflationary forces of considerable
strength arising from non-monetary sources
were already operating throughout the
economy, such a monetary policy would
undoubtedly have resulted in a much
greater degree of price inflation than that
actually experienced. An already rather
hectic boom would have been further
aggravated, the over-expansion in certain
lines of industry which has now become
apparent would have been greater, and the
aftermath of the boom would have been a
recession of greater degree than anything
which now seems likely.
In assessing the causes of Canada's current
recession, the governor declared that it was
not brought about by monetary policy but, as
far as the domestic factors were concerned, by
inflation and excessive business expansion in
some directions.
And I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, and
you will find if you look into some figures of
industry, and particularly the large ones,
they have over-expanded to the position
whereby right now they can operate at a
capacity of 40 per cent, and 50 per cent, and
still make a reasonable profit. So where is
the incentive for those people to keep men
working?
We had had 1,050 laid off in our plants
while we were building this great new bloom
mill, but what it will add to employment is
almost nil.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded in
regards to wages and productivity, and in
conclusion I want to put something else on
the record which I think is important to the
people of my riding. I mentioned in my
speech in 1956— it was after we had a serious
storm— we had normal storms which did
considerable damage to Van Wagner's beach
and Crescent beach in the Hamilton area, and
I appealed for some assistance. Homes were
wrecked, some were completely demolished,
businesses were badly damaged, and people
worked for hours and hours with sand bags
to protect this property, and it is still the
same way that it was then.
Now, if we have a storm, a little more seri-
ous than the last one, these homes and this
property are going to be wiped out. It does
not have to be much more serious to wipe
them out entirely. These people are sitting
ducks. Nobody will buy their properties, they
are just sitting ducks for the next storm.
I have prevailed upon this government to
join co-operatively with the municipal and
federal governments to look the situation over,
to expropriate this property and develop it
into a seaside resort before these people lose
everything they have.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, with your permission I would like
to say a word about the matter of fluoridation.
Unfortunately during the private bills dis-
cussion of the city of Ottawa bill, I had to
be at another committee meeting and I was
not able to attend the discussions there, and I
just thought that I would like to bring to the
attention of the House some of my ideas
which I was unable to bring forward at that
time.
Now, the matter of fluoridation had quite a
bit of discussion and I realize, too, that dur-
ing the presentation of the Ottawa bill before
the private bills committee, the matter was
defeated. I would like to say quite definitely
I favour fluoridation of our water, and I
think that we should probably consider some
form of permissive legislation to allow the
municipalities to consider the matter, and if
they so desire to take advantage of the
fluoridation of their water supply.
Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this is not
a new thing as far as Ontario is concerned.
We already have the following places which
are fluoridating their water, and as I under-
stand with very great success.
For example, there are the city of Brant-
ford, the town of Brockville, the improvement
district of Deep River, the town of Fort Erie,
the city of Oshawa, the town of Thorold, the
township of Tisdale, and the city of Sud-
bury.
So we cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that it is
altogether a new idea insofar as Ontario is
concerned.
I cannot remember anything that has
brought such a very definite division of think-
ing as this matter of fluoridation of the water,
and being a layman, I think that in this short
presentation, I would like to bring hon. mem-
bers the thoughts and ideas of some of our
medical people and some of our scientists to
back up some of the things that I would like
to see.
For example, here is a list of some of the
organizations who favour fluoridation, and I
am going to read them:
The Canadian dental association, the
Canadian medical association, the Canadian
public health association, the national
research council of the United States, the
United States public health service, the
American dental association, and the Ameri-
can medical association.
MARCH 21. 1958
1141
Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am con-
cerned, if I want advice about my physical
condition I would go to a medical doctor
and see what he had to say about it, and I
depend upon what he says about it. If I
had a toothache, or even before I have a
toothache, I go to my dentist for advice
about my teeth, because I depend upon
what he has to say. When we stop to con-
sider that these very outstanding groups of
medical and dental people favour fluoridation,
I think that is a pretty good example of what
an important move this is, and I personally
feel that fluoridation— like so many other
health and medical advances— is coming.
Regardless of what we do, or what anybody
else does, I think that it is a coming thing
both in Canada and the United States.
Now we know that today there is an
acute shortage of dentists in many of the
rural areas of Canada, and according to a
recent survey nearly three-quarters of Cana-
dian families spent nothing for dental care
during the past year. Now just think about
that— three-quarters of our Canadian families
spent nothing for dental care— that is for
either children or adults. Studies across
Canada show that 4 out of 5 of our 6-year-old
children have already suffered from dental
decay.
I think of my own son. I can well remember
when he was 6, and even less than 6, that we
were taking him to the dentist and he was
having teeth filled and he had cavities much
the same as our adults.
The average child starting school has more
than 5 of his important foundations of baby
teeth decayed. The average 12-year-old
already has 8 of his permanent teeth decayed,
and has lost 1 of his permanent teeth.
Scientists have discovered that where
fluorides, chemical compounds containing
fluorine are found in drinking water, people
have less tooth decay. At least part of the
answer is because, when the teeth are being
formed in childhood, the fluoride becomes
part of tooth enamel, producing better formed
teeth which are harder and more resistant to
tooth decay.
Where the water contains natural fluorides,
the people automatically benefit, and there
are many of our own communities like that,
Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact you know
of one very close to your riding which is
just that way. Where fluorides are not present
or in sufficient quantity, they can be added by
a process called fluoridation with the same
beneficial results. It is Stratford, Ontario.
The water has contained natural fluoride for
the past 36 years, and in this large community
the average 6- to 8-year-old has only two
foundation teeth decayed, and the average
12- to 14-year-old has only 3 of his permanent
teeth showing any sign of cavity, and one-
quarter of the 12- to 14-year-old children
have no decayed teeth at all.
Now, you know more about that, Mr.
Speaker, than I do. In 1945, Brantford,
Ontario, averaged 1.0 to 1.2 parts per million
of fluoride to its drinking water, this is the
proportion which gives maximum protection
against having decays. Each year, since the
people have begun drinking fluoridated water,
the amount of tooth decay amongst Brantford
children has grown steadily less.
The 6- to 8-year-old children who were
examined recently and have benefited by
fluoridated drinking water since birth, now
have no more dental decay than similar
children in Stratford. Now that is right close
to home, and I remember listening to the
comments of the hon. member for Brant-
ford (Mr. Gordon) and surely in that com-
munity where they have been, shall we say,
artificially fluoridating their water for 13
years could not be considered an over-night
experiment, or something that has not been
given due consideration.
In this big city of Brantford, they have
figures to show very definitely that, through
the use of fluoridated water, the children
in that area have wonderful teeth, and also
that it has in no way detrimentally affected
the health of the adults in the area.
Now, fluoridation is not a new thing. In
1874, the use of fluorides was recommended
because it is fluorine which gives hardness
and lasting qualities to the enamel of the
teeth and so protects against cavities. In
1937, studies were described by the United
States public health service showing that,
when water supplies contained fluoride, very
much less dental decay occurred. Since then,
many more large-scale studies have shown
the truth of these findings.
We get back to Brantford again. In all of
the cities and many others the amount of
dental decay experienced by children each
year is decreasing to that found in cities
which have natural fluorine waters. Chil-
dren born since the water supply has been
fluoridated have as little dental decay as
children of the same age in areas where the
water naturally contains fluorine.
As a matter of fact, all of us every day,
Mr. Speaker, drink water or tea or any
beverage which contains a certain percentage
of fluorine— now, all of us are drinking
fluorine as it is today. Water may be sup-
1142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
plemented with fluorides in small communi-
ties by simple and inexpensive equipment.
In 1953, over 14 million people in more than
784 United States communities were drink-
ing fluoridated water, amongst these are at
least 177 communities of less than 10,000
population. The saving by reduced dental
bills to any family is very many times greater
than its share of the cost of fluoridating the
water.
Now the "administration of remedies" is
the definition of medication. I want you to
get that, Mr. Speaker, the "administration
of remedies" is the definition of medication.
Fluoridation is for the prevention of dental
decay, it is not a remedy. Across Canada
today people fully approve of chlorination
and pasteurization as necessary measures to
prevent other forms of disease.
As a matter of fact, we have our young-
sters going to school, and we have immuniza-
tion against smallpox, against chicken pox,
against diphtheria, and so many things. They
stick a needle into the children and this has
a beneficial effect.
As a matter of fact, take our great Salk
vaccine programme. It is a wonderful tiling,
a great advance in this age of medicine,
and just think of the thousands and thousands
of our Ontario children who will never have
polio because of the introduction of this
Salk vaccine. Yet people say it is a medica-
tion, that the children are subjected to
needles and so on, over which the children
have no control at all, and yet the parents
are very happy to see they have it, it is
doing such a lot of good.
No alteration in taste or colour of the
water supplies occurs with fluoridation. Some
people say: "Well, it is going to change the
taste of our water in Toronto and in other
places." But it has no effect at all on the
taste. There is no scientific proof that fluor-
ides taken in any other way than by fluori-
dated water will cause any reduction of
tooth decay.
So many people say: "Well, if you want
to get fluoridated water, go to the drug store
and buy some tablets and buy fluorine and
put it in your own water, and that is it."
But the scientific proof, Mr. Speaker, is that
the only satisfactory and beneficial way to
get fluorine is to get it through the drinking
water.
Taking fluorine tablets would not be prac-
tical at all. The best dosage in this form is
not known, and people might either take too
much or too little. Also the tablets would need
to be given from the first few days after birth
until at least the eighth year before they could
do any good.
Again, there is no evidence of the success
of these methods. Many years of research
would be needed, large-scale experiments
taking many years would be necessary.
"Would it be better to apply 2 per cent,
sodium fluoride solution to children's teeth?"
people say. "Go ahead, give it to the children
that way."
This treatment certainly does decrease a
certain amount of dental decay for a large
group of children, nevertheless it means 4
visits to the dentist and should be repeated
every 3 years beginning at approximately the
age of 3 and continuing until 13 years of age.
It is, therefore, very expensive.
Is fluoridated water largely wasted by in-
dustry or irrigation? The answer is no. It is
still the most practical and most efficient
method of reducing dental decay. The average
cost of one dental filling would pay one per-
son's fluoridation cost for about 20 to 30
years. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. Canadian
families spend directly some $33 million
annually for dental treatment. The average
family which receives dental treatment pays
a bill of about $27.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you hear so many people
say: "Well, is it safe? Why should we have
to take a medication that is going to benefit
our children but in the years to come might
adversely affect the health of the adults?"
Well, here is the answer to that. Fluorides
are present in many of our foods today, such
as fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, cheese,
cereals, milk. However, people usually obtain
at least 4 times the amount of fluorides from
fluoridated water as they do from the usual
foods.
Over 2 million people in the United States
alone have for years consumed water naturally
containing not less than 0.9 up to 2 parts per
million of fluorides; that is pretty much what
they are getting in Brantford, Stratford and
these other places. The records of these com-
munities have been most carefully studied,
and in addition special medical examinations
of the children have been carried out.
From all of these studies no evidence at all
has been discovered of any greater degree of
cancer, kidney disorders, hardening of the
arteries, heart disease, rheumatism, arthritis,
bone fractures, goitre, or any other condition.
Now safety is assured.
Poisoning by fluoride— I would like hon.
members to pay particular attention to this—
would require the drinking at one sitting of
no fewer than 450 glasses of water contain-
MARCH 21, 1958
1143
ing the recommended one part per million.
Mr. Speaker, 450 glasses of water at one
sitting.
To obtain this amount of fluoride in one
glass of water, more than 4 tons of sodium
fluoride would have to be added to one mil-
lion gallons of water. At 23 pounds of
fluoride, which is the normal quantity added,
accidental poisoning of this nature could not
happen in a programme of water fluoridation.
Fluoridation machines are very accurately
controlled, the largest possible variation is
about l/20th of the correct amount. In addi-
tion, routine tests are taken by waterworks
personnel to make sure that the water con-
tains the correct amount of fluorine.
In communities with water containing one
part per million of fluoride, teeth are found
to be more attractive. Some 1,500 children
have been most carefully inspected by a very
experienced examiner in Stratford, Ontario,
where they have 1.3 parts per million of
fluoride, and the only signs of mottling which
he could detect were some very fine whitish
flecks on the teeth of a small percentage of
the children, and these added to, rather than
detracted from, the appearance of the teeth.
There is, fortunately, no danger of dis-
coloration or anything of that kind. One
survey showed 60 per cent, less tooth decay
amongst adults raised in a community with
fluoride in the water; the people of a com-
munity with no fluoride had also lost 3 or 4
times as many teeth.
Now as I said at the start, Mr. Speaker,
I am not a medical man. I have to depend
on medical advice insofar as my health is
concerned, and I have to depend on my
dentist for information about my teeth. I
would like to give some idea here from
medical men, they are not laymen like I
am, they are doctors. For example, Fluori-
dation of Our Water Supply. This is
from an editorial by Dr. George F. Lull,
M.D., secretary and general manager of the
American medical association, all the doctors
in the United States belong to it. And he
has this to say:
It was so with vaccination against small-
pox, immunization against diphtheria,
fluoridation of water for safety, fortifica-
tion of milk with vitamin D, and enrich-
ment of flour for bakery goods. We are
now going through the same phase in
regard to fluoridation of our drinking water.
The arguments against fluoridation have
all been considered by responsible scientists
in medicine, dentistry and the allied
sciences. It is established overwhelmingly
that the addition of a measured quantity
of fluorine to public water supplies to
prevent dental decay in children is not
only a constructive public health measure,
but is as safe as is humanly possible to
determine.
So says Dr. Lull.
And another part: so many people say:
"Well, I would not go along with this idea
of adding rat poisoning to water." Now I
just wanted to say, this is coming from a
doctor, not from me, Mr. Speaker:
Another slick, effective technique is to
refer to fluoride as rat poison. Of course,
in appropriate doses it is.
Dr. Lull says this. As any doctor knows,
and as any intelligent layman should know,
over-doses of any potent drug or even or-
dinary table salt can be poisonous. Now,
is that not a fact? That is a medical man's
sphere.
Another argument that we often hear, Mr.
Speaker, is that the long-term effects of the
medication of water supplies is not yet proven.
It is in the history of public health, no other
procedure has been tested so thoroughly and
for as long a period of time as fluoridation.
For generations, over 4 million people in the
United States have been living all their lives
in areas where drinking water naturally con-
tains fluoride in concentrations as high or
higher than that recommended for dental
health.
Many studies have been conducted among
these people by competent investigators, and
the search has been painstaking, yet no one
has been able to find any dangerous biological
effects, except on enamel, defects known as
dental florosis, in the areas where the fluoride
concentration is too high.
Fluoridation is not medication. The gener-
ally accepted definition of medication as used
by dentists and physicians refers to the ad-
ministration of remedies to treat or cure a
given condition. Fluoridation does not con-
stitute a remedy, it does not treat an existing
disease. It supplies an element which is
essential to normal body growth and develop-
ment so that it is not a medication.
And then it is suggested that hon. members
of this House should speak to medical men
privately, and get their idea, which I have
done, and I have no doubt that many of our
hon. members have also done so.
In a vote taken in the academy of medicine
in Toronto, over 95 per cent, approved fluori-
dation. In a survey taken of departments of
1144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
preventive medicine in leading Canadian and
American universities, not one opposed
fluoridation. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a
pretty strong argument in favour of fluorida-
tion, I would say.
Some people say that fluoridated water must
be drunk by everyone and without personal
medication, medical supervision or guidance.
It is true. There are other methods of pre-
venting dental decay such as the proper
application of fluoride. Fluoridation of the
public water supply is especially practical and
safe, because it is constantly subject to control
by competent health authorities and does not
require actions on the part of individual
citizens.
As one of the Metropolitan Toronto mem-
bers of the House, may I say that our own
metropolitan council have applied to the
Legislature for permission to fluoridate their
water and, as I said at the beginning, I can
see nothing wrong with this permissive legisla-
tion idea as far as fluoridation is concerned.
People say there is no similarity between
the chlorination of water and the fluoridation
of water. The purpose of both is the same,
and that it is the prevention of disease.
Chlorine prevents disease by destroying harm-
ful bacteria, and fluoride prevents disease by
helping in the formation of more resistant
tooth enamel.
Then they say that there are other factors
which control dental cavities; that in the
diet the amount of carbohydrates and the
general health of the child are perhaps of
more importance than the question as to how
much fluoride he may have in his drinking
water.
The answer to that one is this, sufficient
fluoride in the diet is every bit as important
to the dental health as the aforementioned
factors. The advantage of fluorine is that it
will be fairly uniform in its intake.
As for the other measures, because of
individual variation in diet and so on, it
cannot do any more than it is doing right
now.
Here is another one, fluoridation benefits
those beyond 8 years of age. So often, Mr.
Speaker, we hear people say: "Well, fluori-
dation may help the youngsters but what
about the adults?" Here is the answer.
Fluoridation benefits those beyond 8 years
of age. These children will grow into adults
some day, with 3 to 4 times as many
teeth at the age of 40 as those who have not
had the benefit of fluoride. In other words,
generations to come will have better teeth and
will not run the risk of having complications
of dental decay.
The cost of fluoridation, Mr. Speaker, would
be from 5 cents to 15 cents per capita per
annum. Surely this should not be an issue
when the health of the children is at stake.
The cost per capita per year for dental
fillings would be estimated at about $7.
Fifteen cents for fluoridation, $7 to get the
teeth filled.
Another question we hear: "Should we
recognize that while there are some 3 or 4
million people living in areas where there is
fluoride in the water, these fluorides come in
natural combinations?"
The answer to that is that there is no such
thing as artificial fluoridation. Fluorides are
always added to water, generally being picked
up by the water running through underground
passages and crevices where the ground con-
tains various fluoride compounds. In this
process, man has no control over the concen-
tration.
Studies show that the same results occur
where the fluoride is added in controlled
amounts, or where added in variable amounts
by nature except that safety is assured when
the fluoride is added in controlled amounts.
In other words, it just could not get out of
control, because of our very strict health
supervision.
People say that the sole purpose of adding
fluoride to water is to reduce tooth decay in
children. Well, the answer to that one is that
sound teeth in children means sound teeth in
adults. Where the fluoride intake is low, adults
have lost 3 to 4 times as many teeth by the
time they are 45 years of age, as in areas
where the intake is higher.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say
that— and it is rather a personal thing— the
many hon. members in this House today who
have false teeth— upper and lower— would
certainly support any programme which
would assist the youngsters.
I think of our own page boys right here.
As far as I am personally concerned, I think
fluoridation would assist boys of this age and
younger. Now I am older, and very much
cannot be done for me. But as long as I am
assured that the results are not harmful to
my health, I am again all in favour of provid-
ing the youngsters with good, sound teeth
through fluoridation.
Now, here is a little bit that was in the
paper recently:
Fluoridation Safe, Useful, Experts Find
This is datelined Geneva, Switzerland. It
says this:
Expert investigators have decided that
fluoridation of water is an effective, safe,
MARCH 21. 1958
1145
and workable means of preventing tooth
decay, the world health organization
announced yesterday. A report to the world
health organization by dental experts said
that a recent study showed that children
who drank fluoridated water had well-
formed teeth much superior and more
resistant to tooth decay than teeth of other
children.
The experts based their opinion on a
study of hundreds of controlled fluoridation
programmes in 17 countries of the world.
The results of fluoridation in all pro-
grammes showed a remarkable uniformity
and the prevalence of dental cavities in
permanent teeth of children decreased
some 60 per cent., they stated.
Sixty per cent, reduction, Mr. Speaker, in
tooth decay.
Now I know that we have all been
smothered with literature pro and con on
this subject, but I have been impressed, Mr.
Speaker, that most of the literature and let-
ters that I have received favouring fluorida-
tion come from dentists, from doctors, from
dental organizations and from medical or-
ganizations, and those I have received oppos-
ing fluoridation come from individuals such
as myself, the layman, not the medical or
dental men.
Naturally, that is going to sway my think-
ing, because as I said when I began, fluori-
dation is a matter for the doctors and the
dentists, and I will go along pretty well with
what they have to say. In this little folder
there are some pretty interesting bits of
information: Digests of Opinions on Fluori-
dation, by the health league of Canada.
The health league of Canada, incidentally,
has been very active in this programme.
Now there is a great list of places both in
Canada and the United States favouring the
programme but I thought that I would just
mark off two or three paragraphs by medical
men throughout Canada and the United
States in connection with the problem. For
example here is Mr. H. J. Shaughnessy,
University of Illinois. He says:
I see no indication of any damage done
to the human organism if fluorine is used
in the water supply in accordance with a
recommendation of the United States pub-
lic health service and other similar organi-
zations. It seems to me that adding fluoride
to the water is merely making up a defi-
ciency which occurs in some natural waters
and not in others.
Therefore, if fluoridation is properly done
and properly controlled, there should be
no ill effects, but only a beneficial effect
such as occurs from drinking water
which naturally contains fluorine of the
proper amount.
This is a doctor's speech. Another one over
this is by Dr. Paul V. Cornley from Howard
University.
The District of Columbia has gone through
a period of deciding about the fluoridation of
its water supply. There was some agitation
in the community against it, however the
authorities decided to fluoridate the water
supply. This has been in effect for a number
of months, and there has been to my knowl-
edge no adverse criticism. Now these are
the opinions of some doctors, including Dr.
Huntington Williams, University of Maryland.
It was the unanimous decision of the leaders
of the Baltimore medical profession and the
State medical society, the Baltimore dental
profession and the state dental society, and
the state and city health departments, to-
gether with the professors of medicine in
Johns Hopkins medical school, the University
of Maryland medical school, that the fluorida-
dation of the city's water supply was desirable,
harmless and an important and needed public
health procedure.
Mr. Speaker, we all know of the great
reputation of the Johns Hopkins medical
school. So that pretty well sums up the situa-
tion.
I think that this matter of fluoridation is
inevitable, that we are going to have it. We
already have it in many centres in the prov-
ince of Ontario. I mentioned 8, and I can see
no reason why, if a local municipality, through
their elected council or by a vote of the
people, want fluoridation, we should not give
them permission to have it.
It is very definite, according to my studies
on the medical and dental information that
I have been able to get, that it does help to
reduce the amount of tooth decay in our
youngsters by 60 per cent., and we have the
city of Brantford as a shining example after
13 years of trial. It does help to reduce tooth
decay, and at the same time— again according
to the best medical and dental advice— has
absolutely no harmful effect on the adult.
Then I cannot see any reason why those muni-
cipalities which want it should not be given
the privilege of having it.
1146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): I move the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee do now
rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report certain resolutions
and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Allan moves the adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 3.50 of the clock,
p.m.
ERRATUM
(Thursday, March 20, 1958)
Page Column Line Correction
1103 2 33 Change to read:
"Mr. Wardrope: In speaking of that housing'
No. 44
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Betiate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Monday, March 24, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
i
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
!
CONTENTS
Monday, March 24, 1958
Second report, standing committee on mining, Mr. W. A. Johnston 1149
Report, standing committee on government commissions, Mr. Lewis ... 1149
Housing Development Act, bill to amend, Mr. Nickle, first reading 1150
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, 1956, bill to amend, Mr, Allan, first reading 1151
Estimates, Department of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Warrender 1151
Liquor Control Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 1178
Charging of tolls on certain bridges, bill to provide for, Mr. Allan, second reading 1179
Qntario Water Resources Commission .Act, J.957^ bill to amend, Mr. Warrender,
second reading 1183
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender,
second reading 1184
Ontario Municipal Board Act, bill to amend, Mr. Warrender, second reading 1184
Travelling Shows Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1184
General welfare assistance to persons, bill to provide, Mr. Cecile, second reading 1184
Ontario Fuel Board Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Spooner, second reading 1184
The Upper Canada College Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dunlop, second reading 1186
Resolution re raising money on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, concurred in 1186
Estate of Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen Isabel Drope trust, and the
Charlotte Ross Grant trust, bill respecting, reported ./L 1186
Mortgages Act, bill to amend, reported 1187
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, reported 1187
Department of Municipal Affairs Act, bill to amend, reported 11^7
Power Commission Act, bill to amend, reported 1188
Administration of Justice Expenses Act, bin to amend, reported . . ......V:..' 1188
jUbel and Slander Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported :..!:^i: 1181
Mining Act, bill to amend, reported 118$
Milk Industry Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported .....::.• 1188
if ,_.-.• j - ■■■• -
J?arm Products Marketing Act, bill to amend, reported 1188
Storage of farm produce in grain elevators, bill to regulate, reported 1183
j|ecew;f5§^ "o'clock 118;
nr-iul^/ 1 ..Vi.-'.?.l |3 - :">- . .UV'^-i.-N .'.-<\M. W+ki ■ ' " I W*:\
. ....
1149
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday. March 24, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. A. Johnston
(Parry Sound) from the standing committee
on mining presents the committee's second
report and moves its adoption.
The committee begs to report the following
bill without amendment:
Bill No. 182, The Pipe Lines Act, 1958.
Although Bill No. 178, An Act to amend
The Ontario Fuel Board Act, 1954, has not
been read a second time, nor referred to the
committee, it was nevertheless considered by
the committee and approved in principle
without amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. W. B. Lewis,
from the standing committee on government
commissions, presents the committee's report,
and moves its adoption.
Your committee advises that it has con-
sidered the matter set out on pages 17 and
18 of the report of the provincial auditors for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, to-
gether with the statements of the hon. Prime
Minister relating thereto, delivered in this
House on February 10, 1958.
It recommends that the various boards of
commissions under the jurisdiction of this
government be allocated in the future to
the various standing committees of the House
for study on the basis of subject matter and
suggests that allocation is as follows:
(a) Standing committee on agriculture:
1. Ontario food terminal board.
2. Ontario stockyards board.
3. Ontario junior farmer establishment
loan corporation.
4. Ontario telephone authority.
5. Ontario telephone development pro-
gramme.
(b) Standing committee on conservation:
1. Ontario - St. Lawrence development
commission.
2. Niagara parks commission.
3. Ontario parks integration board.
(c) Standing committee on health:
1. Hospital services commission of
Ontario.
2. Alcoholics and research foundation.
3. Ontario cancer treatment and research
foundation.
(d) Standing committee on highway safety:
1. Ontario highway transport board.
( e ) Standing committee on labour :
1. Workmen's compensation board.
( f ) Standing committee on mining :
1. Ontario fuel board.
( g ) Standing committee on government com-
missions:
1. Ontario water resources commission.
2. Ontario municipal improvement cor-
poration.
3. Housing corporation limited.
4. Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario.
5. Ontario northland transportation com-
mission.
6. Ontario racing commission.
7. Liquor control board of Ontario
including the liquor licence board of
Ontario.
That subsequent sessions might well have
standing committees on: 1, Hydro Electric-
Power Commission of Ontario; 2, Hospital
services commission of Ontario; 3, Ontario
water resources commission.
The committee suggests the adoption of
the following terms of reference for a survey
of the strength and weaknesses of the govern-
mental system:
To make a survey for the purposes of
inquiring into and reporting upon the
relationship of provincial commissions and
boards to the government of Ontario, the
1150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Legislature and the government departments
with a view to—
(a) preserving governmental responsi-
bility and insuring effective control by the
Legislature over public expenditure and
decisions;
(b) maintaining high standards of
administrative economy and efficiency in
all branches of provincial services, and to
consider and report upon such matters
effecting the machinery of government as
may be referred to it.
That such a survey and inquiry be con-
ducted by personnel qualified to review the
problems of government.
The committee also recommends strongly
that a survey be conducted by hon. members
of the Legislature and such other qualified
personnel as may be required.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Prime
Minister ( Mr. Frost ) , that in view of this
report and the statements that he has already
made to the House in connection with the
investigation of commissions, if he is in a
position to say to the House in just what man-
ner he intends to proceed with this investiga-
tion.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): No, sir.
I would want to give consideration to that
report, as a matter ol fact I just listened to it
now. I would like to see what the report says
and give it consideration.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACT
Hon. W. M. Nickle moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act to amend The Housing
Development Act."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
And notwithstanding the usual rule, it be
now referred to the municipal committee.
He said: I point out the purpose of this
bill is to give a housing authority the right
to develop a low-cost housing area pursuant
to an application by a municipality which
will only come into force and effect if sup-
ported by an order-in-council.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): How
does that alter the present situation?
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Plan-
ning and Development ) : It alters the situa-
tion in this way: for instance this application
comes to my department recommended by
Metropolitan Toronto, asking that the Toronto
housing authority, if asked by any of the
corporations that go to make up the metro-
politan area, that the Toronto, rather the
housing authority, should have the right
to investigate the potential of a low-cost
housing project in any party of the metropoli-
tan area.
At the present time the Toronto housing
authority cannot investigate any matter in con-
nection with low-cost housing, and the metro-
politan council say they would like to have
that on the statute book. It can only come
into full force and effect if supported by an
order-in-council by the Honourable the Lieu-
tenant-Governor, and they think that this is
a worthwhile amendment to give them a
chance, having regard to the challenges which
are coming up, to look into a matter, to report
with some authority.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this
bill is going directly to the committee tomor-
row morning, I would like to ask the hon.
Minister, has the statement he has just made,
it would not come into effect until supported
by an order-in-council, has that any particular
significance as against the existing legisla-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: The only reason I would
give the hon. leader of the Opposition, in
having the order-in-council to support the
application, is that the Honourable the
Lieutenant - Governor - in - council will have
some knowledge and indeed the right to con-
trol the investigations which may be made,
because after all in a low-cost housing project
the government has a financial interest.
Mr. Oliver: If I might be allowed this one
supplementary question: As it exists at the
present time, is an order-in-council required?
Then it is, in reality—
Hon. Mr. Nickle: There is no authority, I
may say to the hon. leader of the Opposition,
to make such investigation at the present
time.
Mr. Oliver: No authority to make the in-
vestigation?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: That is right, by a hous-
ing authority. And that is the purpose of this
amendment.
Mr. Oliver: It sounds like restrictive legisla-
tion to me.
Hon. Mr. Nickle: I beg your pardon?
MARCH 24, 1958
1151
THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX ACT,
1956
Hon. J. N. Allan moves first reading of bill
intituled, "An Act to amend The Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, 1956."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill*
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended
to follow out the recommendations as a
result of a study by the Ontario research
foundation, and the thought behind the intro-
duction of the bill is that a diesel vehicle
powered by diesel fuel will pay the same
charge for the use of the highway by way of
tax as would a vehicle powered by gasoline.
Mr. Oliver: What is the rate?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
18.5 cents.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day
I would like to extend a welcome to the
students from the following schools: Earl
Grey senior school, Toronto; Swansea public
school; Northlea school, Leaside; and West-
wood junior high school. These students are
here to view the proceedings of the House
and we welcome them very warmly.
Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; house in committee of
supply, Mr. H. M. Allen in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Before considering the
estimates of The Department of Municipal
Affairs, I would like to make a few brief
remarks regarding the operation of the de-
partment. This is the second time I have
had the honour to present the estimates of
The Department of Municipal Affairs.
During the intervening year, I have had
an opportunity to familiarize myself with
the activities of the various branches, and
the many services they offer to municipalities
and to the general public.
These services are made possible by the
conscientious and untiring efforts of the staff
of the department, and I should like to pay
tribute to their efforts.
I have explained to this House on a pre-
vious occasion that ours is essentially a service
department providing assistance, advice, and
information to the municipalities primarily,
and also as I have mentioned, in a more
limited degree, to the public. In commenting
on the operations of my department during
the recess, I do not propose to discuss details
but rather to mention the salient accomplish-
ments.
One of the more important developments
in the department is the establishment of 8
regional assessment offices in the province.
These offices are located at Perth, Peter-
borough, Toronto, London, Orillia, Sudbury,
New Liskeard and Port Arthur.
At this point I should like to compliment
my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Griesinger) for the very effi-
cient manner in which his department made
available the necessary accommodation. With
his further assistance, it is my hope that
adequate accommodation will be made avail-
able in the near future for the main office of
this department, which will permit the de-
partment to render an even greater service
to the municipalities.
These regional offices are now established
and providing a service to the municipalities,
with the exception of the one at New Lis-
keard, which will go into operation later this
month. The purpose in establishing these
regional offices was to devote more time to
giving active assistance to municipal officials,
so that a better assessment practice can be
established throughout the province. This
will be made possible by the saving in travel-
ling time from Toronto to the various dis-
tricts. Having these assessment experts more
readily available to the municipalities will do
much to expedite this programme.
The task of carrying out the assessment
equalization programme, and the statutory
duties imposed under The Municipal Tax
Assistance Act, The Power Commission Act,
and The Homes for the Aged Act, will be
accelerated by this move. The offices are
staffed by a supervisor of municipal assess-
ment and two assistant supervisors of
municipal assessment, together with the
necessary clerical and stenographic help.
While these offices have been established
for only a very short time, requests from
municipal officials, at the offices already
opened, indicate that they are providing a
much appreciated service to the municipal-
ities in dealing with their assessment
problems.
In 1956, the task of making spot-check
valuations in ajl of the organized munici-
palities,. and all of the school sections in
1152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
unorganized townships in northern Ontario,
was commenced in order to ascertain the
ratio of assessment in each case.
During the past year, the number of
spot-checks in the various municipalities was
substantially increased, and the previous
samplings have been reviewed to insure that
the samplings contain the same ratio of types
of assessment that exist in each assessing
authority.
The ratio of assessment to which I refer
is the relationship that the value at which
the municipality is assessing bears to the
assessed value, as determined by The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs assessors. The
value of the buildings as determined by the
department assessors is based on The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs' Manual of Assess-
ment Values. The Manual of Assessment
Values was first issued by the department in
1950, as a guide for assessors, but its use
is not mandatory. It is entirely at the dis-
cretion of the municipalities.
In 1954, a second edition was issued. This
was an improved edition in which we made
changes to eliminate weaknesses which had
become apparent in practical application. It
is estimated that over 600 of the municipalities
in Ontario are now using this manual, and
its use is becoming more widespread each
year.
Twenty-five of the 38 counties in southern
Ontario have adopted the manual, and some
of those counties not using it had adopted
other systems prior to the issue of the first
edition. However, in some instances these
counties are now changing over to The
Department of Municipal Affairs' manual.
I should like to emphasize that the use of
this Manual of Assessment Values by the
municipalities is entirely discretionary. How-
ever, its acceptance by the majority of the
municipalities in the province, and the interest
evidenced by other jurisdictions, would indi-
cate that it is serving a very useful purpose.
The purpose of making the spot-check
valuations, as I have said, is to ascertain the
ratio of assessment in municipalities and
school sections to the value as determined by
The Department of Municipal Affairs
assessors. It is quite apparent that there is
a wide variance in the ratios being applied
as between counties or districts, and, in some
cases, between municipalities in the same
county or district.
While the appointment of county assessors
has been of some benefit in working to an
equalized assessment basis, this has been
satisfactory only in the municipalities com-
prising that particular county unit. Adjoining
counties have, in many instances, been apply-
ing a much different ratio of assessment to
actual value.
The ratio of assessment to that determined
by the department assessors in the organized
municipalities appears to vary between a low
of 14 per cent, to a high of 113 per cent. In
the school sections in the unorganized town-
ships, the variance ranges from 4 per cent,
to 203 per cent.
The task of increasing the number of spot-
checks in the municipalities is a continuous
undertaking. This work also assists to a
material degree in the other duties of the
department, such as making valuations on
government and Hydro properties for the
purpose of paying grants and making the
equalization under The Homes for the Aged
Act, so that the cost may be apportioned in
a fair manner among the municipalities sup-
porting such a home.
On certain types of property owned by the
province or its agencies, grants in lieu of
taxes are paid under the provisions of The
Municipal Tax Assistance Act. Also, under
the provisions of The Power Commission Act
as amended in 1952, grants in lieu of taxes
are paid on the value of all land and on
certain types of buildings owned by the
Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
To determine the value of such properties,
the department must review their valuations
on the properties each year. In addition, the
department must ascertain the ratio of value
at which the municipality is assessing pri-
vately-owned property so that the municipality
can insure that they are receiving their just
share of grants on government property, and
so that the province can be assured that
provincially-owned lands are not being
assessed on a higher basis than other prop-
erties.
If, for example, the department officials
ascertain through spot-checks on privately-
owned property that the municipality is
assessing similar types of property at 130 per
cent, of value, then the value on the govern-
ment or Hydro property is also calculated at
130 per cent, of value.
Each year many municipalities make either
a complete reassessment or an extensive re-
adjustment in their assessment, affecting in
most cases, both land and buildings. This
necessitates recalculation of the affected prop-
erty by department officials.
Municipalities, Crown agencies, or the
Hydro may protest the valuations made by
the department each year, and valuation
notices are forwarded annually to the munici-
palities, Crown agencies, or the Hydro, so
MARCH 24, 1958
1153
that they may be informed of the amount of
the valuation.
Another important development in the
department was the establishment of the
development and special projects branch on
August 1, 1957.
The basic principle for the establishment
of this branch was that it would concentrate
its attention on:
1. Those municipalities for which the
department has an immediate responsibility
under Part III of The Department of Munici-
pal Affairs Act and which are in what might
be described as the development stage;
2. "Special problem" areas, including muni-
cipalities which do not come under Part III
of The Department of Municipal Affairs Act;
3. Municipalities which, by reason of their
proximity to municipalities falling under 1
or 2 above, it is logical to assign to this
branch; and
4. Special projects which from time to
time may be assigned to this branch.
The allocation of municipalities as between
the administration branch and the develop-
ment and special projects branch, however, is
not intended to be static, as changing circum-
stances will require from time to time the
responsibility for particular municipalities
being changed from one branch to the other.
The following municipalities and develop-
ments are designated as being the responsi-
bility of the development and special projects
branch:
Cities: Sudbury.
Towns: Blind River, Chelmsford, Levack,
Ojibway, Sioux Lookout, Espanola.
Village : Bancroft.
Townships: Balfour; Blezard; Cardiff;
Dowling; Drury, Denison and Graham; Fal-
conbridge: Faraday; Hagar; Hanmer; McKim;
Neelon and Garson; Rayside; Waters.
Improvement districts: Bulmerton, Bicroft,
Deep River, Elliot Lake, McGarry, Mani-
touwadge, Marathon, Onaping , Red Lake,
Red Rock, Terrace Bay.
The scope of jurisdiction of the develop-
ment and special projects branch with respect
to the municipalities assigned to it is essen-
tially the same as has been that of the
administration branch heretofore.
While the normally requisite supervisory
activities have been carried out, the pre-
ponderant effort of the branch during its first
few months of operation has been channelled
into the guidance and development of those
municipalities of recent origin, for example:
Improvement
District Erected
Elliot Lake Sept. 1, 1955
Bicroft Jan. 1, 1958
Manitouwadge Nov. 1, 1954
Deep River April 16, 1956
By far the greatest degree of attention has
been required in connection with the improve-
ment district of Elliot Lake. This municipal-
ity is the result of a need to accommodate
the employees of the 11 uranium mines in
the area, and in just over two years it has
grown from nil population to approximately
20,000 people.
An established policy of the department is
that all municipal parcels of land, and lots
which are to be made available for commer-
cial or industrial purposes, must be disposed
of through auction. Such auctions have been
conducted either by the branch or under its
auspices.
Residential properties, on the other hand,
are sold initially at regular publicized sales
conducted or supervised by the branch, and
on a first-come-first-served basis. The residue
of these and of the commercial and industrial
lots may then be acquired at equitably
adjusted prices through application to the
municipality.
The approximate value of lot sales in the
improvement districts of Elliot Lake, Cardiff
and Manitouwadge as of December 31, 1957,
and since their respective incorporation dates
is as follows:
Elliot Lake $2,045,000
Cardiff 200,000
Manitouwadge 253,730
The proceeds of such sales are turned back
into the development of the municipality, and
are used for the provision of services for
which debentures are not purchasable by the
Ontario municipal improvement corporation.
The branch is required to endorse approval
upon each offer to purchase, transfer of title
and by-law relevant to such sales of property.
It is the responsibility of the development
and special projects branch to assist particu-
larly the new municipalities by actively
participating, as far as possible, in their
administration. In so doing, the members
of the branch have, since August 1, 1937, to
December 31, 1957, made periodic visits to
the improvement districts of Elliot Lake,
Cardiff, Red Lake, Bulmertown and Deep
River.
1154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Further visits, of a more restricted nature,
have been made to the city of Sudbury, the
towns of Blind River and Chelmsford, the
village of Bancroft, the townships of Balfour
and Rayside, and the town of Espanola.
During such visits, it is usual to attend and
participate in meetings of councils, boards of
trustees, school boards, and so on; to make
tours of the fully supervised municipalities—
particularly the newer ones— and as a result
of such tours, to suggest implementation of
beneficial innovations or methods of enforce-
ment of municipal by-laws, etc., and to assist
the municipal officials in the performance of
their duties.
During the latter part of 1957, application
was made to the Ontario municipal board
by the improvement district of Cardiff for
incorporation as a township, with consequent
release from departmental supervision. Simul-
taneously, and by general agreement, The
Department of Municipal Affairs filed an ap-
plication with the board for the incorporation
of the "services area" (comprised of that
area of the improvement district previously
subdivided as a townsite for the employees
of the adjacent uranium mines) as an improve-
ment district.
As a result of these two applications, the
Ontario municipal board, after due considera-
tion, issued its orders incorporating the im-
provement district of Cardiff as a township,
but separating and incorporating the services
area as the improvement district of Bicroft;
the orders to be effective January 1, 1958.
In these arrangements, discussions and
hearings, the branch actively participated and
continues to assist both municipalities, with
regard particularly to the appointment of new
trustees for the new improvement district, the
election of council for the new township,
and the general functioning of the municipali-
ties with a view to insuring continuity of
administration until the resumption of normal
and adequate administrative machinery.
Hon. members are, of course, aware that
an amendment to The Municipal Uncondition-
al Grants Act, presently before this House,
provides for an additional $1 per capita on
the Indian population in the counties of south-
ern Ontario, to reimburse the municipalities
in administration of justice costs in connection
with the Indian population.
The increase of population in the province
over the past year was 200,000, bringing our
population to 5.25 million people, most of
whom have to be provided with services by
our municipalities.
The past year or two has been a "tight
money" or high interest rate period, during
which our municipalities experienced consid-
erable difficulty in marketing their debentures.
Indeed, many municipalities could not market
debentures at any interest rate. The upward
trend of prices and interest rates was almost
calamitous for many municipalities and school
boards, and had it not been for the antici-
pation and foresight of this government, it
undoubtedly would have been an impossible
situation for many of them.
During this "tight money" period this
government, through the Ontario municipal
improvement corporation, enabled many muni-
cipalities and school boards to proceed with
essential projects. Most of these projects
such as school classrooms, and sewer and
water installations, would have been impos-
sible to undertake had the situation not been
anticipated, and a Crown corporation set
up to purchase these debentures.
During the past year, The Department of
Municipal Affairs processed over 350 appli-
cations by municipalities and school boards
for financing, and presented them to the
Ontario municipal improvement corporation
for consideration.
I am very pleased to say that the high
interest rate on municipal borrowings is eas-
ing, and already many of our municipalities
are finding that their capital projects can
be financed on the open market.
Since January 1, 1957, 5 new municipalities
were established in the province. The town-
ship of Cardiff and Falconbridge and the
improvement districts of Bicroft, Gladstone
and Nakina were incorporated, and on March
1 of this year the town of Espanola came
into being.
On January 1, 1958, the former village
of Richmond Hill became a town, and the
former police village of Caledon East be-
came a village.
In addition, 30 municipalities increased the
area of their jurisdiction by annexation pro-
ceedings; 29 of these annexations were
effected by order of the Ontario municipal
board.
At this point I should like to mention the
Ontario municipal board and its activities.
The board at present consists of 9 members
including the chairman. Its powers and duties
include a great variety of subjects, and it
now exercises jurisdiction under some 43 dif-
ferent statutes.
The most important duty entrusted to the
board is the responsibility for approving or
refusing to approve proposals for municipal
capital expenditures under section 67 of The
Ontario Municipal Board Act.
MARCH 24, 1958
1155
This section provides that with minor
exceptions, municipal councils cannot under-
take any project, the cost of which will have
to be recovered in future years, without the
approval of the board.
On receiving a request for approval, the
board satisfies itself, among other things, that
the debt to be incurred will not make the
total debt of the municipality unreasonably
high, and that the municipality can finance
the project. In 1957, approximately 1,970
applications for the board's approval were
received, and the board issued orders of
approval for capital expenditures totalling
$258,634,295.
In addition to its powers and duties with
respect to municipal expenditures, the board's
functions and responsibilities include the
approval of official plans, restricted area by-
laws and amendments, and the hearing of
appeals from the neglect or refusal of local
councils to adopt proposed amendments to
such by-laws, and from committee of adjust-
ment decisions.
It also has power to approve plans of sub-
division referred to it by the hon. Minister of
Planning and Development ( Mr. Nickle ) and
to approve redevelopment plans.
The board further exercises jurisdiction
with respect to incorporations, amalgama-
tions, annexations, or any other municipal
boundary changes. It determines claims for
compensation for lands expropriated by vari-
ous public authorities, and has jurisdiction
with respect to the closing of township, town
or county roads intersecting or running into
a controlled access highway. The board hears
appeals from county judges on local assess-
ments. It is required to hold a public hearing
on all these applications, and usually the
hearing is held in the locality of the lands
affected.
In 1957, approximately 1,240 of these
applications were received, and the board
spent a total of 1,461 days in public hear-
ings.
The municipal advisory committee, which
was strengthened by new appointments last
September, has been quite active.
The committee has held a 3-day meeting
each month since October, 1957, and intends
to continue this practice— meeting dates have
been set to May, 1958.
Topics for study, which I refer to the com-
mittee, receive preferred treatment, but the
committee is free to initiate the study of any
pertinent subject. The agenda at present con-
tains two topics to which I have referred,
namely:
1. Unified administration of fire and police
departments in municipalities of up to 15,000
to 20,000 population;
2. Role of the county in the light of other
regional service developments such as health
units.
Following each meeting, I receive a report
reviewing the topics discussed, listing the
persons or delegations who have appeared
before the committee, either on invitation
from the committee or by their own request,
making recommendations and stating con-
clusions reached.
During the last 3 meetings the committee
has interviewed representatives from 13
associations and the like, or officials— some
from provincial government departments-
all of whom appeared on invitation of the
committee.
Recommendations have been made to
me regarding vacancies in council, assess-
ment matters pertaining to equalized
assessment, the manual of assessment and as-
sessment units in counties and districts.
The committee, in addition to the two
matters to which I have referred, is con-
tinuing the study of other phases of the
assessment problem, particularly pertaining
to business assessment; status and boundaries
of municipalities; the council; ward system
and police villages.
The Department of the Attorney-General
has a committee for the study of adminis-
tration of justice, and the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Cowling) has been invited
to attend some of the meetings. The muni-
cipal advisory committee has a continuing
interest in administration of justice, and is
happy to continue the liaison as it is felt
that the committees may be mutually helpful.
The relationship between the department
and the municipalities continues to be most
amicable with mutual understanding of our
problems. Our efforts to assist the munici-
palities with their problems is a matter of
record.
I should like to quote briefly from the sub-
mission of the Ontario mayors' and reeves*
association to the government of Ontario.
After discussing the objectives of the associa-
tion, the submission reads in part:
The association persistently pursued this
objective, and has submitted some 30
briefs over the past 15 years to the pro-
vincial government— and where applicable,
to the federal government— for the adjust-
ment of the municipal financial structure.
1156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It is very gratifying to the association to
realize that these efforts have been fruitful.
Why? Because the association has ad-
vanced sound proposals for the reform of
i. the municipal position, and the government
of the province of Ontario has recognized
the necessity of adjusting the circumstances
of the municipalities.
The association, therefore, pays great
tribute to the Prime Minister and the gov-
ernment of Ontario for its consideration of
municipal problems, and for the beneficial
results which have accrued to municipal-
ities of this province.
Such recognition is deserving of the
highest commendation, and gives ample
demonstration of the pursuit of the British
democratic processes, to solve inter-govern-
mental relationships between the provincial
and municipal levels of government, in the
best interests of the citizens of this great
province.
I had the honour to address the Ontario
association of rural municipalities which con-
vened in this city on Monday and Tuesday,
February 17 and 18, and I feel I must men-
tion, at this time, the invaluable service that
is being rendered by all the municipal associa-
tions in this province toward improving our
municipal system. They are the voices of
the municipalities of Ontario, and these voices
are raised usually only after due and deliber-
ate consideration.
In consequence, very serious consideration
is always accorded by this government to
submissions by the municipal associations.
The associations are an important link in
the chain that keeps our democratic system
of local government strong and healthy.
We are always pleased to be of assistance
to representatives of the municipalities or
individual citizens, and extend a welcome to
anyone with a municipal problem.
Vote 1,201 agreed to.
On vote 1,202:
_ Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): On item No. 4, would the hon. Minis-
ter say what he intends to spend the $25,000
for? Investigations, or what has he in mind
there?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister) While
the hon. Minister is obtaining the answer to
that question, I may say that I draw this to
the attention of the House, that the very
great increase in grants to the municipalities,
which this year I think run about $250
million of our budget, and the $33 million
increase in school grants is certainly having
its effect on municipal taxation.
I see the paper in St. Catharines states a
2.25 mill reduction, I notice that in a number
of municipalities, I have one here I think 7.5
mills. Now, as a matter of fact, I think that
these grants are making a profound reduction,
or a profound effect, on municipal taxation.
I just draw that to the attention of the House.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): I would like
to remind the hon. Prime Minister that he has
quoted two or three, but there are 943 munici-
palities in the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think it is general, very
general.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Well,
in light of the hon. Prime Minister's comment,
I have an item here that I ran across some
months ago, and his comment makes it
exceptionally appropriate.
In the Winnipeg Tribune, they published,
upon the basis of a study of the annual
reports of a representative group of cities
across this country, the per capita tax burden
at the municipal level.
Hon. members might be interested to hear
of a dozen or so cities across this country and
what their per capita tax burden is.
Of the group that is included here, the
lowest is Quebec city with $40.87; the next
lowest is Regina, $55.81; Saskatoon, $57.26;
Montreal, $58.60; Vancouver, $59.17; Ottawa,
$64.97; Victoria, $65.40; Calgary, $67.67;
Edmonton, $68.97; Winnipeg, $73.06; Halifax,
$75.05; Windsor, $78.85; Saint John, $79.48;
Hamilton, $82.24; London, $84.24; Toronto,
$94.29. I think that is rather an eloquent
comment on the hon. Prime Minister's claim
that the municipal tax burden is lowered.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would point out
to my hon. friend that there are different
groups of comparisons. Sometimes they in-
clude in those comparisons the expenditures,
for instance, on local improvements and other
matters.
To arrive at that, to get a true comparison,
one would have to get the basis of what is
compared. I point out that there is a very
considerable difference in that. Just the
same as comparing, for instance, debt here in
Ontario with gross debt in some other prov-
ince, the calculations are made on a different
basis.
Now I would point out that there is no
province in Canada that is giving, if you put
it this way, the per capita assistance to muni-
cipalities as is the province of Ontario.
MARCH 24, 1958
1157
Of course, we must remember we have
very many utilities here in Ontario that the
other provinces do not have, and it may be
that if we calculate these things together, that
gives a different picture as regards per capita
expenditure, per capita debt and other things
of that sort.
Mr. MacDonald: We might be comparing
two different things.
Mr. J. A. C. Auld (Leeds): Further to what
the hon. Prime Minister said, I was very
interested in being home myself over the
weekend and seeing that my own town of
Brockville appears on their preliminary esti-
mates to be having about a 4 mill reduction.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Those comments are highly
encouraging.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: In reply to the hon.
leader of the Opposition, concerning item No.
4, commissions and investigations: now that is
a non-controllable item. But we did put in
$25,000 there, having spent about $15,000 last
year. Part of it was used by the municipal
advisory committee which, as I indicated in
carrying on studies into certain questions,
referred to that committee. Another one was
the metro inquiry commission, which went
on for some considerable number of months
and— I beg pardon?
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): What did that
one cost?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That one cost
$11,206, mostly reporting, Mr. Crawford tells
me. We had a reporter at all those meetings.
Then there is another inquiry into the
situation at Copper Cliff and Frood Mines,
which only came to $805, but the point is,
it is a non - controllable item. We put an
extra $10,000 over our expenditures last year,
so that we would be fortified in case more
of these came up.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, there
is something I wanted to raise, and I would
judge it comes as appropriately under this
section as any.
Last November a group of people brought
a petition to the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs from Nelson township, with regard
to a matter which, I want to emphasize at
the outset, is in my opinion of much wider
importance than just the particular situation
in Nelson township. In other words, the
situation there just illustrates a problem that
is general, at least in some parts of the
province.
For example, after they had made their
representation, the Toronto Telegram of Nov-
ember 13 quoted the hon. Minister as saying
that the cabinet had received inquiries from
various municipalities on the same general
subject, and was making a province-wide
survey of the problem— the problem of sub-
division funds, how they are raised and
how they are expended.
I have two or three questions I would
like to put to the hon. Minister.
The first one is: From how many other
municipalities across the province have rep-
resentations been made to the government
concerning this problem?
Secondly, why did the government not
accede to the requests that this situation be
looked into?
Thirdly, if they are not going to look into
this one, what are they going to do about
the general problem?
Now let me try to illustrate the problem
to hon. members of the House, who may not
be familiar with it, by drawing attention to
some of the highlights of the representation
that was made to the hon. Minister by this
group of 300 ratepayers, and the petition
from Nelson township.
They pointed out that there had been
established a subdivision fund into which
monies were paid from subdividers to meet
some of the services requirements. They
pointed out that, in the first instance, it
had been laid down— I presume by a motion
or some action of the council— that these
funds were to be used to meet the par-
ticular requirements of the area in which
the subdivision happened to be located.
They pointed out also that Nelson town-
ship council had, in the past, refused— in
spite of the appeals from ratepayers and the
advice of their solicitor and clerk-treasurer
—to allocate these funds exclusively for such
things as sewers, street lighting, and so on.
They went on to note that, instead of the
funds being used for the original purpose
that had been laid out in the motion of
the council, a portion of them were used to
reduce the tax rate, the general tax rate of
the municipality. In another instance, two
grants of $5,000 each were given to boy
scout associations in the community, a very
worthy organization.
But the question is raised as to whether or
not it is appropriate to make such grants of
$5,000 out of a subdivision fund on the eve
of an election. Without me quoting at length,
this representation of the ratepayers points
out that such action had all the earmarks of
1158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an attempt to influence the electorate prior
to an election, and therefore was a misuse of
the funds. They also go on to point out that
in some instances—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Who did that?
Mr. MacDonald: Who did which?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Was it the council?
Mr. MacDonald: The council, yes.
An hon. member: How many boy scouts
had a vote?
Mr. MacDonald: They were really looking
forward to the future in this instance, I assure
the hon. Prime Minister.
They also point out, Mr. Chairman, that
the manner in which these funds were raised
varied from one subdivider to another. In
some instances there was a fixed charge; in
other instances, they had an alternative
procedure in which they accepted park lands,
but had no independent assessment of these
park lands.
In short, not only were there variations in
the way the charges were levied; there were
variations in the way in which they were
spent, and in some instances they were spent
for purposes other than originally specified.
The conclusion of this representation
pointed out that the collection and disburse-
ment of the monies in these funds is not
covered in any section of the Act.
As a result, ratepayers find themselves in
an unenviable position, when it is suggested
that such irregularities should be dealt with
in the courts, for they have to take each
specific case into the courts even though it
is a general problem.
I shall not go into more details— because, I
repeat, Mr. Chairman, I am not so much
interested in the specific details of the Nelson
township case as in the general problem
which they illustrate.
What is the government going to do about
this kind of thing? It seems to me that we
have reached a point where thousands of
dollars, in fact millions of dollars across the
whole province, are now being raised in
what may well be an irregular fashion.
Furthermore, they are being spent in an
irregular fashion, conceivably all in viola-
tion of the Act and certainly leaving the
door open for procedures that are to be
seriously questioned. If the government was
not willing to move in this specific instance
of Nelson township, what is it willing to
do as a means of coming to grips with the
overall problem?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, taking the Nelson township case first,
may I say that some ratepayers did appeal
to me through their solicitor, and they wanted
an inquiry set up to look into what they
thought was improper use of certain funds
which they said had been set aside in a
trust fund.
In order to get the whole story, because
one cannot often be guided only by the
one side of the story, I had the municipal
officials in and heard their side of the story.
I could not conscientiously, having heard
both sides of the story, recommend to the
government that there should be an inquiry
set up to look into this matter, because
I came to the conclusion that there was
nothing improper about what had been done
at all, and for this reason:
The main tenor of the complaint of the
ratepayers who came in was that this money
was supposed to have been set aside in a
trust fund, with all of the implications there
is in that word. Having looked into it, I
found out, from the municipal officials and
from the clerk of the township itself, that
there was no trust fund in the strict sense
of the word, that it was just a fund which
had been set aside not definitely for the
use of that area, and when there was a sur-
plus or when they wanted to use it for
certain purposes, they did so. They were
permitted within the law to do that, so I
recommended against the inquiry.
There is no trust fund as such at all.
I took the attitude that if the councillors,
whether it was in the dying session, or a
previous year just preceding an election,
wished to use that money to help the local
boy scouts, that was their responsibility.
Furthermore, I took the attitude that if
they wanted to use the surplus from this
account, which was not a trust account, to
help reduce the mill rate, that was their
local responsibility, and they would have to
answer to the taxpayers for it.
Coming to the last question, or the latest
question— there will probably be more— the
hon. member asks: What is the government
going to do about this?
Well, the hon. member will notice that
there already is one of the Acts which says,
in effect, that monies raised from subdividers
shall be put in a trust fund and used speci-
fically for that purpose, and when the bene-
fits to be derived from that fund— shall we
say— have been exhausted and there is a
surplus, that surplus with the consent of
The Department of Municipal Affairs then
MARCH 24, 1958
1159
can be turned over and be used for other
municipal purposes.
That is the answer, generally, to the ques-
tion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to draw this to the hon. Minister's
attention. He is aware that, in the first
instance, this fund was described by the local
council itself, when it passed the motion, as
a subdivision trust fund. They subsequently
changed its name when it was being used
for other purposes than originally designated.
They changed its name to special permit
fee. It seems to me that if names mean any-
thing, a subdivision trust fund is just what
it says.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, as I said, I
looked into the matter very closely, and came
to the conclusion that it was not a trust
fund in the strictest sense of the word, and
the clerk of the township agreed with me that
it was never meant to be a trust fund; it
was used loosely for other purposes. I felt
it was the responsibility of the local elected
persons, if they wanted to use the money
in that way.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): I would like
to ask the hon. Minister a question in con-
nection with the payment towards the cost
of county district assessors. In his few re-
marks before he came down to the front
seat, he mentioned the fact that this manual
—that the assessors use or may not use across
the province— is put out by his department
but it is not mandatory.
My question is simply: Why is it not made
mandatory? And why does the department
not have its own assessors? If it is going to
be a completely equalized assessment across
the province of Ontario, it seems to me that
the only sensible thing to do is to have a
manual that all the assessors can go by, and
can be made to go by, and secondly, that the
department should have its own assessors,
so then there is no question of having an
equalized asessment across Ontario, it will
be done.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, in answer to
the first part, Mr. Chairman, may I say that
amount covers, and there is no increase from
last year, the $1,500 grant to each of the
counties, to each of the county assessors.
I might say, in answer to the latter part
of the hon. member's question, that by using
this and other devices, as the hon. member
will remember, I spoke about opening up the
regional offices, which at this time are
primarily meant for guidance in the assess-
ment field.
By using that and other devices such as
this, we hope without using force we can
bring about gradually an over-all equalization
of assessment throughout the province both
in the south and the north.
Now, the hon. member might ask why we
do not make it mandatory. Well, it is not the
wish of the department, nor I think the wish
of the government, that we should push these
municipalities around to say "y°u are going
to do this or that about assessments." We try
to guide them and assist them to come to the
general principles of the manual of 1954,
so that all, generally speaking, are on the same
level, and being assessed the same way.
We do not think the mandatory order is
necessary, because gradually we are reaching
that same objective without it, and this is
one way in which we help encourage the
counties within the county unit, the regions
within our regions now as we have it set
up, gradually, as I say to come within the
1954 manual.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Minister
how many assessors he has in his regional
offices, and assisting in this equalization of
assessment process that he is now having
across Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Do these offices assist,
does the hon. member say?
Mr. Whicher: I would like to know how
many assessors, I want to compare them to
the number of county assessors, that the
department has, in number.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: In regional offices?
Mr. Whicher: How many are in the employ
of the department? How many assessors does
the hon. Minister employ in The Department
of Municipal Affairs?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: 24 assessors.
Mr. Whicher: 24 assessors. Then how
many are there—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: 24 in the regional
offices.
Mr. Whicher: Does that count the spotters?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Yes, that counts the
spot-checkers.
Mr. Whicher: And how many county
assessors are there at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: 6 out of the 38.
1160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: Well now, the hon. Minister
has 24 employed. Does this sound reasonable?
There are 24 employed in the department at
the present time, and there are 38 employed
by the counties. Now does it not sound reas-
onable if the hon. Minister had 38 employed
himself, one for each county, that he would
not need all these regional offices, and he
would be able to go right ahead because
every assessor would be under his direct
order? He has inspectors inspecting inspectors.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, if we did it the
way the hon. member suggests, we would
have 38 regional offices, one in each county,
is that the idea?
It is working out pretty well the way it is.
We have the province divided up into 8
regions, and they are certainly more readily
accessible to those municipalities within the
8 regions. I think the hon. member will agree
that is better than to have the assessors work-
ing out of a central office, and having to move
out all the time and travelling back. These
people are very close to them, and are readily
available to give them information and guide
them with their assessment problems.
Mr. Whicher: Each assessor, of course, is
a human being and each one is working for
his own particular county, and I fail to see
the reason he wants to have an equalized
assessment across the whole province, when
the simplest way is to have his own assessors
do the assessing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I know, but the
hon. member would recognize this at once if
we did that, that would be tantamount to
imposing on a county or a municipality a
provincial assessment. I think the hon. mem-
ber will agree that the demands of municipal
autonomy are such that it would not be very
well taken by the people of the province, or
by the people of the municipalities. I am
satisfied it would not.
Now, what is being done is this: I would
say a great step towards equalization of
assessment in the province was taken with
the introduction of the per capita uncon-
ditional grants. We are getting away there
from the matter of giving grants on the basis
of assessment. I think that was one great
step.
Another monumental step, undoubtedly, is
the matter of provincial equalization of pro-
vincial grants to education. The minute that
was undertaken and was done, some of the
difficulties in it were shown up, I mean the
difficulties of bringing everyone up to an
equalized assessment, for instance at once
imposing, say, a 100 per cent, assessment
according to the manual. Those things are
the ideal solutions, but they bring about very
many pressures in doing it.
I give an example which is close to home
with me:
My hon. friend mentioned the other day
that the assessment, for instance in the
county of Haliburton is low, well, that is
generally speaking, true of all that section of
Ontario which lies generally east of Georgian
Bay, and is on the pre-Cambrian shield which
juts down into the St. Lawrence area.
Now, in looking at that area, the assess-
ments are low. As a matter of fact they are
so low that I think people in very many
cases are cheating themselves out of what
are legitimate sources of taxation— summer
hotels and all that sort of thing— but it has
grown up that way.
Now the difficulty of, by a stroke of the
pen, bringing them up to, say, 100 per cent,
assessment which is the ideal amount, is a
difficult one.
The Department of Municipal Affairs this
year has gone into the township of Cardiff.
There they have the uranium mines, and my
hon. friend mentioned the township of Cardiff
this afternoon— a bush township, one of these
little back eddy townships that has an area
which has now assumed very great import-
ance.
That township is being asessed to 100 per
cent. That is going to have its reflection in
the county of Haliburton. When those people
go to county council, there obviously has to
be an equalization to bring the other town-
ships in line with that, and that in itself is
going to bring to the attention of the people
there that they are losing very greatly by
not having a proper assessment.
Again, it has its troubles and its adjustments
and the various implications which would
run with it, and we have to take a bit of time
with them.
Now, I dropped into a county council not
long ago in one of the development areas
such as Haliburton, and I was talking to them
about that problem. They recognized that
to do this brings about adjustments, for
instance in road grants and education,
although the effects of that are less than they
were before, very much less, and as a matter
of fact their assessment has been provincially
equalized along with all others for provincial
grant purposes.
I think that we are getting close to the
point where municipalities are voluntarily
going to come into a proper sytsem of assess-
MARCH 24, 1958
1161
ment, but again I say, to say that we should
do it by a stroke of the pen and make it
mandatory, that is pretty drastic action.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, to a large
extent I agree with the hon. Prime Minister.
I realize it is a very hard thing to do, and
I would not want to see it done by a stroke
of the pen either.
But on the other hand the department
has imposed provincial assessment on all
the counties across Ontario as far as educa-
tion is concerned, and it has, by putting a
base to it, protected the lower assessed muni-
cipalities in the past.
But in the next 5 years or so, they are all
going to go up to that 100 per cent, level,
there is no question about it, in the next 5 or
10 years, we will say, anyway.
Now inasmuch as the government has im-
posed this assessment as far as educaton is
concerned, certainly on the counties, I do not
want to pursue it any further. But it seems
to me that the simple way to do it is to have
its own assessors.
And I want to leave it at that, and I want
to ask the hon. Minister if he could tell me
anything about the training of these county
assessors. I know they can go to his offices
and get instructions, but do they come down
to the department here and get any particular
training or any assistance?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I am told they are
called in at regular intervals throughout the
year, and they have conferences at which
problems are discussed, individual problems,
or perhaps problems of concern to all are
discussed, and in that way it helps them with
their local duties.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, to go back to
the question of assessment, I would like the
hon. Minister to tell me just how he arrived
at the provincial assessment. What formula
was used to arrive at the provincial assess-
ment for purposes of the educational grant,
how near perfect does he think that is, and
how did he arrive at it? I am quite interested
in hearing the hon. Minister on that point.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, it is not sug-
gested that it is perfect, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Probably a long way from
being perfect.
Mr. Oliver: They used the wrong word
there, I am sure of that.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: As a matter of fact,
they tell me that sampling has become quite
a science. By sampling, I mean that an expert
in the field can go into a given municipality,
he can take the 3 different forms of assess-
ment—residential, commercial and industrial—
and they tell me that if he starts, say, with
the residential, that he can tell after a very
small number of samples whether or not that
particular assessor in that municipality is any-
where close to the manual of assessment that
we have.
By a process of sampling, they tell me, in
some cases there have been as high as 400
spot-checks made in a municipality to ascer-
tain if the assessor in that municipality is
close to the standard of assessment in our
1954 manual. They tell me the result, although
not accurate, not perfect, nevertheless is a
very good indication of the standard of assess-
ment being used by the assessor.
So based on that, according to the equali-
zation factors we worked out for each muni-
cipality and school section, we feel there is
equity between and among the municipalities
in the province for educational grant pur-
poses.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, in line with
the remarks of the hon. Prime Minister, I
would go along with him if we were making
any progress. But the hon. Minister stated
this afternoon that we have 34 county
assessors in 38 counties. Now, is that right?
36?
And also in his remarks he mentioned that
only just over 600 municipalities were operat-
ing under the provincial manual. Now, he
gave the same figure last year. We are not
making any progress. The hon. Prime Minis-
ter asks if we can make it mandatory. I do
not think we can. Of course, we have to
leave the autonomy with the local munici-
palities.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member's mem-
ory may be faulty.
Mr. Thomas: It is going to take so long
that we might just as well forget about it,
unless we are prepared to show vigorous
leadership to the municipalities. If we are
going to pay $1,500 to the salary of the
county assessor, we have to be much more
forceful than we have been in order to go
in and insist that this assessment manual
be put into operation.
If we are not prepared to do that, as I
said last year, we might just as well throw
it into the wastepaper basket.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, we are making good progress.
Mr. Thomas: I do not think so.
1162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Warrender: But we are not
going to use a gun, that is what it amounts
to. I do not know what figure I used last
year, I have not checked with my speech of
last year.
Mr. Thomas: Just over 600 last year, the
same as this year.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: May I say then
that out of a figure of 972, that is pretty
good, but within those 600 which we are
already working on, we have, as I say, used
these separate devices, not only this manual.
The fact that we are helping the county
assessor, the fact that we set up these
regional offices, all of which we think is
going to be an incentive to those munici-
palities, even to those 300-odd remaining
which have not yet assessed according to
the manual, it is an incentive to those to
come within the manual without using the
mandatory provision.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, will the
hon. Minister explain why, when he com-
mented on the public outcry that emerged
in the metropolitan press with regard to the
equalization factors, that he contended there
was no unfair taxation or distribution of
taxes? If the equalization factors range, as
I recall, from 98 to 111, how can the hon.
Minister say that there is not an unequal
distribution of the burden of taxation in the
metro area? If not, then his equalization
factors are so inaccurate as to provide a
range of 11 per cent, to 13 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: May I answer, Mr.
Chairman? As I indicated at that time, at
first it appeared to people in that area that
someone was being short-changed or victim-
ized.
The fact is that I made it clear that while
we in The Department of Municipal Affairs
for equalization factors were using our man-
ual, we were using certain factors, weighted
in certain ways according to the opinion of
our assessors for one purpose, for the pur-
pose of trying to give equitable treatment
to all the municipalities in the province for
educational grants. That is one field.
On the other hand, Mr. Gray, who has
what I call the Gray system, has never, I
am told, assessed according to the terms
of the 1954 manual, our manual. Therefore,
there is bound to be a difference between the
two ways of assessing, and there is bound
therefore, to be two different answers.
But, when Mr. Gray was assessing, he
was assessing for the purpose of arriving at
an equitable rate for the areas and munici-
palities in Metropolitan Toronto. When we
were assessing we were trying to arrive at
an equitable rate or schedule for all of the
municipalities in the province, which was
another purpose, for educational grant
purposes.
So it is quite right, all parties now agree,
there has been no objection since I made that
explanation. It is now agreed that in one
sphere, for one purpose, they may assess for
those purposes, although the differences may
be where one is assessing for another purpose,
the differences may look like there is an
inconsistency or an injustice. Actually there is
not because each is assessing for a separate
purpose, and each is using its own standard
of assessment. Does that make sense to the
hon. member?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I will not say. I
will take that home and think about it.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, let him think
about that, and I think that he will find
that it is correct. Everybody is quite satisfied
right now.
Mr. Oliver: In item No. 7 in the main office
vote, payments in lieu of certain municipal
taxes: now, if we look up the public accounts
of 1956-1957, we will find that the amount
in there was between $600,000 and $700,000.
This year it is $850,000.
Now two things stick out, it seems to me,
out of that $600,000. In 1956-1957, Toronto
got over $400,000 out of the $600,000.
Now the other thing that sticks out is that
in some places, some villages, I notice one
here, Landers village for instance, got $1.88.
Now what sort of a service does the hon.
Minister pay for in lieu of taxes? Does he
pay for in the amount of $1.88, and how does
it come that Toronto got $400,000 out of the
$600,000?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, I am not
familiar with the situation that exists in that
small municipality, nor am I familiar with—
well, the answer is this, as the province buys
more property either through The Department
of Public Works or through The Department
of Highways, we have to make grants in lieu
of taxes.
It may be that in this one small munici-
pality, the hon. leader of the Opposition talks
about, The Department of Highways may
have picked up a little lot or something, and
we would have to give a grant in lieu of
taxes on that one little piece of land.
Now whereas in Toronto, where we have
these great buildings that we now occupy,
plus a lot of other buildings, we are picking
MARCH 24, 1958
1163
up for our governmental purposes whether
it is needed for The Department of Public
Works or The Department of Highways, we
have to make grants in lieu of taxes, and
that is why it is so high in the city of
Toronto, because there is a greater accumu-
lation or concentration of those buildings in
line here.
Mr. R. J. Boyer Muskoka): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to draw to the attention
of the hon. Minister the fact that one provi-
sion of The Assessment Act has been under
discussion in the tourist areas for some time.
I refer to the matter of the business assess-
ment on summer resorts. Under section 124
of the Act, prior to the year 1953, it was
possible for a business, which operated for
only part of the year, such as a summer
tourist resort or summer service establish-
ment, to appeal to the local municipal court
of revision to make adjustments according
to that portion of the year in which the busi-
ness did not operate.
In 1953, however, an amendment was
made to section 124 of the Act, and the
interpretation is that a court of revision no
longer can make such an adjustment and
the municipality must charge business tax
for the entire 12-month period on a business
which is open perhaps for only 3 months.
Now, those in the north who are in the
summer resort business claim— and this is
one of their statements— that "no valid reason
has ever been given, why this unfair amend-
ment was enacted." That is the quotation.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister if
he will give consideration to restoring the
situation to what it was prior to 5 years
ago, and in this way make the legislation
permissive so that a local court of revision
may make its own policy with respect to
the business tax to be applied on a seasonal
operation.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Yes, I would be
glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, before
we leave the main office vote, may I refer
the hon. members of the House to some-
thing which, while it is not in the estimates,
is nevertheless something that is rather im-
plicit in the matter of the estimates of The
Department of Municipal Affairs, and that
is the effect of seasonal unemployment in
this country.
Now, of course, seasonal unemployment is
reflected in municipal costs and relief rolls
and while the amount of the estimate is in
The Department of Public Welfare, never-
theless it does affect the municipality.
Now, sir, I was very much interested the
other day in reading a paper, "Seasonal Un-
employment in Canada, 1951 to 1957," by
Douglas Hartell of the University of Toronto.
It appears in the latest issue of the Journal
of Economics and Political Science, and it
is very well worth giving consideration to.
Now I am not saying the conclusions of
Professor Hartell, I presume it is, are correct.
But nevertheless it at least provides food
for thought.
Now the tenor of his paper is this, that
seasonal unemployment during the last half-
dozen years has been on the increase, and
that very probably it will be on the increase
from now on. Now if such is the case, it
deserves attention from this standpoint that
perhaps every effort should be made to
reverse those trends.
Now, what he said roughly was this, he
ascribed these reasons as possibly the rea-
sons for the increase in winter unemployment,
and he pointed out that, in the last 6 or 7
years, despite all the high employment in
Canada, still there was that trend in the
increase of unemployment in winter time.
He ascribes it to these reasons:
One, the highly seasonal sub-industry com-
ponents of main industries distinguished as
he mentioned, and that it expands more
rapidly at certain times and they affect the
seasonal unemployment to an increasing
extent.
Now, there are some industries that are
running counter to that. I think that pulp
and paper, for instance, is one because they
are now working on a year-round programme.
But, on the other hand, there are others
that are not, and they are increasing the
incidence of work in certain seasons of the
year.
The second is the seasonal pattern of de-
mand for goods, and he says that may be
shifting, in other words that people's tastes
and requirements for certain goods are shift-
ing which again leads to seasonal unemploy-
ment.
The third is, changes in industrial cost
structure may be taking place which may
make the operations increasingly unattractive.
The fourth one is, that since a growing
proportion of the labour force is eligible for
more generous unemployment insurance bene-
fits, workers are perhaps becoming less an-
xious to find winter work, and employers—
I think that this is imortant— may feel increas-
1164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ingly less impelled to provide work as they
were in other years on account of that.
Now, sir, may I just draw the attention of
the House to that paper. It is very well
worth reading. Hon. members might disagree
with its findings and its conclusions, but
nevertheless, it may be that we are the cause
of these things and other things, we are com-
ing into a pattern of more unemployment in
certain months of the year.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, now that
the hon. Prime Minister has raised this ques-
tion as to winter unemployment, there is
something that I would like to draw to his
attention.
Some time ago, when I asked him a
question about layoffs on the Ontario North-
land Railway in the winter time, in contrast
to the fact that the Canadian National Rail-
ways had announced on January 24 that there
were going to be no layoffs during this period
of high unemployment, the hon. Prime
Minister treated my question rather roughly.
His comment was that there were not very
many layoffs; that, in any case, the man was
just bumped down the seniority list.
But on the Ontario Northland Railway
this may mean that the workman has to
move from Kirkland Lake to North Bay or
Moosonee, or anywhere along the line, to get
the next job. And finally, the bottom man on
the seniority list gets laid off. So the complete
result is a lot of inconvenience, and finally a
man is laid off anyway.
Now, in contrast to this attitude of a
publicly owned industry, the Ontario North-
land Railway which the government controls,
I must confess that I was most interested to
read what the hon. Attorney-General (Mr.
Roberts) had to say on Saturday, when in
speaking to a political meeting down in
Kingsville, and in reference to International
Nickel laying off people and providing no
end of political embarrassment for the Con-
servative candidates in the last two weeks
of an election campaign, he makes this
comment:
These leaders in the nickel industry and
the International Nickel Company should
take another look at the profits which they
were able to accumulate during the period
and release that to the employment of
workmen to see if they can give some
leadership in something other than a nega-
tive direction.
The hon. Attorney-General went on to point
out that industry as well as government
should assume some responsibility.
Now my question to the hon. Prime Minister
is, how does he reconcile this approach of the
government laying off people in the Ontario
Northland Railway and the hon. Attorney-
General brow-beating Inco for laying people
off?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to my
hon. friend that with the Ontario Northland
Railway the total adjustment in staff, I think,
was only 8 or 9; 6 in this province and 3
in the province of Quebec. Now, I think
that he would agree that that is not anything
in the form of a mass layoff.
I would say to my hon. friend, I think
he would agree with me on this, that where
there are government commissions in business,
whether it be in Hydro or the Ontario North-
land Railway, they should use the same
methods of business efficiency that there is
every place else.
But I point out to my hon. friend that was
not predicated upon.
First of all, the point I raised here was
about seasonal layoffs but this was a question
about an adjustment in arrangement which
comes about by automation or something of
the sort, or it may come about from a variety
of things. I would say to my hon. friend
that we are here, of course, endeavouring
to stimuate a type of seasonal employment, as
my hon. friend knows. I would say that
with the Ontario Northland Railway— in look-
ing into those cases and looking into each
individual case— really I could not find any
ground for objection.
What was being done was an adjustment
of their methods and their staff to meet
present conditions. It was not a matter of a
layoff caused by the seasonal effects of or
economical effects on the railway or anything
of the sort. It was a question of an adjust-
ment to, I suppose, streamline their way of
doing business to more effectively meet the
demands of the future.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He
says that the Ontario Northland Railway can-
not be expected to operate on an Unbusiness-
like basis. Therefore, the Ontario Northland
Railway lays people off.
I just say, in passing, that whether there is
8 or 800, the impact on the workman laid off
is just as great and his family is going to
have just as great a suffering.
Now, if the hon. Prime Minister argues
that business efficiency dictates that the On-
tario Northland Railway should lay them off,
how can the hon. Attorney-General argue
that business efficiency is not a valid excuse
MARCH 24, 1958
1165
for Inco laying off 1,000 people? They can-
not have it both ways.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I may say that the hon.
Attorney-General's speech was not discussed
with me, but I understand that it has to do
with the suggestion that there should be stock-
piling. I do not know whether that is prac-
ticable or not, but that was the suggestion
that he made, of stock-piling nickel in times
of low use for other times to provide a
steadier type of employment.
Now I could not begin to pass on that, and
I do not think that anyone in this House
could. As a matter of fact, I have raised
a somewhat similar point in connection with
the motor industry. I would like to see the
motor industry provide a more even employ-
ment, rather than get high peaks of employ-
ment with high depths of unemployment, that
the poor municipalities and the government
have to be taken care of.
I would like to see that done and I think
perhaps industry and government and every-
body else should look at that question of
perhaps trying to level off business activities
and keep them on an even keel, so that
they can take care of people without laying
them off.
Mr. MacDonald: If this is the kind of
thing the hon. Prime Minister is investigating,
I think he is really getting to the heart of the
problem.
I draw another case to his attention. In an
industry, where presumably it is possible to
do some planning, for years I have been com-
pletely mystified by the conduct of the farm
machinery manufacturing industry. Consider
Massey-Harris, where there may be layoffs,
then suddenly they get an order and the men
are called back for not only an 8-hour shift,
but two 8-hour shifts, even three 8-hour
shifts. After a few weeks of this intensive pro-
duction, they are laid off again.
It seems to me that it is possible to get
some more planning into an industry so that
they do not treat workers as though they
were a commodity to be bought and sold,
just dumped out on the market if it suits
management's own particular purpose.
However, I leave that, because I want to
ask the hon. Prime Minister or the hon.
Minister a question with regard to something
which, until now, has been omitted from all
discussion of The Department of Municipal
Affairs.
About a month ago there were great head-
lines in the province about the government's
relief project, this $5 million "me too," effort
to help "Honest John" in face of an election.
How many projects, or more important,
how many men are involved in projects to
which the government is going to be contri-
buting financially?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I have not the full
report by reason of the fact that, even though
we ask the municipalities to do it, they gave
us what it might cost the government for
their proposed project. They give us the num-
ber of men. I think in some places it was
almost impossible to do this.
In any event, the total number of munici-
palities so far— and I might say there are
more inquiries coming in every day— are 76
municipalities. The total— even though I say
we have not the number of men or the dollar
amounts attached to it— the total number
of men is 2,346 so far, and I say there are
some blanks here because they do not know
what number of men to attach to a given
project. The amount of money involved so
far is $1,859,756.41. That as I say-
Mr. Whicher: Is that the government's
money?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is the total,
70 per cent, of what will be ours.
Mr. Whicher: Not necessarily, because
they are including the material and every-
thing else.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I do not know what
they have included.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In answer to my hon.
friend's question that we have not changed
at all the proposal that was made here in
the Legislature 6 weeks or so ago—
Mr. MacDonald: Just as bad now as it
was then.
Hon. Mr. Frost: —we have no intention of
changing it, I think that it is a very excellent
proposition. In the places that are embarking
on it, it is working out very satisfactorily.
The employment with the coming of the
spring is bound to increase. The hon. mem-
ber will find, I think, starting about now
with more outdoor work, that there will be
a very considerable volume of employment
in the next couple of months.
Our contribution to employment is first
of all, I should say, providing the environ-
ment in this province in which work and
development and employment can take place.
I was very much interested this morning as,
coming into this city, I drove down high-
way No. 401 and came in by way of Eglin-
ton Avenue, the golden mile, so-called, and
1166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
then the extension of Eglinton Avenue, into
the city, and I remarked to the driver on the
very large number of developments that are
commencing at this time.
I imagine that there must have been,
in the short space of two or three miles, per-
haps 30 developments of magnitude that
were commencing with the coming of spring.
Now when I say provide the environment
to do work, I mean providing the ways and
means by which people can do things. I
would say the creation of Metropolitan To-
ronto for instance is one thing, with all of
the other things that run with that, which
have led to, and are leading to, develop-
ment.
The second one is our own contribution
to employment which this year runs, in round
figures, to about 255,000 jobs, which is just
coming into its general effectiveness about
the beginning of the coming months.
The other plan that my hon. friend men-
tions was purely, and is purely, a matter that
is directed at the seasonal problems of em-
ployment for those who have no unemploy-
ment insurance. That is the purpose of it.
I recognize that, of course, there might
have been some disappointments municipally.
They might have said: "Now here, we would
like to have a grant of $1 per head of popu-
lation."
Well, that is very attractive. I do not
blame them for wanting that. But on the
other hand, I think it is probably our job
to try to assess this thing, and to place
our money at the points where it can do the
most good. I forget the figures in Metro-
politan Toronto— it seems to me that there
are some 1,200 men here in this area who
are employed under that plan and it is doing
a good job. We are having— I beg the hon.
Minister's pardon—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: 1,500 in Metro.
Hon. Mr. Frost: —1,500 here in the metro-
politan area that are getting employment.
Now they were people who ordinarily would
gravitate down to the relief rolls— no unem-
ployment insurance.
As a matter of fact, I think we will find
a very considerable increase in that list in
the next couple of months when weather
conditions are better.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to pursue this very much further other
than to make this comment.
The government defends most vigorously
the thing that they know is most vulnerable.
I can remember the hon. Prime Minister
rising and turning around to his hon. Minis-
ter behind him, and very dramatically slap-
ping the letter from the metro authorities
down, and saying: "Now these men can go
to work tomorrow."
Hon. Mr. Frost: They were.
Mr. MacDonald: They were not at work
10 days afterwards. The significant point
is that 6 weeks afterwards only 2,300 people
are at work, according to the figures the hon.
Minister has just given us. May I remind him
that in his budget the hon. Prime Minister
told us that there were 40,000 people in this
province who are not drawing unemployment
insurance, so out of 40,000 people who were
not drawing unemployment insurance this
highly publicized plan announced on the eve
of an election has provided only 2,300 with
work. There is the answer right there.
And the hon. Prime Minister needs to talk
awfully fast to make that into a good thing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I would not say that
at all. I point out that there are some 76
municipalities. Now, at this time, we know of
2,300 that are at work but I suppose the
hon. member could probably add another
1,000 to that for the ones that we do not
know are at work, and I would say with the
coming of the spring weather the hon. mem-
ber will find there will be a great many
others at work and I think the plan is a very
good one.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): What is
the government's alternative?
Hon. Mr. Frost: What alternative is there?
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I have no
intention or desire to embarrass the govern-
ment in any way at all, but one of the 72
municipalities that have made inquiries is
the city of Oshawa, and they discussed this
programme the other week, and they recom-
mended to pass by motion that the chairman
of that committee—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oshawa is not on my
list. I would like to get them there.
Mr. Thomas: Just a minute, now just a
minute— bring a report to find out if work
could be provided for these men. I may say,
Mr. Chairman, that while I have no desire to
embarrass the government, I am quite sure
that the city council of Oshawa has no inten-
tion either, because about two-thirds of the
hon. members, I think, or 75 per cent, of
them anyway, are supporters of the party of
the hon. Prime Minister.
MARCH 24, 1958
1167
Hon. Mr. Frost: Say that again.
Mr. Thomas: You may be cheering a little
too early there. The report brought in by
the chairman of the board of works, Alderman
Walter Branch, is this, and I quote from the
Oshawa Times Gazette of last Tuesday.
Alderman Walter R. Branch presented a
report prepared by the city's engineering
department, which said that to employ 10
men for brush clearing under the provincial
government scheme to relieve unemploy-
ment, would cost a total of $8,600.
Although under the scheme the province
was to pay 70 per cent, of the costs, it
worked out that, after the expense of
trucks and supervision to operate the
scheme, the city would have to pay $4,500.
and the province $4,100.
Alderman Branch pointed out that alter-
natively 20 men could be employed on the
scheme for a period of 4.5 weeks' work, and
stated that while relief is no substitute for
work, Alderman Branch added that the cost
of supporting 10 men for 9 weeks on relief
was $2,700, of which the city had to pay
20 per cent., which would be $540.
Now to keep these men on relief for 10
weeks would cost $540 and under the scheme
that the hon. Prime Minister is suggesting
it would cost the city $4,100.
I am going to suggest to the hon. Prime
Minister in all fairness, and I know he wants
to be fair on this anyway, that the only muni-
cipality that I can gather that was consulted
about this scheme before it was introduced
was the city of Toronto, metropolitan area.
The outside councils or municipal councils
were not consulted in any way at all, and
while" I go along part of the way with the
hon. Prime Minister, that it may be beneficial
in a large area like Metropolitan Toronto,
where we have a large number of parks and
things like that, in the average municipality
it is of no use or assistance at all.
I am very, very sorry to hear the hon. Prime
Minister say this afternoon it is going to be
as it is, and not revised in any way at all,
because I think he should revise it. If he is
going to be fair to these people outside, then
I think the hon. Prime Minister should revise
it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to my hon.
friend that the plan was revised after con-
sultation with the various welfare organiza-
tions who came to us specifically about this,
and I would say not only from Metropolitan
Toronto but some of the other municipalities.
I cannot recollect them at the moment, but
I could find out. I would say to my hon.
friend this, that I was interested to get a
clipping just a moment ago— I am getting like
my hon. friend from York South— I am begin-
ning to read newspaper clippings here; well,
just the other day in any event-
Mr. Whicher: What date?
Mr. MacDonald: We have been both chas-
tised.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think it is so current
that I do not have to give the date. Mr.
Rupert, who is, I think, one of the ablest
relief men in Ontario and in charge of the
Metropolitan Toronto relief service, said here:
Every able bodied reliefee who wants
work is employed on the projects. The gov-
ernment - sponsored works projects have
been a good thing, he said. They have
done the job needed. He said that jobless
men are now being hired by the national
employment bureau.
Now, that is in the course of the last week.
Mr. Thomas: What paper?
Mr. Oliver: I would like to ask a question
in relation to this matter. He mentions there
are 2,300 people at work, how many of these
are from the city of Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: 1,500 in the Metro
area.
Mr. Oliver: How many other municipalities
have entered the scheme?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The number is 76
municipalities. Seventy-six altogether have
entered the scheme.
Mr. Oliver: Seventy-six have entered the
scheme?
Hon. Mr. Frost: In addition to the 76
municipalities in the scheme, the province is
itself conducting in its own way, similar works
in connection with highways, highway parks,
access roads and things of that sort. My
recollection is that the last figures indicated
there were around about 5,000 employed in
that, in those various ways, in forest access
roads and provincial parks and a host of other
things which, of course, in very many of the
municipalities take up the unemployment
slack pretty substantially. Again I am only
using round figures but I think it is about
that.
Mr. Oliver: I would ask the hon. Minister
if he will in some way let me have a list
1168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of those 76 that have entered the scheme
and how many are employed from each
municipality?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I could give that,
but as I say— excuse me one moment— I just
want to make it clear that the hon. leader
of the Opposition will notice there are several
blank spaces here, with the number of men
supposed to be set out, also the amount of
the project, because in spite of the fact we
asked for the information they did not give
it. So, as I say, all we have registered is
a total of 2,346 persons in an amount of
$1,859 million. But if all these blank spaces
were filled in, which will have to be done
when they have completed the job, in writ-
ing for their cheques, that would give the
complete story. But until they do the job,
and give us the information, I will not have
the complete picture.
Mr. MacDonald: What will the hon. Min-
ister have then?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out to the hon.
leader of the Opposition that at the present
time on these works which, as I say, are
purely seasonal, the works that we have on
access roads and with the municipalities,
that at the present time there would be in
the order of about 8,500 men and perhaps
some women, I mean provincial and muni-
cipal, and that does not include those who
cannot be assessed on that list.
Now I think that is a very creditable
showing indeed.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Chairman, I have here a quote from one of
the papers here, and I can name at least 20
people, the heads of various places in the
province, the mayors or the reeves who said
that your plan is not any good.
Hon. Mr. Frost: They do not know.
Mr. Reaume: They do not know? Well,
how about Hamilton? Hamilton say openly
it is not any good, Owen Sound, Chatham,
Kitchener, Guelph, many places; it becomes
obvious the plan is not workable and the
hon. Prime Minister will not alter it.
Now I was home over the holiday, and
the city of Windsor has stated that they do
not want the plan. Now, who wants it?
Does the hon. Prime Minister want it?
Hon. Mr. Frost: How would the hon.
member alter it?
Mr. Reaume: How would I alter it? If the
hon. Prime Minister wants to open up an
advertising agency known as the Frost agency,
why does he not give them a grant and not
tie any strings on it? Let him hand it over
to them.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Hamilton does not
want it and Windsor does not want it. In the
first place, Hamilton is now working on a
scheme, and I hope to hear from there soon
about how they are going to put their men
to work in the next two months.
Today I had a meeting with— they are
getting geared up to do these jobs as I under-
stand, by April 1. Today I had his worship
the mayor of Windsor in to see me, it not
that he is not interested in it, they are trying
to devise some way whereby they can take
advantage of the scheme. He told me he
would be in touch with me soon, and let me
know what he had in mind for the building
of sidewalks and repairs and other projects.
Mr. Whicher: Have they not got any
leaves down there?
Mr. Thomas: They cannot build sidewalks.
Mr. Reaume: That is the part of the plan-
that is the part of the plan that actually is not
any good, it is hard for all these places to take
advantage of the plan, so if the hon. Prime
Minister would alter it some— but he has
stated no.
I would say this, that the places that are
affected the worst— indeed the city from which
I come, I think, is the hardest hit place in
the province— why does he not give them a
grant for the purpose of instituting whatever
kind of a public works scheme they wanted
to do? He has always said in the press that
he feels they can handle it best, and now he
is tying a bunch of strings to it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh no, we are not.
Mr. Reaume: Oh yes, he is.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We say to them that if
they employ people on these works-
Mr. Reaume: I say it is crazy, utterly crazy,
taking a person off the rolls of relief, where
the town or city is only paying 20 per cent,
to elevate that portion of their cost under
this scheme so that they will pay 30 per
cent. Now, they are not foolish.
Mr. Grossman: The municipalities are get-
ting some work done.
Mr. Reaume: Ah, it is a crazy plan. A crazy
plan, it will not work out.
Mr. Grossman: Would Windsor rather have
them on relief?
MARCH 24, 1958
1169
Mr. Reaume: It will not work out, what is
the hon. member talking about?
Mr. Grossman: Of course, it will. It is
working out. Where there is a will, it is
working.
Mr. Reaume: Ah, it is a crazy plan.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for St.
Andrew is defending the indefensible.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to get away from
that matter for just a moment. I would like to
ask the hon. Prime Minister: He definitely
said, I listened very attentively, in talking
about the seasonal works and so on, and the
fact that he has seen these projects starting
on the way into the Parliament Buildings this
morning, that industry is starting more men
because spring is coming along, and that he,
the government, was going to employ an
additional 235,000 men. Now this is what
he said— that there would be that additional
number of men.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hearing of the hon.
member is not quite as good as I thought it
was.
Mr. Whicher: What I want to know is
this: Where has the hon. Prime Minister
employed any extra men except in parks and
that sort of thing— that is, the provincial
parks, which have been working all winter?
I mean I have been pleased to see it happen.
My question is: Where has he employed
any extra men, has he employed any in the
highways, is he taking any more on in the
liquor stores, is Hydro employing any more
men, where are all these extra men that he
is employing?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would point out to the
hon. member that what I said and will briefly
re-state is this: First of all I said that the
province's great job was to provide an environ-
ment in which works could be done and
development could be extended-
Mr. Whicher: The environment is here.
Hon. Mr. Frost: —and I pointed out that I
rode down two or three miles of Eglinton
Avenue today and I recommend the hon.
gentlemen of this House to take a look at it.
I was very greatly impressed with the
amount of development along that single
stretch of this area, and I am sure there are
very many other areas in which that is being
done. Now I would say that is what we call-
Mr. Whicher: Private enterprise.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, creating the environ-
ment in which people go out and do work,
and industries go ahead and we have employ-
ment which is brought about by free enter-
prise, if he wants to put it that way.
Mr. Thomas: In other words, his is—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now the second one is this
—I would say to the hon. member surely
he would think this, that the very great exten-
sions we have made to the hydro-electric
power system in this province has provided,
I suppose, tens of thousands, perhaps twenties
of thousands of jobs the past year-
Mr. MacDonald: No more than last year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out to the hon.
member that we have. It is true that there
are many things I do not agree with, and
I have so expressed myself, but I may point
out to the hon. member that at the present
time there is being spent in Ontario, in the
municipalities of Ontario, from the borders
of Manitoba down to the borders of Quebec,
$1,000 million in the extension of gas lines
and with all of the things that are going to
come out of that.
Now, in the meantime, here we are, we
are working on nuclear power and other
things— now I say to the hon. members that
those are the things this government is doing
to create the environment that attracts half
of the people who come to this province,
that attracts the great capital outlay of this
province. I am glad to see the hon. member
for York South applaud, I like to have him
do that.
Mr. MacDonald: His own people were
failing him.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now the second is this
—this is in answer to the question raised
by the hon. member for Bruce. This year
our own capital outlays and those we
stimulate directly, will provide 235,000 jobs
in this province. Now that is a great pro-
gramme.
Mr. Whicher: Where are they?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member can
go out and look at the bridges being built
and the roads being built—
Mr. Whicher: They were being built last
year, too.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, but we are building
these—
Mr. Whicher: No more than was done
last year.
1170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: The third point, I say,
is this, let the hon. member look at this:
I say to the hon. gentlemen opposite, there
are about 8,500 jobs being provided in
seasonal jobs, and I would not be a bit sur-
prised if by May 15 that ran up to 15,000.
Mr. Whicher: I would not be surprised—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, I say to the hon.
members that is a great record.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Prime Minister in
his budget speech—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Wait until we get those
development roads up in the hon. leader of
the Opposition's riding and he will see more
people at work.
Mr. Oliver: Yes, well, I will talk about
those some day. I was going to say in ref-
erence to this matter: When the hon. Prime
Minister gave his budget speech, he very
clearly suggested that two hundred and some
thousand jobs were being created, it would
reach that quite easily from what the hon.
Prime Minister said.
I was reminded, of course, when he made
that statement, I was reminded of another
man, Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker down in
Ottawa, who announced a public works pro-
gramme that compared very closely with that
announced by the hon. Prime Minister. When
they got into "John's" programme, they
found that almost all of it consisted of things
that were ordinarily being done year by year.
Now the 235,000 men, that he says he is
giving employment to, are perhaps the same
235,000 that he gave employment to last
year. Certainly there were not 230,000 new
jobs, yet he sought to leave that impression.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, we should
not finish this debate without congratulating
the hon. Prime Minister. He started out
by saying they had provided 2,300 jobs.
Fifteen minutes later the hon. Prime Minister
said it would rise to 8,500. Only a moment
ago he got the figure up to 15,000. Now if
we just talk here for a little longer, he is
going to employ about 100,000 people.
Mr. Whicher: Well, say, let us keep talk-
ing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Do not get-
Mr. MacDonald: It is just like this bogus
up in Ottawa. When Mr. Maloney came
down on January 29, he outlined the federal
programme and claimed it had provided
100,000 jobs. The next day his boss, hon.
Michael Starr, came down and claimed it
was 270,000 jobs-overnight 170,000 more
jobs.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right, we can see
how quickly these things multiply.
Mr. MacDonald: They do all right— froth,
froth, froth.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Just wait a moment. Here
the liquor control board has a new programme
just coming into effect, which has not been
mentioned and which we are going to build
across the province, in various communities,
new liquor stores to the extent of $4 million.
Now there is a lot more employment right
there.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I noticed a
note coming down from the commissioner,
and I think that he has every right to do so,
but is not that rather a funny way of
governing here in Ontario when the only way
that we can find out that there are new liquor
stores being built in Ontario is when we have
to have a debate on unemployment? Is not
that a great way to have to report back to
the people of the province that, just by
accident, we found out about it, otherwise
we would not know at all?
Mr. J. Root ( Wellington-Duff erin): Hon.
members in the various ridings-
Mr. Whicher: They likely announced a
month before the plans were drawn up—
An. hon member: They do not give us credit
for it.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
175 votes for Diefenbaker.
An hon. member: Even that is going to be—
Interjection: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon.—
An hon. member: Does that include Char-
lotte Whitton?
Mr. MacDonald: It would be funny if it
were not serious.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to ask the hon.
Minister a question concerning two of the
statutory grants, under The Police Act and
The Fire Departments Act.
Now I realize they are comparatively small
amounts, but I understood that most of these
grants were done away with when they
introduced a system of unconditional grants.
I would like to know where these grants are
being paid at the moment.
MARCH 24, 1958
1171
Hon. Mr. Warrender: As the hon. member
will recall, under the system of conditional
grants, the province was making grants to the
various municipalities for police and fire
departments. Now when those were cut off
and were made unconditional, there was still
this backlog in respect of pensions and
workmen's compensation, so those are carry-
ing on.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, on vote 1,201,
item No. 8, the payment to mining munici-
palities, last year was $2 million, this year
it is up to $3.5 million. I wonder if the hon.
Minister would care to—
An. hon. member: Generosity-
Mr. Thomas: No, no, let us have this one
now.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, the big reason
is, of course, that there are more of these
municipalities being designated as mining
municipalities, and therefore we have to pay
out a larger sum.
Mr. Thomas: How did they become
designated?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, they became
part of the formula as it were, there were
50 or more miners living in a given munici-
pality but working in another area, then that
area is designated as a mining municipality.
Now the number of those so designated I
cannot give the hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question. While it is not listed in the expendi-
tures here, it is a matter of policy, that is
dealing with this department.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: What number is this?
Mr. Whicher: It is not a number but it is
a policy dealing with the hon. Minister's
department.
Mr. Oliver: Like the hon. Prime Minister's.
Mr. Whicher: For a long time now, we
have had discussions in the paper and we
have been besieged by letters, all the hon.
members from various municipalities who wish
to introduce fluoridation of water in their
respective municipalities. Now my question is
just simply this, what is the department's
policy as far as the fluoridation of water is
concerned in the province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, my depart-
ment has no policy on fluoridation, that is a
near relative.
Mr. Chairman: That is The Department of
Health.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, just
before you go on—
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): I have
listened with a great deal of interest to all
the talk about it, but, of course, we are
never mentioned because we are so far
away from Bruce and York South and
these great areas in the east where they em-
ploy so many men and have to have these
projects made to order. But I would just
like to mention a couple of things. I told
hon. members the other day where, under this
70 per cent, scheme, Fort William had put 99
men to work, costing-
Mr. MacDonald: How many from Port
Arthur?
Mr. Wardrope: 99 men to work costing
$43,500. I was coming to that my hon. friend.
On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Chairman, I
got word that the municipal board had passed
the new sewage disposal project for Port
Arthur, which will be starting next Monday,
and it will be employing between 400 to 500
men at a cost of $2.5 million. Now that will
show Mr. Chairman, that this government is
doing a tremendous lot, and if these hon.
members from Windsor-
Mr. Whicher: That has nothing to do with
it.
Mr. Wardrope: —and if these hon. members
from Windsor, Bruce and York South would
get their shoes on, and get up to the ridings
once in a while, and do some work, and try
to help the councils work these things out
instead of sitting here complaining, they would
have this province on its feet and there would
be no unemployment.
All they are thinking of doing is crying
gloom for political reasons attending to March
31. They are not kidding me, and they will
will find out that they are not kidding the
people, so they had just better take the
attitude that things are not the best. Get
busy and they will see that they will get men
to work.
Now a fact that may be mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, because there seems to be so much
gloom and so much grease poured on the
gun-
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I wish my hon.
friend would answer this. If they are build-
ing a building up there or plant of any sort,
what has that got to do with the government
here in the province? That will be built and
paid for, I imagine, by the people of the area.
1172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Wardrope: It is employment.
Mr. Reaume: What is he talking about?
Hon. W. Griesinger (Minister of Public
Works): The hon. member said there is no
employment.
Mr. Reaume: Oh, yes, but he is talking
about a boom. We have a right, I think,
and every opportunity when, in an area of
our kind of 140,000 people approximately, we
have some 21,000 out of work.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Is the hon. member
sure?
Mr. Reaume: Am I sure of what?
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Is that figure right?
Mr. Reaume: Certainly that figure is right—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Oh, I would say that
it is not.
Mr. Reaume: —and, so that upon . every
opportunity-
Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member should
check that figure.
Mr. Reaume: I did, I did.
Mr. Chairman: Order, gentlemen.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: The figure that the
hon. member for Essex North has stated is
absolutely wrong, and I say to the hon.
gentleman who sits in seat No. 79, that a lot
of the troubles of the city of Windsor were
caused by himself.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I will answer that.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: All right, let him
answer. When the first Ford strike was on,
we had to send people in there to maintain
order, because he would not do it and he
knows it, and the hon. Attorney-General was
sent down there-
Mr. Reaume: Well, when the hon. Minister
gets finished, I will answer him.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: He also made state-
ments that certain industrialists should be run
out of the city of Windsor on a rail. Now,
how does he expect to get co-operation from
those people when he tells them that? No
wonder Windsor has lost industry. He can
put a lot of the blame right on himself.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Chairman, I am very
happy that the hon. Minister has found time
to stand up. He is about the only person
I ever knew who had to buy 5 pairs of pants
with every coat, because he spends so much
time sitting down that he wears them out.
Just a moment, I am not getting personal.
But I want to say to him—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I defeated him just
the same, and I dare him to run against me
again.
Mr. Reaume: Let the hon. Minister sit
down for a moment. I wanted to tell the
hon. Minister this, that in the instance of the
Ford strike— and that goes back quite a while-
it was a member of this government here who
sent in the police force for the purpose of
trying to hit those worker on the head with
sticks, and I was mayor at the time—
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: That is a falsehood.
Mr. Reaume: —I was mayor at that time
and I told them that the sooner they got out
of town the better, and they got out of town,
too. Now I want to say to the hon. Minister,
there is not much that he has ever done for
Windsor outside of sitting in that chair, and
I mean sit, and there is no question about it.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, may
I rise on a point of order?
Mr. Reaume: Just a moment, I am trying
to bring the attention of the hon. Minister
of Public Works—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Oh, let us get on
with the estimates-
Mr. Reaume: —to the fact that there are
21,000 people out of work in Windsor whether
he knows it or not.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Well, the mayor did
not say so this morning.
Mr. Reaume: Well, it said so in the paper.
Why does the hon. Minister not read the
paper?
An hon. member: Well, it seems to me
that it was not so many years ago that there
was a "for sale" sign on the hon. member's
seat, because he did not see fit to attend the
meetings of this House.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I am telling my hon.
friend, I know that in 1955 the hon. member
and his group over there tried to buy this
seat. But with all the dollars they dumped
around Essex North, they still did not, or
could not, buy it, and there was plenty of
it there. It was a very interesting election
in 1955.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I thought he said
there were pot-holes.
MARCH 24, 1958
1173
Mr. Reaume: There were 4 hon. cabinet
Ministers in my riding, including the hon.
Prime Minister of the province, in that cam-
paign of 1955. The hon. member is talking
about a "for sale" sign on my seat. The hon.
Prime Minister entered Essex North and he
was one of the organizers of the plot of the
big meeting in which the hon. Prime Minister
was going to explode and expand everything.
Actually, they organized it so well that there
were 47 people at the meeting including the
hon. Minister and there were 20 people there
who were making application for a hotel
licence.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Reaume: Just a minute, just a minute
now. There were more flies there than there
were people.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: I trust that he will
come back to his own residence and run
again. I would just like to have him. He
has to run-
Mr. Reaume: Do not worry, I will come
back. Do not worry because the hon. Minis-
ter had better start standing up often now,
because I am going to be at him every day.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I
speak on the estimates?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Good, good. I would
like to quote 3 paragraphs to the hon. Min-
ister from an editorial in the Sudbury Star
and ask for his comments— I can assure him
that this is very pertinent— on May 15, 1957:
It is entitled:
Queen's Park Gagging
The Progressive-Conservative government
of Queen's Park may not be aware of this,
but the gag rule of censorship is being
applied to some of its employees. It is
hardly cricket, old boy, to point the finger
at the pipe line gag at the Ottawa Liberals
while permitting it to be applied on in-
structions of civil servants.
Taxpayers in Neeland-Garson township
have every right to be kept fully informed
on all figures relating to financial matters
in the township. Yet, at the budget meet-
ing this week, the council door was slam-
med in their faces and they were on the
outside while the reeve and councillors
went into a secret session.
The action was reportedly taken follow-
ing the advice of an employee of The De-
partment of Municipal Affairs. Council-
lors told a reporter from the Sudbury Star
that none of the figures under discussion
would be released on his advice.
In the ensuing discussion on whether the
public, through the press, should be
informed, the council decided on the
secret session.
By what right does a civil servant draw
the curtain of secrecy?
Would the hon. Minister care to comment
on this?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I would not care
to comment, as I do not know anything about
it. It sounds like the figment of somebody's
imagination to me.
Mr. MacDonald: The figment of an edi-
torial writer's imagination in Sudbury?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, I
will try to answer the first part by saying
this. I do not know who he is referring to
by civil servant, I do not know what words
were used or whether he actually said: "Let
us go into a secret conclave." Even if he
did I do not see what difference it makes
anyway.
He asks what right does Queen's Park have
to gag these people? I do not call on each
one of my staff and say to them individually:
"Now don't you go out and gag that person
or go into secret sessions with council."
I mean, I cannot answer the hon. mem-
ber's question, there is no meat to it. Let
him give me something to chew on and I will
try to digest it.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute. I will
give him something to chew on, unless he
is going to throw this out as having no
substance at all. I do not think that the
editorial writers of the Sudbury Star have no
substance when they are writing. What they
are saying is—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I do not suggest
that. I say give me the facts and I will look
into it and try to give them the answer.
Mr. MacDonald: Look now, the thing
is almost a year old, May 15 of last year.
What they are saying is that the council,
allegedly on the instructions or on the orders
of some civil servant in the department here,
had agreed to have a secret session, so that
the public through the press could not get
the facts on the budget.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out that the
legislation assured him that—
1174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Pretty weak stuff.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Minister in his
remarks at the opening this afternoon men-
tioned something about the Crown corpora-
tions of the municipalities being able to
borrow money, if they have to borrow.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Not Crown corpora-
tions. I said that certain municipalities under
certain conditions could borrow from the
Crown corporation, meaning the Ontario
improvement and municipal corporation.
Mr. Whicher: He mentioned how many
inquiries he had.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Running about $50 million
per year.
Mr. Whicher: He is loaning out about $50
million a year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes.
Mr. Whicher: And what is the total of that
loaned out now?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, I am sorry that
we do not have those figures, as the Ontario
municipal improvement corporation actually
comes under The Treasury Department but
we have to process in order to advise the
committee as to certain background material,
in order for them to make up their minds on
that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to my
hon. friend that one of the objections I heard
down at the Ottawa conference, this last
November, was on that point. Now I use the
actual figures there when I say 50 million a
year. It is of that order.
The point is that we are becoming, or we
were becoming — because of the statement
here and sound-money policies down the
line— the bankers for a very great number of
municipalities, and the amount of loans they
were making were such that it could be, if
it continued, an embarrassment to our credit.
Now, I would like to interject here another
matter having reference to the employment
matter and that is in connection with the
metropolitan type of government. We had
some interesting discussions in the last few
days with the people of London, and with
the people of some other municipalities,
relative to that matter. I would refer my hon.
friend to the article by another professor,
Professor Rowat, of Carlton College, in the
issues of Canadian Public Administration
relative to planning metropolitan govern-
ment. Now Professor Rowat's article is a very
excellent one. It gives a survey of the various
types of metropolitan government in the
world today, and he comes to the conclusion
—and I say this that it is a matter of great
interest— that the true, sheer type of admini-
stration that we have here in Metropolitan
Toronto is the most effective and the best
type of metropolitan government.
Now, as I say, I will not go into his article
other than to point out this: that great inno-
vation was brought about in this province,
it was born in this Legislature, it was passed
by this Legislature back in 1953, and I
think that in the 5 years of operation it has
been a very great innovation, a very great
experiment in government.
The government, I think it is, of New
South Wales, has asked us if we could send
Mr. Cummings or someone else down there,
to tell them about the effects and the opera-
tion of that type of government in this
province.
I am bringing this to the attention of the
hon. members from a non-political stand-
point, not from any controversial standpoint
at all. I say that it is a very interesting
subject, and it is one which has been very
favourably commented on by Professor Rowat,
and I commend his article for reading by the
hon. members of the House.
Vote 1,201 agreed to.
On vote 1,202:
Mr. Thomas: On vote 1,202, last year
there was a discussion about the Ontario
municipal board, I got up, Mr. Chairman,
and someone said "sit down." I object to
that very much. -
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, that could not have
been directed to the hon. member.
Mr. Thomas: Oh, well, I am not going
to sit down.
Mr. MacDonald: Another Tory in the
balcony, that is all.
Mr. Thomas: A discussion took place last
year about the activities of the Ontario muni-
cipal board, and the hon. Minister com-
plained, or stated, that one of the reasons for
the delay in issuing debentures sometimes,
or approving them, was because they were
so very busy, and he expressed the thought
at that time, I think, that perhaps it would
be considered that a municipal council could
issue debentures for $3,000 or $4,000, up
to that amount, without applying to the board.
I wonder if there has been any consideration
given to that?
MARCH 24, 1958
1175
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I made no commit-
ment, but I did say there would be some
study given to it. However, we have ruled
it out as not being a good policy.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, on the ques-
tion of the Ontario municipal board and the
powers that it has in relation particularly to
problems of annexation, The Municipal Board
Act gives the Ontario municipal board very
wide powers, and I would say that up until
now they have been perhaps necessarily wide
powers.
I have often thought, and I am firmly
convinced of this, that after a number of
years— and there have been a substantial
number of years— of the Ontario municipal
board dealing with problems of annexation
and the like, that the day has come in
Ontario when some of that power presently
exercised by the Ontario municipal board
should be written into the statutes of the
province.
I think we give the board too great a
power and too wide a power, and I am
convinced that the statutes themselves should
contain much of that which will guarantee
the rights, if you will, of the portion of the
people who are to be annexed and of those
who are doing the annexing.
There must be by this time, out of the
broad experience that we have had with
this problem, certain principles that can be
written into the law itself, into the statutes
of this province rather than continuing to
allow the Ontario municipal board to exer-
cise those powers continually.
I quite well believe that the Ontario muni-
cipal board will still have to have powers
in connection with annexation, but I am
persuaded that many of the powers that
they presently exercise should be written
into the statutes themselves so that all people
can see what are their fundamental rights
in respect to annexation.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: There is something
to be said on what the hon. leader of the
Opposition says. May I point this out, how-
ever, that in certain areas the principle of
annexation or amalgamation is still going to
have to be supported for some years to come.
But I admit also that there are areas where
perhaps annexation or amalgamation is not
the solution to the municipal problem which
exists. As a matter of fact, we have been
giving very serious study to empowering the
Ontario municipal board to do something,
shall we say, between a metropolitan form
of government and just straight annexation. It
is a very live question today, and it may be
that out of that study will come some clarifica-
tion of the powers of the Ontario municipal
board. I agree with the hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Vote 1,202 agreed to.
On vote 1,203:
Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to congratulate the hon. Minister and
some of his staff. We have a set-up in our
town now, The Department of Municipal
Affairs, with a gentleman in charge of it
who is an expert appraiser. We had a terrific
problem there with the municipality of
Shuniah and some of the other areas, who
could not afford to pay a good appraiser, and
as a result their appraisals were causing a
great deal of dissatisfaction among the people.
Now that department has taken hold and
assisted the municipalities in their appraising,
and today we have a fairly satisfied public
up there in all those surrounding munici-
palities.
I think it has been a great thing, and I want
to congratulate the hon. Minister, his Deputy
Minister, and his officials, and I want to pass
that on officially through him to Mr. Oliver,
who is his representative at the Head of the
Lakes. I commend the hon. Minister and Mr.
Oliver for their good work.
Mr. Whicher: Any relation to the hon.
leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Wardrope: Well, he is just as nice,
we know, personally, out of the House, as this
man is. I have a great deal of regard for
him too, that is, the hon. leader of the
Opposition, the same name.
Mr. Nixon: The hon. member is not a bad
old fellow himself.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, on vote 1,203:
there is an item there on vote 1,203, No. 2, to
make advances to and purchase debentures of
the improvement districts of Elliot Lake,
Manitouwadge, etc. Well, some discussion
took place this afternoon about the improve-
ment corporation. Why would it be necessary
to set aside $2.86 million, when they can get
their debentures approved by the Ontario
municipal board?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, they
cannot. The only purposes for which they can
borrow, generally speaking, from the Ontario
municipal improvement corporation are for
schools, sewers and water and drainage. Now
those are the main things, but these people
1176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have other than those problems. It is a new
community altogether, rising right out of
virgin territory.
Now since they have not yet reached the
stage in development where they have esta-
blished their credit in the open markets,
they cannot sell their debentures, hon. mem-
bers will understand, nor because of the
rules which apply to the Ontario municipal
improvement corporation they are unable to
sell their debentures to that Crown organiza-
tion.
So as a result we have made advances in
the case of Manitouwadge, I think some
$450,000, and every cent of that was
returned.
The same is true, I think, at Red Lake,
where we advanced $50,000. Now that has
been returned. It was for certain organiza-
tional purposes.
Here, in order to help Elliot Lake get on
its feet, where there are about 20,000 persons,
we have to advance certain monies to get
them organized, not only for school, water
and sewers, but shall we say for many other
purposes up there, to get the organization
going. When they have established their
credit, they will be able to sell their deben-
tures in the money markets of the world, but
right now they cannot. So we help Elliot
Lake, Manitouwadge, Bicroft, and others
which no doubt will come into existence
from time to time.
Mr. Thomas: An outright grant?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: We expect to get
the bulk of it back, as we did in the other
cases.
Mr. Oliver: The vote of $2.86 million in
capital payment, that is in addition to the $1.7
million that we have already voted in supple-
mentary amounts, is that right?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I believe it is, yes.
Mr. Oliver: So the total vote is $4.6 million
or $4.5 million?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I am advised that
is correct.
Mr. Reaume: On vote 1,203, I want to say
that I think the work the department is doing
in Elliott Lake is great work, great work,
but I was up there a week ago and apparent-
ly when anyone wants to buy property up
there, he has a hard time doing it.
Now, I am not finding fault with the treat-
ment that I got in the purchase of a piece of
property that I was trying to buy, but I under-
stand it is happening to other people as
well. But in order that the House might
know, on June 1, 1957, I purchased a piece
of property or thought I did. How it hap-
pened was, I walked into the offices up there,
or the offices of the town, asked about a
certain property, asked if they had an ap-
praised price on it, and they said yes. I
asked the official if he wanted to sell it and
he said yes. I asked him if he had any offers
in at that time, and he said no. I asked him
if "first come, first served?" and he said yes.
So he pulled out his offer to purchase, I signed
it, gave him a cheque, and he cashed the
cheque.
Then, some 7 weeks after that, along came
this cheque back again in the mail from Elliot
Lake, with no explanation at all as to why I
did not get the property.
Now I am not finding fault with that, I am
not finding fault with my own offer.
But I am finding fault with the facts con-
cerning the officials of the improvement dis-
trict up there, the board of trustees, or what-
ever they call them. Of course, one must
carry a card of the Tory party of the province
or he cannot get on that board, that is for
sure.
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): Is that
so?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: No, I do not think
they did.
Mr. Reaume: No, I did not think they did,
the hon. Minister can ask them if he wishes,
if that is of any interest to him. But I am
just wondering what one has to do in Elliot
Lake in order to buy property?
Mr. Maloney: Is that why hon. Lester
Pearson is going to lose?
Mr. Reaume: Hon. Mr. Pearson is not going
to lose. What is the hon. member talking
about?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I will answer the
question of the hon. member. In his own
particular case, I had a personal discussion
with him, and I think he appreciates now
what happened.
Mr. Reaume: I have not heard yet.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I understand there
were persons in touch with the hon. member
who told him that the area which he hoped
to purchase had been used by this company
for parking or other purposes in connection
with that development, and therefore, they
did not want to use it for the purpose he
MARCH 24, 1958
1177
had in mind, and therefore the offer was
rejected and his money was returned.
The hon. member has asked me about the
mechanics of buying a piece of property up
in Elliot Lake. It is my understanding that
an offer is made to the board of trustees. If
the property he has in mind is zoned property
and so on, the offer is accepted and he is
notified. Then the by-law accepting the offer
has to come back to our department for
approval. That is the regular routine.
But when the by-law with respect to his
particular piece of property came down to our
department, it was discovered, after checking
by one of our men, Mr. Carter, who has had
the set-up of this special projects branch, that
it was not the best use in the interest of
that community for that piece of property,
and so, on his recommendation, the said by-
law was not approved, and the property is
now being used for its best purpose. I
think the hon. member understands that.
Mr. Reaume: I just want to point out that
the hon. Minister is wrong. That property
was properly zoned at the time for dwell-
ings, not parking lots, not fish stores— dwell-
ings—and I agreed at the time I purchased
that, if approved by the hon. Minister or
whoever has to approve it, I would put
dwellings on it.
Now I understand, concerning the purpose
for which it was originally intended, it is
not being used for that purpose at all. Now
what do they do, have a plan, have a zone
one day, and the final day when the other
fellow happens in there, they change it and
alter it? I abided by every rule of the game.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: May I answer the
hon. member in part by saying this: on
September 18, 1957, a letter was sent to him
from the department expressing regret that
he was misinformed, that it was intended
that Block D could be built upon and that
it was for sale to the first bidder. He re-
ceived that letter on September 18, 1957.
Mr. Reaume: My hon. friends, it was on
June 1, 1957, that I issued my cheque and
so I hear about it in the fall, eh? That is
a fine way of doing things.
But the point I am trying to make is this,
I do not care about that piece of property
at all, but I am worrying about this. Is the
policy in Elliot Lake "first come, first served,"
provided, of course, that one abides by all
of the terms? Well, I understand it is not.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: If the hon. member
can show me that is incorrect, I would be
glad to meet with him and discuss it. We
are trying to run this strictly according to
the zoning and the ordinary rules of pro-
cedure of making an offer and having the
offer accepted, with the added stipulation
it must be approved by The Department
of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Reaume: I just want to say this in
way of advice, and I am not being critical,
that the hon. Minister should go up there.
It is common gossip around the whole of
the town that if one does not belong to the
Tory party, he just cannot buy property in
there at all.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, I want to say
Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely not true and
so far as the membership of the board of
trustees is concerned, as he knows, they
have company representatives on there. I
do not know what their political connection
is and I do not care. What I am concerned
about is that they do a good job for the
interest of those people in that area.
Mr. Oliver: Well, one interesting point
in connection with this, according to the
hon. Minister's own version, is that it would
seem to me that it is better to have build-
ings according to plan, whether it is apart-
ment houses or what it is on this piece of
ground, and he says that it is being used
for a parking lot. Now surely it would be
better to have apartment houses rather than
a parking space. There must be other places
to park cars, except on that particular lot.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: It was originally,
I am told, designed for open space, whether
it be for a parking space or a park for the
kiddies to run in. Now when it was looked
at in the eye of the hon. member for Essex
North who made the offer, he thought that
they wanted to sell, he made a legitimate
offer and they accepted.
But when we looked into it, as is our
duty, we found that this was not the best
use for the property. The board of trustees
agreed. Now the hon. member came to
see me, I was trying to help him complete
this deal-
Mr. Reaume: He certainly helped me,
all right.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, does the hon.
member not admit that I tried to help him
complete this deal? Certainly I did, and
when I found out from Mr. Carter that this,
according to the trustees, was not the best
use for the property, I had to tell him that
1178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the by-law was not going to be approved,
and the deal fell through.
Mr. Reaume: Well, the truth of it is this—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member is
not suggesting that I am not telling the truth?
Please!
Mr. Reaume: No, I want to explain it to the
hon. Minister. Actually, the offer that I made
was made on June 1, the second offer was
made 10 days after that. Officials at your
department notified certain interested people
that I was after the property.
Now, the property was for sale when I
walked in the office at Elliot Lake, the man
gave me the offer to purchase, I signed the
offer to purchase and paid him. Now, cer-
tainly he knew at that time that the property
was up for sale, but after they found out
who was going to buy it they did not approve
of it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, no. That is not right.
Mr. Reaume: No, that would not be right, I
know.
Mr. Nixon: Just before we leave this vote,
Mr. Chairman, are we to understand the hon.
Prime Minister to say that this Ontario muni-
cipal improvement corporation was loaning
the money or buying the bonds at the rate of
$50 million a year?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, I think that it was
running up about that high.
Mr. Nixon: Well, according to their own
budget statement, page 33—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Another $100 million inas-
much as I got authority for this recently.
Mr. Nixon: Well, it only totals up to $37,732
million here.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it was running around
—last fall— $4 million to $5 million, some
place in there. We were—
Mr. Nixon: This was up to December 31
last.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The reason was be-
cause, at the end of the fiscal year, that $50
million would have been loaned out or used
to buy the debentures, and it would be well
to have more money in, and an additional
amount of $100 million was put in there.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I will be very glad to give
my hon. friend a list of all the loans made.
Now they are very sparingly made, I can
assure him.
Mr. Oliver: They are certainly not spending
$50 million a year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say this, that they
would, at the tempo of last fall they would
run to $50 million a year.
Mr. Oliver: What does his statement mean
then, in his budget speech?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it means that the
tempo of loans would run $50 million a year
and perhaps exceed that at the rate of
growth.
Vote 1,203 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move that the committee
rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
The Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report certain resolutions and begs
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Tomorrow we will have
the estimates of The Department of the
Provincial Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE LIQUOR CONTROL ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves second reading
of Bill No. 161, "An Act to amend The
Liquor Control Act."
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that that is the Act
that has to do with amending the Act in order
that one might have liquor and beer on the
back porch or front porch, in the tent, even
on the lawn.
Well, I was reading the bill and I was
wondering— if one can have liquor in a yacht,
room in a hotel, out in the back porch or front
porch— why one could not have it in a bunk
house in the camps of the mines, for instance,
or in the bushes where the men are there
cutting wood?
I would think that is their home, after all
they are staying there, and why would it not
be as reasonable that those men working up
in the bush might have a bottle if they wish
in the bunk houses as much as hon. members
or I could have one, for instance, at the hotel?
I am just wondering if we could amend the
Act in order that it would allow that?
MARCH 24, 1958
1179
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
No, we cannot amend it to make any change
in that way because of the definition of bunk-
houses, according to The Labour Act. If
there are self-contained rooms in the bunk-
houses for one or two men, where there is a
door or lock on the room, they can have the
liquor in there just the same as one has it
in a hotel room. But no person would sug-
gest that the old caboose is the right name
for it, that with a bunkhouse with 50 or 60
men sleeping in it, they should be able to
bring in 50 or 60 bottles of liquor a night and
every person be on the job the next day.
Now there is reason to all things, but
there is no reason for that, and the people of
Ontario would not stand for it if this govern-
ment did make that amendment.
Mr. Reaume: I do not know, they can haul
it into the Royal York hotel by the case or
truck if they want to and they can have 5
people in a room or 10, if they wish.
Now, there are not 50 people in a bunk-
house, at least not the ones I have visited,
generally there are 5 to 6 people in it, and
certainly— I cannot for the life of me see why
not, if these people wanted to have a drink,
why we should stop them from having it in
the bunkhouses.
Mind this, if a miner wants to get drunk
he does not have to get drunk there, or if
anyone does, he does not have to go to a
bunkhouse, and so I do not think the fact
that a miner has a bottle under his bed is
going to bring about any more drinking in
the mines than is going on right now.
The only thing I think that we ought to
do, is to make it fair and proper, so they
might have a bottle in there if they wish.
Now I am not advertising in order that they
might sell more stuff, I only think it equitable
and fair that the government treat the miner
and the bush men just the same as they treat
the fellow at the Royal York hotel.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The bush man and the
man going out for the Hydro, clearing the
rights of way, can have a canteen, and the
men can be served in the canteen but I do not
think that any person would suggest that the
marquee which they sleep in, which would
be as I think— I have had some experience
with them— with 40 or 50 men sleeping in
a tent, that each man should not be allowed
to have his liquor in the marquee.
But they can have a canteen in connection
with that, and that it what they had in the
past, and there are no complaints and there
has been no requests from these people to
have anything different. Things have been
going along nice and smoothly.
Mr. Reaume: Well, I want to say that up
in Elliot Lake, in trailers, there are hundreds
of them, there are 10 or 15 people in a trailer
and they can have it in the trailer, but
across the street in the bunkhouse, no. Now, I
think that it is a foolish Act, it is real
foolish, and I think that it is time the gov-
ernment sat down and altered it. It just does
not make sense.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
ACT, 1957
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister):
Perhaps we had better hold that and take the
next order.
CHARGING OF TOLLS ON
CERTAIN BRIDGES
Hon. J. N. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 175, "An Act to provide for the
charging of tolls on certain bridges."
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister if he has
definitely in mind the Burlington skyway at
the present time.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is mentioned in the
budget, is it not?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is mentioned among a
number of bills for bridges that might be
tolled. But there are no definite plans for
tolling any bridge in particular, although there
is no doubt that international bridges would
be tolled as they have been.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that I am
right when I say that outside of international
bridges, this is the first time that provincial
legislation has provided for the paying of a
toll on bridges, like the Burlington skyway
and others that we may have in mind at that
minute.
This, then, is a new departure, and it is one
to which great consideration should be given.
We are embarking on an entirely new venture,
we are charging for the first time in the prov-
ince's history, the motorist who travels over
a bridge, built by the province of Ontario and
inside the borders of the province of Ontario,
1180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and somehow or other I would hope— I was
hoping— that we could avoid this particular
type of charge on our motorists.
Now, I would like to hear the hon. Prime
Minister on this. It is not likely, I would
say, that there will be many bridges of this
type in the province, so would it not be
possible to finance these one or two bridges,
or whatever there may be, and allow the
motorists to pass over those bridges without
a toll charge? It seems to me that this is
a departure that we do not welcome, and
we are not convinced that is absolutely neces-
sary.
Now what is the view of the hon. Prime
Minister or somebody in respect to charging
for going over bridges?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to
my hon. friend that this matter, as he knows,
has received very great consideration on the
part of the roads committee which sat for a
couple of years on that subject, and I think
that this bridge was included in the recom-
mendations of the committee of toll bridges.
I would say to my hon. friend that it
would appear the hon. Minister of Highways
can give a more detailed explanation of it
than I would hope to. It looks like this,
that on the Welland canal there would be
at least two and perhaps three bridges or
tunnels either over or under the canal. Now
remember, that would, of course, include the
Welland area and the St. Catharines area as
part of them.
We are about, I think, on the Niagara
frontier, on the border of very great
changes in the highway system from this
standpoint. Plans are now being made to
connect the New York thruway which is I
suppose the greatest highway on the con-
tinent as a matter of fact. Down that high-
way will come the traffic from the American
west, the Chicago area, Michigan down to
connect with the New York thruway, that is
being connected into our province, I mean
according to present plans, some place
around Queenston I think, in that area.
With the connection of that thruway with
our system here, it is going to make the
entrances into Canada, into Ontario, at that
point obviously very much easier.
The Burlington skyway will involve an
expenditure of around $17 million. I would
say this, that either the overpasses or under-
passes of the Welland canal would be of
the same order, something of the same order,
so one can see we can get from $50 million
to $70 million invested there very, very
easily.
We made this deal at Burlington with the
federal government and it is all public, that
they should build a new lift bridge to
combine the road and railway traffic at Bur-
lington over the canal. That would remove
the obstacles to the entrance to Hamilton
harbour, it would remove the present railway
bridge which has an abutment, I think they
call it, right in the centre of the canal, which
is really highly dangerous, it would remove
those things and provide for one of the lift
bridges that would be entirely safe for navi-
gation.
That would give a much better passage
over the canal than there is now, or there
ever has been, I understand. That would be
available to the public, that is a free bridge
if they want to use it.
There would be similarly, as the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley) knows, in
the St. Catharines- Welland area, the present
bridges and perhaps improved bridges that
would be free bridges.
Now the question arises is this, as to
whether with the building of the connection
to the American or to the New York thru-
way— which will of course be a toll entrance
—whether that should be tied into these
bridges or underpasses at the Welland canal
and the Burlington bridge.
I would say that it is just about as simple
as this. If the tolls there fit into that system,
remember that is where we are going to get
a very large proportion of the 5 million or
6 million American cars that come into this
province. According to the estimates, the
tolling of the Burlington skyway would pro-
duce a considerable item of revenue.
Of course, the idea was this, and I think
the hon. Minister explained this, that addi-
tional revenue could be used in the areas
that are affected by these tolls for the im-
provement of their road connections and their
road communications.
The city of Hamilton is up against some
big problems, as my hon. friend from Hamil-
ton East (Mr. Elliott), I think it is, knows.
A system of bypasses should be built around
Hamilton, particularly on the west side, and I
would say on the north and on the south
sides as well.
As a matter of fact, the skyway is not of
great benefit to the Hamilton area. But some
things would be of very great benefit to them,
in the building of the bypass communica-
tion about that great city. Now those are
some of the things that are in contemplation,
and I would say that decisions on them, I
think, would make the solutions to some of
MARCH 24, 1958
1181
these problems that we are up against on
the frontier.
I would say to the city of Sault Ste. Marie,
we have offered with the state of Michigan
to go ahead and build our half of the bridge
and finance it with payment of tolls, we
are facilitating the building of a new bridge
or bridges at Rainy River or Fort Frances.
Mr. Oliver: How about Pembroke?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The bridge across the
river there is being built free of charge.
That is not included.
I am going up there to have a look at it
the day after tomorrow.
Mr. Gisborn: There may be argument, Mr.
Speaker, for toll bridges in certain districts.
But where we have one, such as the skyway,
which is in close proximity to a large city
such as Hamilton, it is nothing less than dis-
criminatory to that section of the people.
There are a large number of people who work
in industry in Hamilton, who go between
Toronto and Hamilton, and they will have to
pay the extra charge. Yet the group that lives
in the peninsula or the west will get back and
forward to work without the charge. I think
it is discriminatory to a certain group, and at
least where it is close to a large city like
that, and where it can become discriminatory
that it should be paid for out of general tax.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the
principle of this bill. I was very interested
to hear the hon. leader of the Opposition
expressing opposition, as he did this after-
noon. The only thing wrong with his com-
ments is that they are about two years too
late, because hon. members of his party
joined with the Conservatives in support of
the proposition of tolling bridges when I
attempted to fight the battle alone on the
toll roads committee. Now the chickens are
coming home to roost.
There is another point that puzzles me
about this. I wish I could see some con-
sistency in government policy with regard
to tolling. For example, the hon. Minister
how tells us that there is a prospect of 3
bridges over the Welland canal and that
they may be tolled. It seems to me that
this is the grossest kind of injustice. The
people living along the Welland canal have
to face the most fantastic kind of traffic
problems— I have had occasion in the last
couple of weeks to travel twice throughout
that area and I suspect they cannot be
matched for traffic problems and, of course,
now they are nothing like they are in the
summertime when the canal is in operation.
This is a federal project, and therefore
the federal government should be assuming
some responsibility. As I recall, the Con-
servatives on the toll roads committee, when
there was a Liberal government at Ottawa,
placed a great deal of emphasis on the propo-
sition that this problem should be laid on
the doorstep of the federal government. They
are collecting the tolls and they should do
something about solving the problems created
by the inconveniences of having the canal
there. That sounded like a good argument
then, and I suggest it is still a good argu-
ment.
But what is the government doing now?
They are going to absolve their friends in
Ottawa of any responsibility and they are
now going to put up toll bridges— 3 toll
bridges along the Welland canal.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out that they
are building the other bridges, the federal
people are.
Mr. MacDonald: What other bridges?
Hon. Mr. Frost: A new bridge at Bur-
lington.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, just a minute. I
am talking about the Welland area. Do
not drag in Burlington. The hon. Prime
Minister can draw in more red herrings in
5 minutes than anybody I know.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, all right then.
Mr. MacDonald: The problem in Welland
area is that we have had a long-standing prob-
lem, the basis of which comes from a situation
which falls within the jurisdiction of the
federal government. I submit that instead of
putting 3 toll bridges over the Welland canal,
toward which the people of that area will
have to pay, the federal government should
do something about it.
Here, as I want to point out in other cases,
we have this added consideration: people
have had to face inconveniences, for years, in
fact, in some instances, for generations. Now
they are going to be given the facilities that
they should have had years ago, but you say
to them: "You have been inconvenienced for
years, now we take the inconvenience away,
but you are going to pay an extra charge."
I submit that this is basically unfair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, of course, on the
other hand we are able to give them greater
facilities with the money we get—
1182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: I know, I know, but just
let me show the hon. Prime Minister how
inconsistent he is, if I may pursue this theme.
We discussed for a time on the toll roads
committee the proposition of tolling the
causeway up in the Rainy River area. One
of the arguments advanced—and it had a
degree of validity— was the same argument as
down here in the Niagara peninsula, that
people who used the Burlington skyway will
be a large proportion of Americans and why
should they not pay part of the cost of using
this?
If you build a causeway I am willing to
predict right now that a very significant pro-
portion of the people, who will be on the
causeway up in the Rainy River area, are
going to be American, but for their own
mysterious, devious local reason this govern-
ment has decided that they are not going to
toll the causeway.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, no, it is in the bill-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, is it in the bill now?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Why, certainly it is in the
bill.
Mr. MacDonald: My mistake, my mistake;
if it is in the bill, they have changed their
tune on this again.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, no, the hon. mem-
ber-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, yes, the hon. Prime
Minister has. In the toll roads committee,
Mr. Speaker— just let me bring you up-to-
date— this government excluded the cause-
that are going to be tolled.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It is included.
Mr. MacDonald: And now they bring it
back in— it is going to be tolled. They change
their minds so, often that, if I cannot keep
up with them, I submit that there is at least
some justification for my plight.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Let the hon. member not
get hoarse, now. He needs his voice for
tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: The tolls committee with
8 or 11 Conservatives on it, for their own
good reason at that time, decided that the
causeway should not be tolled.
Now this government has changed its mind
and it is going to be included in the roads
that are going to be tolled.
Mr. Thomas: Maybe, maybe.
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe, I know this is all
maybe. But once we pass this bill the "maybe"
is going to become a reality, and let us not
kid ourselves. I can see by the look on the
hon. Provincial Secretary's face that he
acknowledges this.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Let him not get hoarse
now, he needs his voice for tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: My voice is okay, never
fret. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in summar-
izing my comments on this, that I think in
most instances the people have suffered an
inconvenience, and that they should not now
be given an extra charge for the next 25
years when they are relieved of the inconveni-
ence.
I think it is a valid point that the hon.
leader of the Opposition made but I wish his
party had been in there fighting when we
started to fight this principle— that we avoid
imposing these tolls within the province. I
am willing to make an exception on inter-
national bridges because I think that is a
different situation.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
if I might say something on this subject,
particularly as far as the Burlington skyway
is concerned. Out of some 45 elected mem-
bers in the Hamilton area, provincial, federal,
municipal and county council, to my knowl-
edge there is only one and possibly two hon.
members who are not in favour of tolls.
Hon. members will find that why they sup-
port so strongly the other hon. members is
because we need a northwest entrance
around the city.
The people in Hamilton do not expect the
province of Ontario to go to the expense
of spending some $17 million at one end of
the city then turn around and spend possibly
another $12 million or $15 million at the
other end for the convenience of the people,
when there are so many other areas in the
province of Ontario that also need some
consideration.
As far as the people going to Aldershot and
Burlington and that area, I might say that
those people, although some of them might
be working people, by and large, that happens
to be a very high class residential area and
I would suggest that the people who live in
that area and travel back and forth daily
could well afford to pay any of the tolls
that we might impose on them.
I also understand, and this was by the
recommendation of the committee that if
tolls were imposed, consideration would be
given to an annual pass at a very nominal
MARCH 24, 1958
1183
fee, so that if one wanted to take it at even
$5 or $10 one would find out that by daily
trips it would cost less than one cigarette a
day for anybody going back and forth over
it.
Certainly the people who live in that area
can well afford to pay that, particularly in
view of the fact that there is a very nice, a
very substantial revenue coming back to all
of the people of Ontario through revenues
that would be derived from the American
tourists.
M
I for one would very much support the
Burlington skyway toll simply because all of
the people who live in the other part of
Burlington, namely around the Queen Eliza-
beth Way, who are largely working class
people, will have a decent access, because
revenues derived from this bridge would make
it available to them, and we need a northwest
entrance, and if there are a few people— and
I would suggest that this is only a matter of
a 1,000 or 2,000 people — who would be
travelling back and forth from that bridge
daily, they could well afford to pay it.
Therefore the working man — and I say
the working man because in the area of the
Queen Elizabeth Way and Aldershot they
are working men in the true sense of the
word— who probably earns less than $100 a
week, and that entrance up there to him
would be of far more advantage. It is a
greater asset to the people in Hamilton to
have that one built and have the other one
tolled, rather than not toll the Burlington sky-
way and have us do without the entrance to
the northwest part of the city which is so
badly needed.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT, 1957
Hon. W. K. Warrender moves second
reading of Bill No. 167, "An Act to amend
The Water Resources Commission Act, 1957."
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): On the second
reading, could the hon. Minister tell us what
this-
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs ) : I gave a rather lengthy ex-
planation-
Mr. Nixon: Could he just tell us a little
of what it means. We have 200 bills here.
We cannot remember them all.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: On the first part,
as the explanation says— and I think that these
are all self-explanatory— the subsection makes
it an offence to contravene an order of the
commission in respect to the collection, reduc-
tion and so on of water for public purposes.
There the meaning of the word "order" is
broadened.
Then in section 5, which has to do with the
supervision of water, the duty of the com-
mission is broadened here, the supervision
of all service of ground water as a source of
water supply, and to examination of all
service and ground water for pollution, and in
number 6 it is to insure that water in
reservoirs is included in the waters, the
pollution of which is prohibited.
Before, the word "reservoir" was not in
there and the commission thought there might
be cases where the reservoir water might be
polluted and that is why that is there.
There is a section here, where under the
existing section a licence is required to fill
a well as well as carry on business as well
drillers. The amendment abolishes the licence
to drill a well, but we have changed the
licence to carry on business as the well driller.
There is section 8 where the powers of the
commission give the commission control of
water works undertaken without the required
approval of the commission.
Then, in subsection 2, it clarifies that the
commission may refuse to grant its approval
to a water works or impose conditions to
its approval in the public interest.
That by the way, was in the public health
section, I understand, and was merely taken
over in here and broadened for the commis-
sion purposes.
And then in section 9 the amendment
requires that the commission be advised of
the location of the waters into which it is
proposed to discharge sewage when the ap-
proval of sewage works is sought.
I think that is self-explanatory because
the commission wants to know just what
waters might be contaminated by the sewage,
and to make sure that the sewage is prop-
erly treated.
Then in subsections 2 and 3, there are
provisions respecting sewage works, corre-
sponding to the same section previously in
respect to water works. The other are self-
explanatory, I think.
Mr. Nixon: Is this the first that we have
had legislation requiring anyone who wants
to drill a well to get a licence from the
commission?
1184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That was in The
Well Drillers' Act and it has now been incor-
porated into this Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METRO-
POLITAN TORONTO ACT, 1953
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 180, "An Act to amend The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act,
1953."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
the municipal problems which exist in that
area, to decide whether a metropolitan form
of government might be the solution to that
problem, whether it might be annexation or
amalgamation or some solution somewhere
in between those two extremes— the extremes
of super-metropolitan government or the other
extreme of straight annexation.
THE TRAVELLING SHOWS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 183, "An Act to repeal The Trav-
elling Shows Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT
Hon. Mr. Warrender moves second reading
of Bill No. 181, "An Act to amend The
Ontario Municipal Board Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Speaker, I
think that I gave a rather full explanation on
first reading. However, may I say that these
two sections are quite important, and I
will give a further explanation, as it says
here the amendment provides for the ap-
pointment of an acting member who has
special qualifications to assist the board in
respect to any particular application.
The point there is that, as someone has
said today, the members of the municipal
board are quite busy, and it was thought
by the chairman of the municipal board,
in selecting a panel of persons who have a
special knowledge or training, that those per-
sons on occasion might be appointed mem-
bers of the board for that particular hearing,
that they would bring a new look at
some of these problems which are facing the
board. It would also help to take the burden
off the members of the board who have so
many of these hearings to conduct.
And then in the second part it is authorized
that the board, upon request of the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,
may conduct an inquiry into the reorganiza-
tion of municipal governments in any desig-
nated area.
That is the point which I made this after-
noon, Mr. Speaker, that the municipal board
can go into a designated area, designated
by the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor-
in-Council, and the board would therefore
have the right or the power to look into all
GENERAL WELFARE ASSISTANCE TO
PERSONS
Hon. L. P. Cecile moves second reading
of Bill No. 176, "An Act to provide general
welfare assistance to persons."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO FUEL BOARD ACT, 1954
Hon. J. W. Spooner moves second reading
of Bill No. 178, "An Act to amend The
Ontario Fuel Board Act, 1954."
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): Mr.
Speaker, Would now be the time? I was
not in for the first reading of this bill, sec-
tion 10, where one can appeal from the
judgment of the board of arbitration to the
municipal board.
Mr. Speaker, I wondered if there should
not be some protection to the property owner,
because the company could carry the property
owner to the municipal boards and to the
supreme court and he could not afford to
go to those courts. I would say that if he
would settle, possibly without going to that,
if the corporation appealed it, I am afraid
that the farmer would be frightened to go
on and he would settle it.
Another thing in the same section, if—
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
May I interrupt the hon. member for a
moment. I think, the hon. member is dis-
cussing Bill No. 182, which is The Gas Pipe
Lines Act.
Mr. Janes: Well, sir, is not this same ruling
in the same section applied?
MARCH 24, 1958
1185
Hon. Mr. Spooner: The sections are not
numbered the same. If the hon. member
will let me give the explanation then, I think
that he could have his answers.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to give a short
explanation of this bill.
Section 2 of the bill gives to the Ontario
fuel board the authority to extend to persons
the right to restore gas in any area which
has been designated by the board as a natural
gas storage area, and provides for the pay-
ment of compensation and damages resulting
from the act of storing gas, the manner of
determining compensation, the appointment
of a board of arbitration, the practices and
procedures to be followed with respect to
arbitration, and appeals to the Ontario muni-
cipal board from the board of arbitration, and
an appeal to the Ontario court of appeal with
respect to compensation.
Section 3 or the bill provides that an indus-
trial user of natural gas must hold a permit
if the gas is being used for space heating.
Heretofore only residential and commercial
users were required to hold a permit for
space heating.
Section 4 of the bill provides that no
person, on and after January 1, 1959, shall
drill or sink a well unless he holds a permit
for such purpose. Under the present legisla-
tion a permit is not required. The purpose
therefore of this amendment is to enforce a
better system of control of the drilling and
completion of wells in the province.
A subsection of section 4 provides for the
issue of a board label for use on gas and oil
appliances where it is not expedient to acquire
a seal of approval or label of an authorized
testing agency.
Another subsection provides for control of
the installation and use of pressure vessels
for liquefied petroleum gas having a capacity
of 2,000 imperial gallons or less subject to the
provisions of The Boiler and Pressure Vessels
Act and The Gasoline Handling Act.
Another subsection of section 5 provides
for the issue of licences, permits and labels
under any of the provisions of the Act.
Subsection 2 of section 5 provides that
the board may, by regulation with the
approval of the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor-in-Council, adopt by reference in
whole or in part, and may make such changes
as the board considers necessary to any code
or standard adopted or sponsored by the
Canadian gas association, the Canadian stan-
dands association, the American gas associa-
tion, the national fire protection association
or the Dominion board of insurance under-
writers.
Section 6 of the bill, which I think is one
of the most important sections of the bill,
provides that every order of the board
heretofore made that purports to grant to a
person the right to inject or store gas in a
designated natural gas storage area shall
deem to have been made under the authority
granted in section 2 of this 1958 amendment
Act, and shall include the power of requiring
the payment of compensation with respect to
petroleum and natural gas rights and com-
pensation for any damages resulting from
the exercise of authority given under any
order of the board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a retroactive
section which validates any orders made by
the board pursuant to the designation of
natural gas storage areas or any order respect-
ing the storing of natural gas.
Section 7 of the bill provides that the Act
will come into force on the day that it receives
Royal assent, except section 3, which is the
section which provides that an industrial user
of natural gas must hold a permit if the gas
is to be used for space heating.
I would be glad to answer any questions
that the hon. members have.
Mr. Janes: The only criticism that I have
of the bill at the present time— and I might
say to the hon. Minister that, since I have
finished reading over with him, I have been
looking at it and discussing it — the only
objection that I would have would be that
it puts a property owner at the mercy of a
large corporation. They can keep on appeal-
ing any decision in characters of municipal
boards, and included in that is the supreme
court, and the property owner would have to
provide himself with a lawyer and it might
run into a lot of money, far more than the
property is worth.
I think that there should be a check made
there, and I would think that either the
corporation or the department should pay the
expense of that appeal. Other than that, I
think that the bill is good.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, which I
appreciate very much, I can only say that we
have attempted in the new bill to provide
the greatest and the broadest amount of pro-
tection for all parties concerned. Of course,
any legislation has to work both ways.
We will attempt, through the method of
arbitration that we are setting up in the first
stage, that there should be a very minimum
of expense involved. I would suggest that
1186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
only those cases that are of some important
amount would go to appeal, and the parties
concerned would have to decide for them-
selves just how important the case was.
Actually, the method of arbitration that we
have, or recommend, is new, in connection
with this type of legislation, and we hope that
it will work satisfactorily. Of course, if it
does not work, the errors in it will show up
within a year or so, and we can then do the
necessary thing in the way of amendments.
Mr. Janes: I would like to congratulate
the hon. Minister on the efforts and work
that he has put on this bill and the pipe
lines bill. He has done an excellent job, and
I am very proud and happy about what he
has been doing, and I think that I will pass
up that objection as I have the same objec-
tion to each bill. But I will pass it up and
discuss it with the hon. Minister further, in
private.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
1*11.
THE UPPER CANADA COLLEGE ACT
Hon. W. J. Dunlop moves second reading
of Bill No. 179, "An Act to amend The
Upper Canada College Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole.
Clerk of the House: Resolution by hon.
Mr. Roberts, Resolved that:
the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council does
hereby authorize to raise from time to time
in way of loan such sum or sums of money
as may be deemed expedient for any or
all of the following purposes:
For the public service,
For works carried on by commissioners on
behalf of Ontario.
For discharging any indebtedness or
•obligation of Ontario, or for reimbursing
the consolidated revenue fund for any
monies expended in discharging any in-
debtedness or obligation of Ontario, or
making any payments authorized or re-
quired by any Act to be made out of the
consolidated revenue fund, or for reim-
bursing the consolidated revenue fund for
.any payments so authorized or required,
and for carrying on the public works
authorized by the Legislature, provided
that the principal amount of any securities
issued and sold for the purpose of raising
any sum or sums of money by way of loan
authorized by this Act, together with the
amount of any temporary loans raised
under this Act to the extent that such
temporary loans are from time to time out-
standing or have been paid from the pro-
ceeds of securities issued and sold under
the authority of The Financial Adminis-
tration Act, 1954, for the purpose of such
payment shall not exceed in the aggregate
$250 million.
That any such sum or sums may be
raised in any manner provided by The
Financial Administration Act, 1954 and
shall be raised upon the credit of the con-
solidated revenue fund and shall be charge-
able thereupon
as provided by Bill No. 165, An Act to raise
money on the credit of the consolidated
revenue fund.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
inform the House that the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor (Mr. Mackay) having
been informed on the subject matter of the
proposed resolution recommends it to the
consideration of the House.
Resolution concurred in.
ESTATE OF
MELVILLE ROSS GOODERHAM,
KATHLEEN ISABEL DROPE TRUST,
AND CHARLOTTE ROSS GRANT TRUST
House in committee on Bill No. 29, An Act
respecting the estate of Melville Ross Gooder-
ham, the Kathleen Isabel Drope trust and the
Charlotte Ross Grant trust.
Mr. R. Macaulay (Riverdale): Mr. Chair-
man, I thought I might just say a word or
two about this bill so that it might perhaps
be more intelligible to the hon. members of
the House.
This is a private member's bill which was
introduced for a specific purpose and this is
the purpose: Mr. Gooderham, who was the
founder of the Manufacturers' Life Company,
died in 1951. He was the owner of, amongst
other assets, 68,000 shares of Manufacturers'
Life Company and he provided in one or
more of his trusts in his will that these shares
could not be sold for a 10-year period. That
would carry it to 1961.
MARCH 24, 1958
1187
At the time that Mr. Gooderham died,
the law of Canada was this, that a company
could not, what is called in law, mutualize.
a company such as an insurance company
could not, what is called in law, mutualize.
That means that the company buys all of the
shares back from its shareholders, and the
shareholders in the future are nothing more
than the policyholders in the company, so
that if there are to be any profits or dividends
they will be given back to the policyholders
Tather than the public, so that in short the
policyholders of the company are the share-
holders of the company.
Now I am confident that when one reads
Mr. Gooderham's will, that had the law
been when Mr. Gooderham wrote his will,
or when he died, that he thought the Manu-
facturers' Life Company could have been
turned into a mutual insurance company, he
would not have provided a 10-year period
during which the shares could not be sold.
Now as it is, the Americans have shown a
very great interest in Canadian insurance
companies, and one of the fundamental rea-
sons for it is that we have much higher
requirements for stability of funds put aside
according to regulation of the inspector of
insurance in Ottawa than do American
insurance companies. Americans are buying
stock in Canadian insurance companies rather
heavily, or they were until recently, they may
not be now, I am not familiar with the present
facts.
In order to keep Canadian insurance
companies mutualized in Canadian hands,
now is the time to permit the Manufacturers'
Life Company to mutualize, but in order
to do so, the company has to buy— it has to
succeed in buying— at least 50 per cent, of all
of the shares outstanding in the company.
Mr. Gooderham's estate holds about 47 per
cent, or 48 per cent., and it would have made
it virtually impossible for the Manufacturers'
Life Company to mutualize so long as these
shares were held by the Gooderham estate and
the Gooderham estate could not sell them.
And so, two or three years in advance by
this legislation, the Gooderham estate is
given legal permission to sell the shares back
to the Manufacturers' Life Company so that
it may mutualize, and thus the company will
become, as are many other Canadian insur-
ance companies today, a mutual insurance
company. That is the purpose of this
legislation.
This bill was sent to the committee of the
judges of the supreme court who approved of
it and there is a report I think in the Votes
and Proceedings, I do not recall on what
page, saying they think the bill is in the
public interest, and also there were repre-
sented all parties who could have any in-
terest in the Gooderham estate, and they
have all consented to the enactment of the
legislation.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 29 reported.
THE MORTGAGES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 61, An Act
to amend The Mortgages Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 61 reported.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 65, An
Act to amend The Land Titles Act.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 65 reported.
THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 131, An
Act to amend The Department of Municipal
Affairs Act.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to move an amendment. I move
that Bill No. 131, An Act to amend The
Department of Municipal Affairs Act, be
amended by adding thereto the following
as section 2, by re-numbering the present
sections 2, 3, 4, as sections 3, 4 and 5.
Section 2: clause (f) of section 9 of The
Department of Municipal Affairs Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof "or
upon the government and administration of
municipal affairs in any municipality or muni-
cipalities" so that the clause shall read as
follows :
(f) Study, report, and advise upon the
system of municipal institutions and the
government and the administration of muni-
cipal affairs or upon the government and
administration of municipal affairs in any
municipality or municipalities.
This amendment provides that The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs may study, report
and advise upon the government and ad-
1188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ministration of any municipality of munici-
palities.
As I indicated in my few words this after-
noon, where such cases develop in the prov-
ince such as Manitouwadge, Elliot Lake, Bi-
croft and so on, this will give us the power
to go in there and make a study of their
needs and to advise them accordingly.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3, formerly section 2, agreed to.
Section 4, formerly section 3, agreed to.
Section 5, formerly section 4, agreed to.
Bill No. 131, as amended, reported.
THE POWER COMMISSION ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 110, An
Act to amend The Power Commission Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 110 reported.
THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 126, An
Act to amend The Farm Products Marketing
Act.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, before this
section 7 is reported, may I ask the hon.
Minister this: since this legalizes what were
illegal procedures in the instance of the wheat
vote, does that mean that the wheat vote can.
be challenged? ;•,...
Hon. W. A. Goodfellow (Minister of Agri-
culture): I notice that I have not the Act
before me, but there is a section there that
all plans in effect, on Royal assent, become
legalized so that if there was any question
over the wheat vote, as soon as Royal assent
is given to this amendment it automatically
stands.
Section 7 agreed to.
Bill No. 126 reported.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE EXPENSES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. Ill, An
Act to amend The Administration of Justice
Expenses Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. Ill reported.
THE LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 114, The
Libel and Slander Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 114 reported.
THE MINING ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 124, An
Act to amend The Mining Act.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 124 reported.
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT, 1957
House in committee on Bill No. 125, An
Act to amend The Milk Industry Act, 1957.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed tor
Bill No. 125 reported.
STORAGE OF FARM PRODUCE
IN GRAIN ELEVATORS
House in committee on Bill No. 127, An
Act to regulate the storage of farm produce
in grain elevators.
Sections 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 127 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move the
committee do rise and report certain bills with
and certain bills without amendment.
Motion agreed to. ,
Mr. Chairman: The committee of the whole
House begs to report that it has come to a
certain resolution, passed certain bills without
amendment, and one bill with amendment,
and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move you
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
MARCH 24, 1958
1189
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, before the
hon. member starts his budget debate speech,
might I say that according to the time bell
it is 6 o'clock. Would the hon. Chairman so
recognize 6 o'clock?
Mr. Chairman: It is now being 6.00 of the
clock, I do now leave the chair.
Mr. Thomas: Would the hon. Prime Mini-
ster please indicate what is likely to happen
this evening as to the order of things?
Hon. Mr. Frost: There will be the budget
debate tonight. We might take some of the
bills on the order paper following that, but
they would be non-contentious in variety.
I may say that I am anxious to call the
various notices of motion, particularly one
that stands in my hon. friend's name for
debate, and I will arrange that, but I do not
imagine any of them will be called tonight; I
think tomorrow or the next day.
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
• • :'".: «i "::-.;
No. 45
ONTARIO
Hegtsilature of (Ontario
©euates
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty*Fifth Legislature
Monday, March 24> 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 24, 1958
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Whicher, Mr. Child,
Mr. Wren 1193
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, reported 1213
Municipal Act, bill to amend, reported 1213
Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, bill to amend, reported 1215
Registry Act, bill to amend, reported 1215
Law Stamps Act, bill to repeal, reported 1215
Succession Duty Act, bill to amend, held 1215
Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1922, bill to amend, reported 1216
Manitoba-Ontario Lake St. Joseph Diversion Agreement Authorization Act, 1958,
bill intituled, reported 1217
Charitable Institutions Act, 1956, bill to amend, reported 1217
Services of Homemakers and Nurses, bill to provide for, reported 1218
Public Commercial Vehicles Act, bill to amend, reported 1218
Public Vehicles Act, bill to amend, reported 1218
Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 1218
Control of air pollution, bill to provide for, reported 1218
Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act, bill to amend, reported 1218
Department of Education Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 1219
Female Refuges Act, bill to amend, reported 1219
Vital Statistics Act, bill to amend, reported 1219
Corporations Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 1219
Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, bill to amend, reported 1219
Financial Administration Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 1219
Homes for the Aged Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 1219
Rehabilitation Services Act, 1955, bill to amend, reported 1219
Crown Attorneys Act, bill to amend, reported 1219
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, reported 1219
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 1220
1193
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. A. R. Herbert (Temiskaming): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege tonight to speak
on behalf of the people who reside in one
of the most promising sections of our province,
the riding of Temiskaming. It is endowed
with all the prerequisites for its dynamic
economy.
Despite world unrest the frontiers of the
future lie invitingly before us. These frontiers
of tomorrow call for bold enterprise, for
optimism, for the united effort of industry,
labour, agriculture and government. This
promise of progress is daily taking more
definite shape and clearer form as it shakes
free of the post-war mist.
And now, Mr. Speaker, may I turn my
attention to a subject in which hon. members
are all vitally interested and that is agriculture
and its future in this part of the province.
During the past few weeks, while the Legis-
lature has been in session, I have had several
discussions with the hon Minister of Agri-
culture (Mr. Goodfellow) and I can assure
you that he is keenly aware of the importance
of agriculture in Temiskaming and its future
potential.
Last summer on my suggestion, the hon.
Minister and Dr. C. D. Graham paid a visit
to this section of the province and spent
considerable time in looking over the various
farm areas and visiting the co-operatives. I
might say that they were greatly impressed
and returned to Toronto with increased ap-
preciation of our needs. As a result several
changes in policy have been adopted which
will do much to increase the assistance given
northern Ontario in meeting the problems
peculiar to this section of the province.
Indicating the hon. Minister's interests in
developing the agricultural resources of this
area to the fullest extent, it is my privilege
to announce that Mr. John D. Butler, an
outstanding authority on beef production, has
been appointed chief instructor and extension
specialist of the department's demonstration
farm at New Liskeard.
Monday, March 24, 1958
Mr. Butler, at present associate agricultural
representative in Renfrew county, has long
been associated with beef production pro-
grammes in Huron and Renfrew counties and
has shown outstanding leadership in beef
cattle production. He will take over his new
duties on May 1.
Like the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I
have always felt that there is a tremendous
future in the raising of beef cattle in northern
Ontario. Nowhere in the province can forage
be so abundantly produced.
It is for this reason that the northern
Ontario livestock policy was initiated. This
policy has for its purpose the enabling of
farmers to obtain approved breeding stock
at a delivered price comparable to stock
delivered to farmers in Old Ontario.
As hon. members know, through this
policy farmers in Temiskaming can receive
freight assistance grants to the amount of
$13 per head on cattle, one year of age or
over.
As a further stimulant, the policy to assist
farmers in the clearing and breaking of land
suitable for agricultural purposes has been
amended. Previously grants of $12 for clear-
ing and $6 for breaking were paid per acre.
Under the revision 50 per cent, of the cost
for clearing and breaking up to a maximum of
$25 an acre will now be allowed.
Under the revised grant, however, such
grants will only be paid in the case of a bona
fide farmer who resides on a farm in a terri-
torial district and who derives approximately
50 per cent, of his income from the farm
and does not work at any other occupation
for more than 5 months in any calendar year.
As in the past, the subsidy will be paid
only when the land is cleared and broken.
Where a farmer has previously received a
subsidy for clearing the land and applies for
assistance in breaking, the department will
pay 50 per cent, of the cost of breaking the
land up to a maximum of $6 per acre up
until December 31, 1959.
I must point out, however, Mr. Speaker,
that no subsidy will be considered on any
land on which a subsidy has previously been
paid but which through disuse requires re-
clearing and rebreaking. I think this indicates
1194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in no small measure the interests of the
department in the welfare of the farmer.
It may be of interest to know that from the
period of April 1, 1957, to December 31,
1957, the sum of subsidies for land clearing
in Temiskaming was $29,000, while for
breaking subsidies $14,500 were paid out.
Subsidies toward the provision of farm water
supply totaled $3,500 for the same period.
May I revert again to the demonstration
farm at New Liskeard. Shortly before leaving
Toronto, the hon. Minister of Agriculture told
me that it was his intention to make the farm
a demonstration farm in the widest sense.
It is the intention to widen the facilities and
activities to bring the latest information and
practices to the farmer on a sound, practical
basis.
One of the things that has impressed me
most in recent years has been the growing
appreciation of the important part played
by agriculture in the economy of the province
as a whole. That, to my mind, is a very good
thing, for in the last analysis all of us are
dependent on the farm and its products.
Without the farm industry as such we would
cease to exist.
It is therefore gratifying that the Ontario
government and its elected members have
displayed so much interest in developing to
the fullest extent, sound programmes, designed
to assist the farmer in the growing and raising
of quality products both in field crops and
livestock.
While it must be admitted that agriculture
during the past year has witnessed a slight
falling off as is common with many other
forms of industry, there is nevertheless a
bright side of the picture. Ontario farmers
have had the ingenuity to adapt themselves
to changing conditions. Today a very large
number of farmers have placed their opera-
tions on a sound business basis by setting
up a set of books with the result that weak
spots in their operations have been ironed out
and in many cases losses have been turned
into profits.
Much of the success that has been attained
in this direction is the result of the activity of
The Department of Agriculture through its
farms economic branch, in setting up the
necessary machinery which makes business
analysis of the farm operation. It was gratify-
ing to learn that the interests of the farmer
in the previously neglected side of his
operation has resulted in the creation of
some 29 business management associations
throughout the province.
In addition, a new farm account book
was developed at the Ontario agricultural
college, and it is now being used by 10,000
farmers in this province. Farmers in this area
who may be interested may secure further
details from their local agricultural rep-
resentative.
At this time I would like to give some
of the figures on agriculture, the gross pro-
duction and income according to the latest
available figures.
The gross value of agriculture produc-
tion in Ontario last year is estimated at
$1,078,756,000 as compared to $1,096,341,-
000 in 1956. The cash income of Ontario
farms in 1957 is estimated at $745,448,000
as against $749,293,000 in 1956, or a de-
crease of .5 per cent.
Due to the increasing cost of materials
and services used by farmers, the net in-
come dropped 3.5 per cent, from $405,560,-
000 in 1956 to $391,404,000 in 1957.
While Ontario farmers were more for-
tunate than farmers in some other provinces,
due to the fact that most of the income
some 70 per cent, came from the sale of
livestock and dairy products, the general
picture was dim by reason of the fact that
field crop production was 5.4 per cent, lower
in 1957 than in 1956. An increase in the
aggregate volume of production of 6.87 per
cent, was more than offset by an average
decline of 11.48 per cent, in prices obtained.
With many hon. members present being
interested in livestock, I am sure that the
work of the department in connection with
brucellosis control will be of interest. As
they are aware, as of April 1 of last year,
the expansion of the Brucellosis control pro-
gramme reached such proportions that the
government felt justified in designating the
province as a supervised area and as a result
it became necessary for every cattle owner
to vaccinate his female calves.
It will be recalled the federal government
approved regulations which made provision
for the establishment of brucellosis control
areas, that is areas in which all cattle except
those exempted must be tested and the
reactors sold for slaughter. In February of
this year the Ontario government asked that
the counties of Prince Edward and Oxford
come under the test and slaughter plan.
This programme is essential if we are to
protect our export market for several of the
states have been designated as certified
areas, and only cattle from areas having
similar status may be admitted.
MARCH 24, 1958
1195
Generally speaking, I think it can be said
that the programme of the Ontario Depart-
ment of Agriculture is based on 3 funda-
mentals—namely the proper use of lands,
efficient farm management and good market-
ing methods.
With these things as an objective, the de-
partment seeks to be of service to the farm
people of Ontario and through them the
people of Ontario as a whole. I am not one
of those that subscribe to the suggestion
that in view of our industrial expansion the
importance of agriculture is waning, rather
I feel that in the forthcoming year it will
make an ever greater contribution to the
state.
With that in mind, those concerned with
the welfare of our farm industry are plan-
ning for even greater expansion in the future.
During the past few years our agricultural
economy has undergone significant change.
Today sees us entering upon a period in
which the margin between the demand for
and the production of food is rapidly nar-
rowing.
With the population increasing at an un-
precedented rate, it is obvious that con-
sumer demand will increase. It would there-
fore appear that the primary producer can
look forward to increased markets which, in
turn, would enhance its contribution to the
economy of the province as a whole.
While it is a task of considerable propor-
tion to endeavour to assess what the future
holds in store for agriculture during the next
few years, I think we can be assured that
the business of farming will continue to ad-
vance on both practical and scientific levels.
It is my feeling that, as the next few
years pass, agriculture will assume a position
of even greater importance in the economy
of the province and the country as a whole.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to speak on this budget debate, may
I first, once again, congratulate you on the
capable and fair manner in which you have
presided over this sitting of the Legislature.
It is a privilege and an honour to have you
so do.
In mentioning the word "sitting", I must
remind the hon. members of our new chairs
kindly bought through the good offices of
the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Grie-
singer), but more important, bought from
Bruce county from Coombs Furniture who
manufactured these products in the beautiful
little lakeside town of Kincardine. As the
elected member for Bruce, may I say that I
appreciate the political patronage so often
labelled by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) as good government.
And now for the budget. Before attempt-
ing to tackle the big man of the Legislature—
hon. Prime Minister and Provincial Treasurer
—I must for a few moments devote myself to
some of the remarks made by the member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) in his budget
address. I am going to refer particularly to
his attitude and words which were evident
then, and have been shown on many occa-
sions, as far as the business corporations of
the province are concerned— that his opinions
and those of his fellows, both here and outside
the House, emphasize the fact that corpora-
tions as a whole are making too much money,
and that we should take even more than the
49 per cent, that is now being taken away
from them in the form of corporation taxes.
I am going to refer particularly to a speech
entitled "Danger Ahead" by Mr. Stuart Ar-
mour, economic adviser to the president of
the Steel Company of Canada before the
Toronto board of trade just a year ago now.
While there are many people who may think
that Mr. Armour's opinions would necessarily
be biased because of his position, nevertheless,
I feel that it was a speech that should be read
by all members of Parliament, whether on the
government side or the Opposition, because
it tells in plain words the fact that there
is danger ahead for our way of life by taxing
ourselves practically out of existence and, by
so doing, faking our desire for initiative and
incentiveness from people who are so heavily
burdened by taxation.
Mr. Armour, in building his argument for
less, and not more taxation, speaks as follows
—and I quote:
What is the Canadian way of life? It is a
co-operative effort of free men and women to
so govern themselves that the highest poten-
tialities of all citizens may be usefully
developed. Inevitably such a system must be
based upon a system of free enterprise,
because only under such a system can man
develop himself in freedom as an individual.
Whenever the system of free enterprise is
abandoned in favour of statism, whether it
be called state capitalism or socialism or
dictatorship, the freedom of man must of
necessity be circumscribed. For without state
planning and direction and control, no system
other than private or free enterprise can
•function.
Even when through regulation and the use
of force, a statist or socialist system is made
to function it can never accord, except to
1196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
its ruling oligarchy, the standards of life and
living, and above all the freedom, which
constitute the Canadian— the North American
—economic, social and political miracle.
In its policy declarations The Canadian
chamber of commerce states, and I believe
with truth:
That a majority of all Canadians, both
in private and public life, accept the politi-
cal and economic system described as
freedom of enterprise.
The Canadian chamber then goes on to
say that the danger to freedom of enterprise
lies not only in the threat of Communism and
the encroachments of socialism, but also
through "weakness or lethargy or ignorance
within the system itself." The Canadian
chamber declares:
Freedom of enterprise is not a negative
concept— it is a positive, dynamic faith
which imposes on the individual the duty
to be enterprising and, in doing so, to
maintain a high standard of ethics in the
community and to contribute to the common
welfare. In short, freedom of enterprise is
the individual's freedom to enterprise— to
make up his own mind and to take his own
chances.
Those are ringing words, gentlemen, and
if we are to be faithful members of the
Canadian chamber of commerce and good
citizens of Canada they constitute a real and
challenging responsibility. Certainly if we
see our way of life threatened from any
quarter— whether by the action of government
or by the weakness, lethargy or ignorance of
those who enjoy that way of life— it is our
duty to speak out. Moreover, we should speak
as forthrightly and loudly and clearly as we
are capable of doing.
I feel that through our current level of
taxation we are now confronted by a very
great danger to the continuance of our way
of life. I also feel that there is far too
much weakness, lethargy and ignorance with
respect to taxation even on the part of busi-
nessmen and other members of society who
should know better.
Recently the Timken Roller Bearing Com-
pany, which apparently takes seriously its
duty to overcome weakness, lethargy and
ignorance within the free enterprise system,
published an advertisement. That advertise-
ment took the form of a sort of clock face
which showed the natural progression of
mankind in the absence of eternal vigilance.
According to that clock face the natural
progression is from bondage to spiritual faith,
from faith to courage, from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance, from abundance
to selfishness, then on to complacency, apathy,
dependency and back to bondage.
The Timken advertisement asked at which
stage the American people had now arrived.
It is also a very good question for Cana-
dians to ask about themselves after 10 years
of super-abundance. To me it seems that
we are now somewhere between the stage
of selfishness and of complacency.
Others with whom I have talked feel we
are at the stage of complacency, and that in
no place does complacency appear more ap-
parent than in the current attitude of many
Canadians toward taxes. This should make
us all fearful, as we remember that com-
placency is the stage just before apathy,
and that apathy is awfully close to depend-
ency. When we reach dependency we shall be
dangerously close to bondage.
Recently, Mr. V. W. Scully, former federal
Deputy Minister in charge of income tax,
said publicly in Hamilton:
Money, desperately needed for plant
investment and expansion is being syphoned
away from corporations and individuals.
This has become a vicious and chronic
habit with our governments. It is one that
could some day bring about the end of
this system of free enterprise which has
enabled us— all of us— to prosper as we
have.
It is probable that no statement from a
former civil servant has ever approached that
warning in its directness. Coming from such
a source one might have expected the state-
ment that high taxation has now become a
vicious and chronic habit of government to
bring about a great public outcry. But not
at all. Most newspapers, although themselves
dependent upon private enterprise for their
very existence, have chosen to ignore that
courageous warning of a man who certainly
knows better than most of us whereof he
speaks.
In the same speech in which the statement
I have quoted occurred Mr. Scully said:
Extraction by taxation is a disease like
creeping paralysis. There was a time when
public opinion would have rebelled at the
sort of thing that we now have grown
accustomed to. Inter-governmental squab-
bles are not over the injustice to the con-
tributor but over the division of the spoils.
MARCH 24, 1958
1197
Since some Canadians through weakness,
lethargy or ignorance may be disposed to say:
"So taxes are high. So business is good. So
what difference does it make?" Perhaps I
should spell out for their benefit why they
should rebel.
In the first place, high taxes are the surest
way of taking the incentive out of life for the
individual. When incentive is crushed by
reason of the burden of taxes those with
initiative seek to escape from their deadening
effect. We are witnessing at this moment a
great exodus from Britain, which has been
in considerable measure induced by the feel-
ing "Oh what's the use?"
High taxes also inhibit corporations from
expanding. They thus limit the employment
potential of private industry.
If, as a result of confiscatory taxes, indi-
vidual incentive is destroyed here, and em-
ployment opportunities fail to keep pace with
population growth, then you may be sure
that we shall be faced with very serious
trouble.
Currently there is almost violent agitation
in the United States against the tax burden
in the country. That agitation must appear
the more remarkable to complacent or apa-
thetic Canadians when it is remembered that
the income_of the average American last year
after taxes was nearly 30 per cent, higher
than that of the average Canadian after taxes.
Should the current agitation in the United
States result in lower American taxes, and
the tax burden on Canadians remains un-
changed, we shall most certainly have to
say goodbye to a lot of our most ambitious
and enterprising young Canadians.
If the present level of Canadian taxes is
raised still farther — and new demands are
being made upon every level of government
every day by unthinking but powerful interests
—then we are likely to see our population
outflow assume almost stampede proportions.
So it is really up to each Canadian to
decided here and now whether he wants this
country to be great as a result of an expand-
ing and dynamic private enterprising economy
or whether he prefers to live here in a static
society wherein his life is more and more
controlled by the State.
Every time we ask the State to do some-
thing for us which we can and should do for
ourselves — or ask the State for something
which we can do without— we are inevitably
surrendering to the State a little more of our
hard-bought personal freedom. We are also
making inevitable a higher level of taxes.
The only way to cut taxes is to cut govern-
ment spending. The only way government
expenditures can be reduced is through the
determination of the people of Canada that
they shall be reduced. What we badly need
here in Canada is agitation against taxes as
violent as that which is now causing United
States politicians to stop, look and listen.
There are those who say to you that Cana-
dians have become habituated to high taxes,
and that nothing can be done about it. My
reply to that sort of defeatism can best be
summed up in the one word "Nuts." No
human beings are clods; and Canadians have
amply proved by their actions and their
accomplishments that nothing daunts them
when they make up their minds to do a thing.
What we businessmen have got to do is to
rouse them to a realization of the dangers
they face.
It is because of the failure of public opinion
to rebel at current taxation, that I sometimes
wonder whether we Canadians are, in fact,
moving from complacency toward apathy,
dependency and bondage. Whether there is
not grave danger ahead for us and for our
children and their children— danger to free
enterprise, danger to personal freedom, danger
to our self-governing Canadian way of life.
Hence, it is greatly to the credit of the
Hamilton chamber of commerce that two
most important paragraphs from Mr. Scullys
speech appear as the "Quote of the Month"
on the cover of its March 1957 Bulletin.
But what of other chambers of commerce
and boards of trade? The Canadian chamber
of commerce in its latest policiy declaration
said:
Business must be able to retain sufficient
of its profits to assist in providing for
essential growth in an expanding economy.
It cannot do this if its tax burden is exces-
sive or inequitable.
Mr. Scully in his Hamilton speech referred
to "our present confiscatory tax systems", so
I presume that the burden of taxation borne
by Canadian business may now be described
as excessive.
Such figures as are currently available
would certainly tend to bear out such a pre-
sumption.
Between the year 1950 and the year 1955
(the latter being the latest year for which
Bank of Canada figures are available at
present), the profits of Canadian industry
before taxes increased $366 million, or by
about 14^3 per cent. Yet in the same
5-year period, profits after taxes of Canadian
1198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
industry increased only $71 million, or by
about 4.7 per cent.
What sort of an incentive system is that?
How long can Canadian industry continue to
hand over to the State nearly 80 per cent,
of its increased profits (which are largely the
result of enormously heavy capital expendi-
tures) without finding itself in serious trouble?
And how can the people of Canada themselves
afford to see our industry become static or
worse?
After all, not only our present standard of
living, but also our hopes for the future are
bound up with the success of our industrial
enterprises. Such enterprises are enormous
users of capital, and they can only get the
capital they need if such capital is assured of
a reasonable chance to earn a return in keep-
ing with current money market rates.
In quoting Mr. Armour so extensively I
have done so because I believe he has put
into words what is in the hearts of all
"freedom of enterprise Canadians". In this
belief, the old parties are united, only the
socialists are against it and they really believe
that practically all of the money should be
taken from the corporations, forgetting that
in so doing, they will bring catastrophe to
our nation.
In his budget address, the hon. Prime
Minister, in his efficient and capable manner,
smoothed out all departments of government,
at least to the satisfaction of his own fol-
lowers. Before attacking the budget, which
I must as my duty as an opposition member
demands, may I pay a small tribute to him.
I believe sincerely that he really thinks that
he is right. What he has forgotten is that
he could be wrong!
From H.M.S. Pinafore we read that "things
are seldom what they seem; skimmed milk
masquerades as cream." I suggest that the
cream that the hon. Prime Minister has tossed
to the taxpayers of the province is very much
skimmed milk!
It is not my purpose to discuss the depart-
ments of government, nor have I any inten-
tion of breaking down the various estimates.
I am rather going to speak about the debt
— a word that will haunt the government
whenever it calls the next election. As a
matter of fact, the hon. Prime Minister is
worried about it now. I can just imagine him
working over the budget figures, saying to
himself: "Every now and again this yearly
deficit worries me— and then I remember that
I am at the head of the Ontario government
and not an Ontario corporation."
How long, Mr. Speaker, can an Ontario
corporation continually go into debt? How
long can the Ontario government continually
go into debt?
Hon. Mr. Frost: How about the Bell Tele-
phone? How long has it been going into
debt?
Mr. Whicher: They are expanding and
they are taking depreciation, something the
hon. Prime Minister is not doing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Sure I am.
Mr. Whicher: He is not. Not in his state-
ment at all.
Since the hon. Prime Minister was sworn
in as head of this government on May 4,
1949, he has not balanced his budget once—
not once! When he was sworn in, the net
debt was about $480 million. Next Monday,
the end of the fiscal year, it will be about
$860 million, and of this amount, $153 million
has been added in the past two years.
The hon. Prime Minister's attitude is:
"What about it?" He claims that the increase
in the debt is going into public buildings,
parks and highways.
To be fair, we in the Opposition agree to
some extent, but highways wear out, parks
take money to look after and so do public
buildings. Our concern is chiefly with the
future; our debt today may not be too high,
but what about 10 years from now? Next
year alone the government is prophesying
that it will be a further $100 million in debt.
And the year after that? Where are we going?
What is our plan?
Thomas Jefferson, in 1816, said this, "I
place economy among the first and most
important of virtues and public debt as the
greatest of the dangers to be feared." When
the hon. Prime Minister first accepted power,
our interest charges per annum were approxi-
mately $20 million. By the end of 1960 the
annual interest charged to and paid by the
people of Ontario will be well over $50
million, and by 1970, at the present rate of
deficit budgeting, the cost could well be
$125 million, which is well over half of the
total yearly expenditure of the province when
the hon. Prime Minister took office in Ontario
in 1949.
Some record! But the hon. Prime Minister,
in his sanctimonious way, says that the
people of today cannot be expected to pay
for all of the benefits of tomorrow. To some
extent, I agree— to some extent that is!
MARCH 24, 1958
1199
What about the other side of the picture?
The story of the next biggest business in
Ontario under the hon. Prime Minister's
control beside the budget itself. I refer of
course to Ontario Hydro.
For the moment, I wish to digress from
the budget itself to speak about this great
commission under the control of the govern-
ment of Ontario. But certainly not under
the control of the Legislature. Mr. Cotnam,
the provincial auditor, put his finger squarely
on the problem when he stated that because
of the number of commissions now in opera-
tion, and because of the growing tendency to
create new commissions, a survey should be
made to assess the strength and weakness
of the present machinery of government. No
truer statement was ever written.
Let me refer to the Hydro commission
particularly. This billion dollar business is
so gigantic and is probably run quite
efficiently by its commissioners, but how do
we know? We, who are the elected repre-
sentatives of the people of Ontario have as
much to say about Hydro affairs as the man
in the moon. I believe that commissions,
such as the Hydro, should present estimates
before this House in the same manner as The
Department of Highways and The Depart-
ment of Travel and Publicity do. Surely
Hydro policy is just as important to us as
the policy of The Department of Public
Works.
However, this government has built up a
series of commissions that do not allow a
close scrutiny by us, the legislative members.
Let us look at the liquor commission for a
moment. Over $65 million will be turned
over to the hon. Provincial Treasurer by the
liquor control board of Ontario this coming
year, but what do we know about its affairs?
What do we know about its policy, both
present and future? Due to lack of time
this year, we are not even going to be able
to question its officials. Its policy should be
discussed by a Minister of this government,
and its estimates and expenditures should be
presented to us as members of the provincial
Parliament under whose jurisdiction the
liquor laws of the province come. For
example, many hotel men, and for that matter,
many Ontario citizens, would like to ask
questions of the government, such as:
1. How is it, that from the rulings of the
liquor control board (that is, suspensions,
cancellations, etc.), there is no appeal?
2. Is Judge Robb appointed for life, and
how is it that his rulings are a law unto
themselves?
3. Does the liquor control board honestly
believe that when it places a man on the
indicated list, he is stopped from purchasing
alcoholic beverages legally? For example, a
man placed on the indicated list in Ottawa
is not known to the hotels in Toronto and
consequently can buy all the beer that he
desires.
These, and many more, questions regard-
ing the operation and policy of this commis-
sion should be answered by the simple
method of the hon. members of this Legis-
lature being permitted to question an hon.
Minister when he presents his estimates to
the House.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Frost: We are starting to do
that right tomorrow.
Mr. Whicher: They cannot do it right
tomorrow at all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member has all
these particulars but he does not use them.
Mr. Whicher: And now back to Hydro.
Our efforts in knowing anything about it are
pathetic. Questions that we want to ask about
Hydro policy, financing and services should
be answered by an hon. Minister of this
government. And he should present esti-
mates in this House early. It is so huge,
firstly in the provision of electricity, either
by generator or purchase, and its transmis-
sion to large industrial customers and rural
operating areas, and secondly in its retail
operation which is handled in most cities and
towns by public utility commissions owned,
in most instances, by the cities and towns
themselves.
The basic principle governing the financial
administration of Hydro in Ontario is that
it be provided at cost. In other words,
balance the budget but do not gather huge
surpluses. With this principle I agree, and it
is on the principle of balancing both Ontario
Hydro and the province of Ontario budget
that I stand by. Such a policy we, in the
Opposition, recommend.
Neither is being done. The hon. Prime
Minister as Provincial Treasurer of Ontario
is putting us further and further into debt,
while as the actual head of Hydro, as far as
the retail operation is concerned, he is gather-
ing millions of dollars' worth of surpluses.
One would never know it was the same
man. Since 1949 he has never balanced the
Ontario budget and since 1949 he has always
1200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had large surpluses as far as municipal Hydro
is concerned. Indeed, since 1949 he has
increased the net debt of Ontario by $380
million and at the same time he has over-
charged municipal Hydro users by well over
$100 million. Some consistency!
In 1956, the surplus was almost $20 million.
Each year without fail it has increased since
1949. What are they going to do— pay the
provincial debt with Hydro surpluses? It is
not my desire tonight to bore hon. members
with too many individual figures of towns
and cities in Ontario, but taking the largest
and for the year 1956 which is the last year
for which figures are available, I can tell
them that the city of Toronto has a net profit
of over $3.5 million. In emphasizing this
figure, I must point out that they also set
aside over $2.5 million in depreciation which,
of course, is only good business.
But surely it is not necessary that the
Ontario Hydro should overcharge the people
of Toronto, or, in other words, create a
surplus of $3.5 million in one year! It just
simply does not add up. And particularly is
this more evident when we compare it to
the deficits run up each year by the Ontario
government itself.
In Hamilton, the surplus was $1.5 million;
in Windsor $700,000; Woodstock $120,000;
London $588,000; Ottawa $636,000, and so
on and so forth. 350 municipalities with a
total surplus of $19.5 million. Such is our
system of government. The same govern-
ment is having a deficit year after year in its
budget and a surplus year after year in the
municipal Hydro financing policy.
Someone has said: "First you get power,
then you use it, then you abuse it, and then
you lose it." I suggest that this government
has reached the state of abusing its power.
Sooner than they think, they will lose it.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in the debate, I would
first like to add my congratulations to those
who have preceded me in the fair and able
manner in which you have presided over
the affairs of this House.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I listened with
a great deal of interest to the wailing and
"woeing" of the hon. members of the Opposi-
tion about the unemployment and depression
that we are supposed to have here, and I
came across a little article in a book during
the recess, and I thought it rather an oppor-
tune time to read it. It is called The Power
of Suggestion. It is by an unknown author,
but I suggest the hon. members listen. I
think it is rather apt. It says:
A man lived by the side of the road and
he sold hot dogs. He was hard of hearing
and he didn't have a radio. He had
trouble with his eyes so he didn't read
a newspaper, but he sold good hot dogs-
Mr. P. Manley (Stormont): Did he wear a
safety belt?
Mr. Child: Yes sir, he had a safety belt on.
He put a sign on the highway telling
how good they were, and he stood by the
side of the road and he cried out, "Buy
hot dogs, mister, they're good." And
people bought. He increased his meat and
his bun orders, he bought a bigger stove
to take care of his trade. He got his son
home from college to help him.
But then something happened. His son
said, "Father, haven't you been listening
to the radio? There is a big depression
on. The European situation is terrible
and the domestic situation is even worse."
Whereupon the father thought, well,
my son has been to school, he reads the
papers, he listens to the radio, he ought to
know.
So his father cut down on the meat and
bun orders, and he took down his adver-
tising signs and no longer bothered to
stand by the side of the road to sell his hot
dogs. And his hot dog sales fell almost
overnight.
Whereupon he said: "You are right, son,
we are certainly in the middle of a great
depression."
I would suggest that the hon. members of
the Opposition might listen to that, there is
a moral to it.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
say something regarding welfare, make a
few remarks and observations on some of
the things I find my people in the riding of
Wentworth are particularly interested in. On
previous occasions in the House the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) has
commented on the value of social approach
to the welfare programme, and I might say
I am in complete agreement with him on
this matter and have recently been reviewing
the system as it exists in the United States.
Our neighbours to the south have a
comprehensive social security plan known as
old age survivors' and disability insurance.
Generally speaking, all wage-earners and
MARCH 24, 1958
1201
salaried employees, plus the self-employed,
are covered by the plan. The programme
is financed in its entirety by a tax on the
worker's earnings or salary.
If the person is an employee the tax is
shared equally between him and his employer,
each contributing 2.25 per cent. If he is
self-employed, he pays a separate tax him-
self. The present rate, I believe, is set at
3% per cent., and the taxes are collected
on earnings up to a maximum of $4,200 a
year.
I believe it is interesting to look at the
benefits which are paid from the fund. These
include retirement benefits to the male worker
at age 65, and to the female worker at age
62. In addition, benefits are paid to the wife
of the retired worker if she is 62 years of
age and over, and also on behalf of his
dependent children. If the worker should
die, survivor benefits are paid to his widow,
his dependent children, even on behalf of
dependent parents, if a worker becomes
totally disabled. He may receive benefits
at the age of 50 or over.
I think one of the most significant and
interesting points about the whole plan is
the fact that all of these benefits are paid as
the rate of the individual to receive them.
Indeed they have been provided out of the
resources of his productive years.
Now contrasting this to the social insurance
programme with our social security scheme
in Canada, I think there is very little need
to overburden the hon. members of the
Legislature here, the vast difference between
the two approaches, but it is safe to say
there is little or no comparison between old
age security and the principle of insurance
as we actually recognize it.
We are, I believe, all familiar with the
use of the insurance to protect us from the
numerous hazards over which we have little
or no control. We take out life insurance,
fire insurance, accident insurance, and insure
ourselves in many other ways. Surely the
same approach is applicable to the type of
people that we have, and to the economy
in which there are so many risks to the
individual today.
Almost every other country of any industrial
consequence in the world today has a social
insurance system woven into the fabric of
its economic life. And personally, I am
convinced that Canada must soon adopt such
a plan. I am finding increased interest in
such a scheme in my own particular riding.
Frankly, I do not see how we can continue
much longer to exist without it. If the gov-
ernment of Canada does not see fit to take
such steps immediately, I would humbly sug-
gest that Ontario should lead the way in this
regard. It would not be the first venture of
a pioneering nature for this province in social
welfare legislation.
Two of the most notable examples in which
we have led the way, the finest homes for the
aged programme in Canada, I think we could
say the finest homes for the aged in North
America, but we also led the way in giving
assistance to the disabled.
Ontario's disabled persons' allowance pro-
gramme was accepted after 2.5 years of
provincial operation as the model for the
development of the federal-provincial schemes,
which is now in effect in the 10 provinces of
Canada, and here again we have the oppor-
tunity to give leadership to the development
of a plan of social insurance to our people.
I believe there would be many wrinkles
to be ironed out, when a plan of this type
is first introduced, and I would suggest that
Ontario could pioneer this type of plan, work
out all the details, improve on the plan that
is already in effect in the United States, and
one point I would suggest that might be con-
sidered would be the lowering of the eligible
age to receive benefits for those who become
totally disabled.
The social insurance approach to meeting
the needs of the majority of our people is,
I submit, the only positive, realistic and
logical approach to take.
Nobody will argue that we have not come
a long way with the development of many
fine welfare programmes, and we must con-
tinue with these programmes to provide for
those who cannot reap the fruits of our
economy.
But I suggest we also need to take this
step further: I believe we must give those
who can and do enjoy productive years, the
opportunity to make provisions for themselves
and their dependents, when they can no
longer benefit from the work of their own
hands.
There is no question in my mind that we
have already a strong foundation upon which
to build such a programme. I believe our
present welfare programme will serve to
underwrite and strengthen such a plan.
Some may question and ask what will hap-
pen to old age security pensions if Ontario
proceeded alone with an insurance retirement
programme. Mr. Speaker, there is no question
in my mind that the two schemes or plans
can operate concurrently if necessary. In my
view, old age security pensions can form a
1202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
most natural supplement to the benefits paid
out of the insurance fund. If advisable, I
see no reason why such a process could not
be continued indefinitely.
From information I have received through-
out my riding which should give a fairly
good cross-section of public opinion, I believe
the people in the province are more than
ready to participate in an insurance pro-
gramme. I am sure most would welcome the
opportunity to contribute towards their own
retirement years or to the benefits of sur-
vivors and dependents, or for the years when
disablement might strike and prevent the
normal support of gainful employment.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned previously, we
shall of course continue to need the support
of the various welfare programmes now in
effect, even if we should develop a full
scheme of social insurance. I believe people
will have a greater feeling of security and
independence if they know that they are con-
tributing to their own pension fund and they
will know exactly what they will be receiving
at retirement age.
. This I believe is a more realistic approach
to our present system which is based on the
fluctuating taxes derived from 2 per cent,
sales tax and 2 per cent, income tax and
the 2 per cent, corporation tax.
Although mention has been made of such
a scheme by The Rt. hon. Prime Minister of
Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am firmly con-
vinced that we could expedite the imple-
menting of that scheme in Canada by first
pioneering it in the great province of Ontario.
There is one other aspect to welfare that
I am finding my people are interested in, and
I would like to make a few comments on the
one particular welfare programme, old age
assistance.
This is, of course, as we all realize, a
federal welfare measure which grants assist-
ance to the needy persons in the age group
of 65 to 69.
There is I believe a serious need which this
programme could be designed and revised to
meet. I refer to women who are left widows
at age 60, and who find themselves without
funds to take care of their daily requirements.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the number
of women who find themselves in this condi-
tion has increased greatly in the past 8 to
10 years. I suppose this is due to the fact
that women generally live longer than men.
Furthermore, the practice of men is to
marry women several years younger than
themselves. Frankly, I have no quarrel with
this, and personally I believe it is desirable.
However, this practice, quite desirable
from the man's point of view, and one with
which one certainly would not disagree, un-
fortunately increases the problem of increas-
ing the chances of widowhood for more and
more women. Many of these widows cannot
support themselves, and they have little or
no means to draw upon for their daily require-
ments.
We have taken care of many categories of
need, but this is one in which the gap still
remains.
Personally, I feel that we have a ready
solution to the problem. All we need to do
is to lower the age limit for old age assistance
from 65 to 60 years of age for the widows.
In effect, we would then have widows'
allowance programmes built in to combine
with old age assistance. It seems to me that
this is a very simple solution to a very
urgent and pressing problem, and I would
urge the hon. minister of Public Welfare to
approach the federal government and to ask
that early consideration be given to amend-
ing the federal Old Age Assistance Act so
that Ontario and across Canada, widows of
60 years of age who are in need may be given
some measure of support within an ongoing
welfare programme.
And now Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak rather bluntly for just a minute on a
matter which I believe should concern all of
the hon. members of this House and I believe
that it might concern The Department of
Municipal Affairs and the Attorney General's
Department.
The subject is closed meetings of municipal
councils, municipal boards and municipal
committees.
What alarms me is the rate at which these
mysterious secret meetings are occurring all
over the province. More and more, public
business is occurring behind closed doors. I
do not know what goes on at most of the
meetings, but I do know that a glass curtain
seems to have been dropped between many
municipal councils and the public whose
business they carry on.
There have been prominent cases of this
kind in London, and recently in Hamilton,
and I think that it is time that The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs took a much
deeper study of this situation.
I am not satisfied with the amendments
and I make no bones about it, that were
made to The Municipal Act this year, and I
want to go on record as saying that the
municipal councils in every part of the
MARCH 24, 1958
1203
province are getting away with murder in
keeping public news away from the public.
The amendments made to the Act this
year I believe should be considered as noth-
ing short of wishy-washy. It is time that
somebody stepped in and wrote the law
which declares in black and white and in
simple English, how much secrecy is to be
tolerated in the conduct of municipal busi-
ness.
In this connection I wish to point out that
a municipal council is somewhat different
from that of the Legislature or say the House
of Commons. In the Legislature and in the
Commons, we have a multiple party system,
and it is understandable that a party should
conference separately behind closed doors
in order that they can agree on a stand
which they will take in debate.
The condition does not exist or should
not exist in municipal levels. Each coun-
cillor is an individual, he is not a member
of a party, he has no business hiding behind
closed doors at a level of government where
there is no opposition party to fight its deci-
sions in public.
The question raised in my mind, for
instance, is where there are great property
deals, and trading of great favours have
taken place behind closed doors, and I say to
the municipalities of Ontario, "If you are
washing it clean, do not be afraid to hang
it outside."
I am a property owner in Hamilton, for
instance, and I think that I should be
entitled the same as everybody else to every
bit of information concerning dispensing the
local tax monies and the general conduct of
municipal affairs.
Every time a council or board or com-
mittee go into hiding, I immediately get to
thinking that there is some skullduggery
afoot, and every time that they go into
hiding they are, in effect, slamming the door
in the face of the public.
What do you suppose would happen Mr.
Speaker, for instance, if one of our standing
committees of the Legislature decided to
hold a meeting in camera? What do you
suppose would happen if the Legislature
decided, for some reason that I cannot
imagine, to kick out the press for the after-
noon or evening meetings? What would
happen if the House of Commons, if Parlia-
ment suddenly went into hiding? If it is not
right for the provincial and federal level hon.
gentlemen, then I say that it is not right for
the municipal level.
I believe that it is time that this govern-
ment in enacting its laws, reaffirms the prin-
ciple that public business is public property.
It is a democratic principle and anything
short of total acceptance of the principle is
something short of democracy.
That is something that must definitely be
studied, it should have been studied at this
session and should certainly be given full
consideration at the next session.
I would like now to speak for a few
minutes on another matter that is finding
increased interest, and I find more pressure
all the time in my particular riding and it is
that of compulsory insurance.
I know in my own riding the feeling is that
the unsatisfied judgment fund is unsatisfactory
and inadequate, surely, to meet today's needs.
It is a fact that my constituents do not share
the same enthusiasm for the plan that The
Department of Transport does.
We had a case back in December of a
boy who was awarded $125,000 as a result of
a car accident and the loss of sight. After
going through the fund it was announced by
the lawyer that the boy will not receive
any more than $5,000. That was the limit
of the fund.
However, let me say this, in all fairness
to the fund, the lawyer who made applica-
tion and fought on that boy's behalf did
everybody a great injustice. He was well
aware of the circumstances of the family, he
knew that out of the fund he would only
be allowed $5,000, but for some reason
which is difficult for me to understand he
asked for a judgment of $125,000.
The boy, for the rest of his life will be of
the opinion that he has been robbed out of
$120,000, and I say this, that lawyer did a
grave injustice to the family by doing what
he did.
Even if we had compulsory insurance, the
boy would have had a maximum of $10,000,
if we had the same compulsory insurance as
they have in New York state. That is $10,000-
$20,000 and $5,000, I believe, for property
damage. So the boy, even with compulsory
insurance could not have received any more
than $10,000.
I am very pleased to say that we have
those figures in the province today under
the unsatisfied judgment fund, with the
exception that I think the $5,000 property
damage is $2,000 but we do have $10,000
and $20,000 which has just been raised,
thanks to the hon. Minister of Highways.
Now, in discussing compulsory insurance
with my constituents, I sent out a few
1204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
thousand letters asking for opinions on the
subject, and I find that practically all of them
support the principle of compulsory insurance.
But when I mention to many of them who
have called me the cost of compulsory
insurance in Massachusetts, I am not so sure
that they are so enthused.
Now Massachusetts, which is comparable
to Ontario in automobile registrations and
population, is also a highly industrialized
state, and I point out that for the same
coverage the premiums are often double and
triple, and people are somewhat amazed and
cannot understand it.
It seems that most people are of the opin-
ion that the more people who are in the plan,
the cheaper it should be. But in Massa-
chusetts, for instance, class 1— that is $10,-
000 and $20,000 for injury and $5,000 prop-
erty damage— and class 1 is a vehicle used
for pleasure with no drivers under 25 years
of age. The premiums in Ontario would be
for that particular coverage $28.80. For the
same coverage in Boston it is $139.60
That coverage is $20 in rural Ontario and
in rural Massachusetts it is $48.40.
The reason for the added premium I find,
that in spite of the 40 mile per hour speed
limit that the hon. Minister mentioned the
other day, that there are something like triple
the number of personal injury accidents.
Compulsory insurance has not been a solu-
tion to highway safety in Massachusetts. On
the contrary, as the figures show, it has been
just the reverse.
It is only natural that we expect high
premiums when we have so many accidents,
and since everybody there is insured and the
judges and juries are giving much higher
judgments, they are very generous. The only
people that can pay for those of course are
the drivers who pay through their premiums.
The unfortunate part about their plan, is
that it means the good driver is being pena-
lized by the poor driver, who is responsible
for the increase in the premiums. This is the
type of drivers who says: "I am insured, who
cares? The insurance company will pay for
it."
However, I believe that this could be over-
come by giving a rebate to no-claim drivers.
In England I understand that if a driver has
a one year no-claim record he is given a
rebate of 10 per cent., after a two year period
of no-claim period he is given a 15 per cent,
to 17 per cent, rebate, and for 3 years he
has a rebate on his premium of 20 per cent,
to 25 per cent., and I believe in some areas
this is increased to 30 per cent, for 5 years
or more.
By giving a rebate in this way, the safe
conscientious driver who is careful is rewarded,
and receives the benefit of his care in his
reduced premiums.
Consideration could be given in reverse for
the careless driver, and his premium could
be increased after each accident. This I
believe would be an improvement over the
present system in Massachusetts.
I find, in discussions, that many of my con-
stituents also, when they question the high
premiums, often refer to the province of
Saskatchewan. It seems that there has been
a great deal of publicity about their scheme
in Saskatchewan, which is compulsory, and
which seems, I must say, low when com-
pared to Massachusetts.
Until I was able to do a little research, I
must confess that I was at a loss to give
an answer why the Saskatchewan compulsory
insurance was so low.
However, I find this, that in Saskatchewan
there is a $200 deductible clause on every
damage coverage. Now the average automo-
bile accident claim in Ontario was $200, in
the average Ontario accident which is cover-
ing 92 per cent, of all claims. That means
that the Saskatchewan insurance policy
scheme would not pay anything, and the
insured driver would be responsible for $200.
Now obviously, the insurance rate can be
set very low when in the average case the
driver pays the lot himself and the insured
then collects the premiums. It is interesting
to note that practically everyone in North
America, with the sole exception of Saskatche-
wan, state that provincial laws forbid the sale
of property damage insurance with a deduct-
able clause, because such deductables are not
in the best interests of the public, when the
average Ontario accident the private insurer
pays the full $200 of liability to others,
whereas in Saskatchewan they pay nothing.
To offset the obvious disadvantage of such
coverage Saskatchewan offers those who wish
it, a package policy which rounds out the
coverage and brings it into line with that
offered by private companies.
Now on the surface, the combined Sas-
katchewan coverage still costs considerably
less than in Ontario. The reason lies in the
different accident rate. The different accident
costs of the two provinces, Saskatchewan with
its predominance of straight travel and little
travelled roads has an accident rate of 7.6 per
100 vehicles. Ontario has an accident rate
MARCH 24, 1958
1205
of 11.6 and it is interesting to note that
Saskatchewan has always had the lowest per-
centage of accident in Canada due to geo-
graphical and population factors.
A little research will show that with many
older model cars in Saskatchewan and there-
fore less cost to repairs the average cost per
accident is $131, where in Ontario the aver-
age cost, as I mentioned before, is about
$200. In doing a little simple arithmetic we
find for every 100 cars insured in Saskatche-
wan it costs 7.6 times $131, or $995.60 to pay
accident claims for every 100 cars insured.
In Ontario it costs 11.6 times $200 or $2,320
to pay accident claims almost 2 and one half
times as much per car. No matter who sells
the insurance, the charge in Ontario should
be 2.5 times as much as Saskatchewan. How-
ever, the present Ontario rates are less in most
cases, substantially less than 2.5 times the
Saskatchewan rate.
In other words Ontario rates right now are
considerably less for most drivers than they
would be in Saskatchewan under the Sas-
katchewan insurance system were it in effect
in Ontario. There are many examples which
can be given, however, the point I am trying
to make, Mr. Speaker, is that although there
is a great deal of interest in the compulsory
insurance plan there might not be the same
enthusiasm if the people knew the whole
story.
I would suggest before compulsory insur-
ance be given too much consideration that
the public should be acquainted with all of
the advantages and the disadvantages of com-
pulsory insurance. And I believe it should
be told that there is no financial protection
against the hit and run drivers, the case of
non-resident drivers or against vehicles oper-
ated without the owners consent, nor is there
any protection of an uninsured vehicle such
as farm wagons and tractors.
However, there may be some advantages
to a compulsory insurance plan. It does
provide the victim of a motor car accident
with some measure of reasonable amounts
of financial compensation but certainly not
as the figures have been laid down in the
state of New York. I think the public will
have to weigh the advantages and the disad-
vantages of the plan, and I believe careful
consideration should be given to see that
all of the facts, both good and bad, are made
available to the public so that they are in
a position to assess the value of this particu-
lar type of insurance plan.
I would say this though, with all the
discussion we have heard about it to date,
anything that they have to offer from my
own personal observations in New York and
in Massachusetts has no advantages over the
unsatisfied judgment fund as we are operating
today, but I think the people should be
given all of these facts, it is important to
them. I think it is a very important step
that this government will have to take some
day, but let the people decide after they
know the whole story.
While the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr.
Allan) is in his seat, there is one other matter
I would like to speak about. It is the story
of the Dorchester curve where we spent
considerable money on the new type of guard
rail. It was one that I introduced and I was
particularly interested in during the safety
committee. I find there are some startling
figures since it was introduced at the
Dorchester Curve.
In 3 years prior to the installation of that
particular type of guard rail, there were 40
people injured and there were four fatalities.
In the two years after it was introduced I
might say that during that time there was
some $28,000 worth of property damage and
for the two years after that there were only
3 people injured and we have not had a
fatality.
I think the money invested in that particu-
lar curve and that particular type of guard
rail was well spent and I would like to see
it carried out in many other parts of the
province where we have had fatalities.
There is just one other matter I would like
to bring to the attention of the House, one
that Hamilton firefighters' association is quite
concerned with, the question of the 42-hour
week. For a great number of years the fire-
fighters in the Province of Ontario were
working a 72-hour week, while most workers
in the province were enjoying 48 hours and
more recently under provincial legislation the
firefighters have been working a 56-hour
week, while the majority of the other workers
in the province have been working 40 hours
per week or less.
The members of local 288 of the IAFF
of the municipality of Hamilton are of the
unanimous opinion that the firefighters of this
great province of Ontario should not have to
work longer hours than other workers,
especially in this hazardous occupation where
the firefighter is the victim of occupational
disease peculiar to his profession.
I would say this is something that I know
many of the other members must have a
concern with. I know it is too late to do any-
1206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
thing in this session, but I would suggest
this is one of the things that should be on
the top of our agenda for the coming session.
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to present my remarks on the budget
debate, I want to say this that the hour is
getting late. It is now 9.30 in the evening,
and as most of the hon. members of this
House have been carrying on their various
duties and occupations about the legislative
buildings since about 8.30 this morning, I do
not think it would become me to take too
much of your time.
I say that, because I feel the public in
Ontario should realize, and I think the public
in Canada generally should realize, that
something should be done, and something
must be done about the duties and responsi-
bilities of members of the Legislature and of
course members of the House of Commons,
about the time we have to spend on these
things.
I do not think that there are too many
people in Ontario who realize just how much
time is spent by men in public life in both
public bodies in the conduct of public affairs.
I was quite noticeably taken the other day
with the action which was taken in the Legis-
lature in the province of Quebec where the
indemnities were increased in indemnity and
tax reallowance to $7,000 a year, and with
that a pension scheme for members who had
served ten sessions or more.
I speak about this particular subject
because so many people say to me, as I think
they say to a good many other hon. members
of this House, that you chaps should not be
too badly off now, because you are getting
$10,000 a year and a pension, and I do not
know just how they confuse the members of
the Legislature with the members of the
House of Commons.
But when I say that, I want to say this,
also, that I think that the members of the
House of Commons are very grossly under-
paid, and I think it significant in this federal
election campaign that so many men on both
sides of the House who have declined to
accept nominations for public office in the
ensuing Parliament which will take place,
have declined to accept public office because
they could not afford to carry on the responsi-
bility of being a member for the indemnities
paid to members of the House of Commons.
I think that the time has come when the
public has to realize that something has to
be done about indemnities and compensations
in one form or another for members of both
the House of Commons and the provincial
Legislature.
I wonder how many people in the province
of Ontario realize that the members of the
Ontario Legislature, who after all have the
conduct of the affairs of some 5.5 millions of
people are paid the magnificent sum of $300
a month. I wonder how many of the public
realize this, because as I say, and I repeat
so many people come up to you and say:
"You should be doing all right, because you
are an MP and you are getting $10,000 per
year."
Just to put it all in the record and to
again inform the public what we are being
paid we are paid as you all know $3,600 a
year, plus $1,800 in tax-free allowances. As
a matter of fact, I sent a note over to the
hon. Prime Minister the other morning when
he came into this House during the morning
session in exceptionally good humour, and I
said to him in my note: "Inasmuch as you
are in such good humour this morning, this
might be an excellent time to introduce an
amendment to The Legislative Assembly Act
to increase the indemnities."
He smiled and looked back, but inasmuch
as it is impossible for members of the Opposi-
tion to introduce money measures, there is
nothing much I can do about that than to
present that kind of suggestion.
Well I think, you know actually, I think . . .
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Give us some figures,
how much would he suggest?
Mr. Wren: Well I think we are just as
good as Quebec. Just as good as Quebec, and
I think if Quebec can increase their indemni-
ties to the equivalent of $7,000 a year and
provide a pension plan of $175 per month
after 10 sessions, we can go just a little bit
better, because we are not just as good as
Quebec we are a better province in this
banner province of ours.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Prime Minister is
the only one who applauded.
Mr. Wren: Well of course the hon. Prime
Minister is in a very difficult position, he is
not only the government leader in the House,
he is also at the present moment the Provincial
Treasurer. Now, if he woud vacate the office
of the Provincial Treasurer, which I under-
stand he is going to do in the not too distant
future, perhaps his newly appointed provincial
treasurer can sneak in with a presentation as
to what he feels might be a reasonable
indemnity for hon. members of the House and
MARCH 24, 1958
1207
for hon. members of the cabinet, and I think
perhaps the hon. Prime Minister would look
upon the new Treasurer's recommendation
with some favourable consideration.
Mr. Jolley: I like that."
Mr. Wren: I am not too afraid to discuss
these things, because after all this is what is
going to happen if something is not done
about indemnities, not only in the Legislature
across the country, but in the House of Com-
mons as well, we are going to reach a situation
where only men or women who have in-
dependent means are going to be able to
represent their constituents in the House of
Commons or in the Legislature.
And while 1 have no particular quarrel
with people who have means, unfortunately
I have not, while I have no particular quarrel
with people who have means, I think it would
be indeed an unfortunate situation for only
those people who were blessed with wealthy
circumstances or wealthy patrons who could
represent the people of Canada in the House
of Commons or in the Legislature.
I think the time has come when a realistic
look should be taken at this particular
question.
Mr. Speaker, the other day I had some-
thing to say about natural resources taxation.
I did not say a great deal about it because
I intended when I spoke on the budget debate
to say something more about it.
I want to say this evening that what the
north needs, what northern Ontario needs,
more than anything else, and when the north
needs it, the north will produce, and as a
result the benefits will flow back into the
southern part of the province.
But what the north still needs more than
anything else is developmental investment
and developmental taxation, and I do want
to say this with all the sincerity at my com-
mand, I do want to see the removal of dis-
criminatory taxation on the natural resources
industries of northern Ontario.
I do not think it is good business and I
do not believe that it is going to produce
any better result by the imposition, which is
the equivalent actually of an additional 4.5
per cent, in taxation, particularly on the
forest industries, for reasons which are indeed
obscure.
And what I said the other day I want to
emphasize and re-emphasize, and that is this,
that I think we should develop, starting with
the natural resources industries in the northern
part of the province, and then spreading into
industry generally all over Ontario, a reduction
in corporation tax, taking it down from our
present level of 48 per cent, progressively
over 5 or 10 years, down perhaps to 40 or
even to 35 per cent., provided that reduction
in taxation is channelled into capital develop-
ment, plan development and job creation.
I cannot help but think, and in the depres-
sion days when I was a youngster, a very
young youngster too, I had to lie about my
age to even get a job, but I can recall the
days in the 1930's when the best job you
could get was at 20 cents a day, and I am
not talking about the responsibilities which
may have laid at the door of any particular
political party.
What I am emphasizing is this, where we
failed in those days was in the simple matter
of lack of job creation and that is where
we are heading today unless we do something
positive about it.
Now I was rather interested this afternoon
to hear some of the discussions concerning
employment and the number of jobs which
were being created, or which were being set
up by one scheme or another. And the pro-
posals and the counter-proposals that had to
do with it.
One thing which emerged in the whole
discussion of this afternoon was that nothing
positive was brought out from one side or
the other and as a matter of fact, if the
debate had continued until 6 o'clock instead
of having gone on to some other subject
before that, I think the government would
have convinced us before the afternoon ended
that there was not any unemployment at all,
but actually there was a shortage of labour
and we would have to reinstitute an air lift
to Europe to bring people in here to go to
work, but such is not the case.
And I am not being pessimistic because I
submit, Mr. Speaker, that any Canadian, any
red-blooded Canadian in this country today
who is pessimistic about the future of this
country is simply not a good Canadian.
And I want to say this further, that in this
great nation which lays to the south of us,
which some people, and some political areas
have chosen to decry in recent days, they
have reached a population of some 170
million people, and as a result of their
population at the present time, it is only
natural that the rate of growth in population
in that country to the south of us is going
to become even more and more rapid.
Now we cannot ignore that situation, we
cannot ignore that market, we cannot ignore
those people. There to the south of us lies
the greatest market potential this country has
1208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ever seen and in addition to that, in the
very growth of the nation known to us as
the United' States of America, is the simple
fact that their own natural resources, while
they are not depleted by any stretch of the
imagination, they can see in the foreseeable
future, the time when they are going to have
to develop outside sources of supply for basic
materials.
We have them. They are all here in
Canada, and I think that Premier Duplessis,
as much as I disagree with some of his
fundamental thinking, summed it up and as
quickly and as properly as any man I have
ever heard when he said in an address before
a meeting in Montreal about six weeks ago
that Europe was, the United States is, and
Canada will be. I think that was summed
up by that man in as short, in as terse a
statement as we would ever want to hear.
Now, that brings us to another— or that
brings me at least, because I am not going
to involve the rest of the hon. members of
this House, in what I have to say, not only
the government because while I might be
unpopular with the government benches at
times, there are times when I get unpopular
with hon. members in the Opposition benches,
too.
So I do not want to involve anyone in
this, but I want to say that brings me down
to one particular point of interest that I
think people should become aware of, par-
ticularly in this banner industrial province of
Ontario.
And that is this, that we all fear a major
attack from across the waters, or across the
poles, as it were, and one of the major fears
that beset our military intelligence, when I
say "our military intelligence" I am including
the entire free world— one of the major fears
that beset them is the fact that in our way
of thinking, and in our philosophy of life, we
cannot attack, it is not within us, and it is
not within our conscience to mount an attack
upon another nation or upon another area
in the world.
But we believe that it is not beneath the
conscience of some other people to mount
an attack upon us, but in saying that one of
the things which worry our own military
planners and military men who have to plan
and decide upon defence of this continent,
one of the things that worry them is the fact
that they are not too sure where they might
attack in retaliation the industrial heart of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Now what are we doing? What are we
doing right in this major industrial province
of Ontario? We are concentrating our
industry right into a pocket which will make
it possible for any antagonist to knock us
out of business in a matter of minutes.
And I have had some experience with the
control of attacking aircraft, and I can say
without regard to intercontinental ballistic
missiles and all the rest of it, I can say that
even under the present methods of warfare,
present methods of aerial warfare, that there
is nothing we could possibly do to prevent
at least 40 per cent, of the invading enemy
aircraft from dropping their bombs in our
territory.
So what are we doing? We are concen-
trating everything we have right in this
particular area, and I say to you in addition
that all the problems you have with under-
passes and overpasses and highways and
access entries and access outlets and so on,
they are just building us up to a situation, to
a point of actual national disaster if we do
not do something about it.
We worry about the condition of our rail-
roads, we worry about the economics of our
trucking industry, we worry about the
economics of our transportation industry
generally.
Now .we have developed, in the face of
climatic conditions and other conditions across
the country, a very fine railroad system, we
have developed in this province and else-
where in Canada a very fine highway system.
But instead of using those transportation
facilities to develop industry across the
province or across the nation, from one point
to the other, interconnecting as they could,
subsidized if necessary. What would be
cheaper than subsidizing for example, the
transportation from a factory 200 miles north
of Toronto to the comparative example of the
total extermination of that factory and the
community around it if it were contained in
this particular area?
What I am trying to say to this House, Mr.
Speaker, is this, that decentralization of
industry is not only a necessary economic
factor, it is not only necessary to the
economic growth of the entire rural section
of the province of Ontario, it is necessary
to our very military safety.
And I think the time has come when we
have to take a very close look and take some
positive action in this particular field.
The other day I was quite disturbed to
read with some skepticism at first, but after-
wards with some knowledge from reports
which followed, that it was a fact, that the
MARCH 24, 1958
1209
Ford Motor Company in the United States
had prohibited the sale of 1,000 automobiles
through a Canadian agency to the Chinese
republic.
Now on the face of it this does not seem
to be a very important situation, but in the
face of the serious economic conditions
prevalent in the automobile industry in
Canada today I think it is indeed something
we have to do something about. Because the
automotive industry while we call it Cana-
dian, is located in the main, within the
province of Ontario. It is our problem within
the province of Ontario.
And I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and
the hon. members of this House, that the
time has arrived for Ontario to take decisive
action. The Canadian auto industry is
located in Ontario.
Therefore I submit that this Legislature
should not be prorogued this week, but
should be adjourned if necessary for an
Easter recess of perhaps two weeks or so,
and return again to pass legislation divorcing
control of sales of products from this province
from the control of any interest other than
Canadian.
I hope the hon. member for Niagara Falls
(Mr. Jolley) does like it, because I think the
time has come when we have to take a stand
on domination of Ontario industry in particu-
lar, and Canadian industry in general, by
people in control of that industry in another
nation.
Now some people have something to say
— perhaps derogatory remarks about my
contacts with labour, and I am proud and
happy to say that within reason, within logic,
within sense of reason, I am a labour sup-
porter, and am not one of those who say
that labour is without sin. They are not.
But we have heard a great deal in recent
years about the so-called domination of
Canadian trade unionism by the head offices
of those unions in the United States and
much has been said about it in this country.
And some of it, Mr. Speaker, I will agree, is
worthy of some consideration, but here we
have a situation where a foreign government
in a foreign head office industry or foreign
control in the head office of that industry,
dictate whether or not our own Ontario
factories shall, or shall not, sell their products
to this person or that.
Now I want to talk about another subject
which sometimes you can get full of, I agree.
I want to talk just for a few minutes again
tonight about the sale of liquor in Ontario.
I want to say that it cannot be disputed that
Ontario has become the largest individual
booze merchant in the free world. The
profits from the sale of liquor this year, in
the province of Ontario alone, will exceed
$60 million and it measures to continue and
increase those sales and continue unabated.
It seems to me that anything the great
brewers men can do to increase these sales
and bring towards them a benevolent atten-
tion is immediately condoned.
Now I want to say that the glass of beer
which our working people enjoy in the beer
parlours in the province, is one of those
things which is designed simply to increase
the consumption of the beer product across
the province.
I was quite amazed; if I had not been
personally present during the New Year's
holiday, I would not have believed it, but
I happened to be in a particular tavern in
bush clothes, and the bar tender in this
particular tavern had the radio on. We were
listening to a sports broadcast, news and a
little bit of music and in walked an inspector,
a hotel inspector for the area. He said:
"Shut that radio off, shut it off, we do not
allow that in this province. Who authorized
you to have a radio here in the first place?"
Well the bartender said: "I just work
here, I am not the boss."
The inspector said: "Where is the boss,
go and get him."
So he brought the boss down and he told
the boss: "Get that radio out of here or we
will close you up. I will take that licence
off the wall and put it in my pocket and
you will be shut up."
Now here we were up in a northern com-
munity with nothing more harmless to do
than listen to a radio and in walked a liquor
board inspector and said to them in effect,
and figuratively if not literally, grabs them by
the ears and says: "Get your nose down in
that beer and guzzle it. That is what you
are here for, to guzzle beer, you are here for
no other purpose. You are not here to
consort with your other fellow men, you are
not here to be entertained in some reason-
able way, you are here to guzzle beer, now
get your nose into the brew and guzzle."
Now that is the policy for some strange
reason of the administration of the liquor
control board of Ontario and this afternoon
my hon. friend from Essex North (Mr.
Reaume) brought up a matter in connection
with Bill No. 161, in regards to amendments
to the Liquor Control Act.
1210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, while I was not present in the
House, I could hear what was going on in
complete detail, and I was quite surprised
to hear the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Dunbar ) say that it was not feasible to extend
the benefits of the privilege of keeping liquor
in mine bunk houses and bush bunk houses
and so on.
Now I can recall, as well as the hon.
Provincial Secretary can, the days when we
had the old muzzle loader bunks and the
old log shacks and so on in the mining
camps and the lumber camps, and the straw
ticks and the salt pork and beans and the
rest of it.
But those days have gone forever. They
are out the window except in very very rare
instances but we do have instances in the
mining camps and in the lumber camps where
men have their own privates rooms, and their
own locks on the doors.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: They can have liquor.
Now just a moment, do not go and say that,
they can have liquor if there is a lock on
the door.
Mr. Wren: Just a moment, just wait till
I finish. They have their own rooms and
they have locks on the doors and the mine
management says: "You dare not bring liquor
into this property, you dare not bring liquor
into your premises," and it is supported by the
Ontario Provincial police, and I can show my
hon. friend, and I would be glad to— in fact
I will be delighted to sit down in his office
and show him records of convictions of men
who have taken liquor into their own rooms
in quarters in the mines, in the bushes,
quarters for which they were paying from
$90 to $105 for the privilege of having their
room and board, and were convicted of illegal
possession of liquor in a place other than
their own residence.
Now I say in all fairness, are these men
animals? They are just as good, as I said
to my hon. friend from High Park (Mr.
Cowling) last year, there are far more Indians
running around the hallways of the Royal York
Hotel than there are up north.
Mr. Grossman: They do not drink in High
Park. They are dry.
Mr. Wren: They do not? Well that is fine.
They must have some blind staggers around
here.
But why on earth should these men be
treated in that particular manner. That is
something that I cannot understand and I
will be glad to sit down and discuss it with
the hon. Provincial Secretary.
I am not here with any intentions of embar-
rassing him because he is a man whom I
honour and respect very much indeed.
But what I am suggesting to him is this
that you cannot make fish of one and flesh
of the other. Let us have all men walk across
this province in equal stature.
Let us not say: "Just because you work in
the mine, just because you go underground
and risk your life by mining ore from under-
ground or just because you can go out and
make as much as some lawyers in Toronto
can make chopping down trees that you can-
not legally be entitled to have in your pos-
session spirits or liquor."
Now I do suggest that this is something
that must be taken into serious consideration.
The next thing about this booze business that
still goes on, you walk into a community or
go into a community with a first class res-
taurant with an investment of $100,000,
$150,000 or $200,000 and a visitor comes in
and says: "Can I possibly purchase a bottle
of beer?"
"I am sorry, sir, that you cannot do, but
you can go down to that place down there
about half a block, you can go down there,,
if you can stand the smell, and drink all the
beer you like, but you cannot have any food
down there with it; you cannot have a meal
with it. You can just go in there and have
a bit of a snack, but you can go in there
and guzzle beer, that is the purpose of that
place, the purpose of our place is to have
food."
Now I think that all of these, all of the
people who have anything to do with this
subject will tell, from the information I get,
and that is subject to correction, that every-
one I know of who has anything to say about
the use and control of liquor say that the
finest thing that can happen to people who
drink, or who want to drink, is to have it
with food.
Yet, our first-class restaurants in this prov-
ince are denied the right to sell it and second
class hotels— and I say that advisedly— many
second class hotels can sell all they want, as
long as you go in and do not utter a sound
and do not raise your voice in song, and do
not turn on a radio, and do not order two
glasses of beer at one time— just keep that
waiter running back and forth and you can
drink all you like.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Does he mean that
there is not a restaurant in Ontario selling
booze?
MARCH 24, 1958
1211
Mr. Wren: I did not say that there was no
restaurant, I say there are restaurants in
Ontario, first class, high class restaurants
catering to superior clientele, if you will, who
cannot get the privilege and the right to sell
even beer, let alone all the other beverages.
Mr. Grossman: What is a superior clientele?
Mr. Wren: People who know how to take
a drink and handle it well. They are superior
clientele.
Now another subject which seems to be
rather touchy around this House, that I want
to mention again, and as a matter of fact it
was mentioned in the afternoon newspapers
in the city of Toronto, that something like
$7.75 million had gone into the Irish sweep-
stakes again, and I just wonder why we do
not do something about it.
The millions of dollars which annually
pour across our borders in support of sweep-
stakes is indeed apalling, especially in the
light of knowledge that the distribution of
much of that money is questionable indeed.
But right here in the province, and not
only in the province of Ontario but in many
other provinces of Canada, we are not guilty
alone in this thing; more millions are milked
from our people through the windows of the
race track where the bettor is licked before
he starts.
Now we want to tie in our race tracks just
a little bit now with our booze.
Up where I live, if the local legion puts on
a bingo where the old sweats from the first
war and the second war get in and play a
little bingo and cards, and the steward in the
legion dares serve a bottle of beer along with
that 10 cent bingo card, the wrath of the gods
descend upon him— the liquor board.
But if you want to go out here to Wood-
bine race track they are not satisfied with
clipping you, and you know that you are
going to get clipped before you ever get
there. Before you ever get to the betting
window, in addition to that, now they are
provided with the privilege of selling booze
out there to keep you in a better mood, and
instead of making a $2 bet you will make it
$5.
Now what is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I
suggest to you, what is wrong with the little
ordinary common people of the province of
Ontario being enabled legally to spend a buck
or two, once or twice a year on a sweepstake?
Buy a sweepstake ticket, let the Ontario gov-
ernment sponsor a sweepstake, or if they can-
not sponsor it at least supervise it, so that
the buck or two they gamble once or twice
a year, instead of going and gamble two or
three weeks' pay cheques at Woodbine, let
them gamble one or two bucks a year in a
supervised sweepstake operation, and use the
proceeds of the sweepstake to good purpose
within this province.
If this government wants a good purpose
where it could be applied, I suggest to them
right off the bat that I can think of hundreds
of people in the north country who, through
financial circumstances, cannot purchase drugs
which are prescribed to them for chronic ill-
nesses.
Not only that, there are many other fields
of endeavour where the proceeds of a govern-
ment supervised sweepstake could have very
marked effects.
Now there is another subject which is
equally touchy, and about which I have been
subjected to some criticism and I do not know
why. It may have been one of the reasons
why I have not wanted to go home, but it
could or could not be, but the other day I
was criticized by a publication known as the
Sentinel in the city of Toronto because I had
said, according to this publication, that I was
opposed to the Orange Lodge, and that I was
an enemy of the public school system in Onta-
rio, that was the effect of the criticism.
Now, in the first place, I have never ever,
and I do not now say anything in criticism
of the Orange Lodge. But what I did say, and
what I still do say, is that something has to
be done and something must be done about
the separate school situation in Ontario. And
when I talk about the separate schools, Mr.
Speaker, I am not talking just about Roman
Catholic separate schools, there are Jewish
separate schools and there are Anglican
separate schools in this province, and any
religious group, regardless of its structure,
has the right under the law to form a
separate school organization if they so choose.
Now what I do want to say about this
particular subject is this— and for once in
my life I am going to read my remarks for
fear that they may become misconstrued.—
What I want to say about this subject is this;
that where any group of people under the
law, and within their constitutional rights,
seek to establish a separate school, that
school should enjoy the conditions which will
provide to them equal opportunities in the
field of elementary education.
It should also be possible to provide for
teaching staffs the same range of financial
opportunities as is enjoyed in any like field
of professional teaching.
For example, according to the report of
the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Dunlop)
1212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for the year 1957, 218 teachers in our public
schools received a salary over $8,250 per
annum. In the separate schools of the
province none reached that figure.
Some 4,705 public school teachers received
salaries of more than $5,450 while only 3
teachers in our separate schools attained that
bracket of income; 697 separate school
teachers or 10.6 per cent, of all the separate
school teachers were paid more than $3,050
per annum as of September 1957, while
18,942 or 69.6 per cent, of the public school
teachers exceeded that figure.
It is a tragic picture, I submit, that, men
and women teaching in our separate schools
must work at night in hot dog stands and in
gas stations to earn enough money to keep
their families together, while carrying on
their regular occupation as principals and
senior teachers in separate schools.
The government, I will admit, has made
advances to help this situation, but much
remains to be done. Deals have been made
by this government with the princes of one
church to advance the field of higher educa-
tion and a lot about that principle is good.
But a further deal needs to be made for
the rank and file separate school child who
will never reach university level. Educational
authorities in the province of Quebec are
making serious raids on Ontario's teaching
staff, and it was only a matter of two or three
weeks ago when the Bishop of London issued
a statement to the press expressing his con-
cern with the raids that the Quebec people
were making on separate school teaching
staffs in Ontario.
Now in the province of Quebec the sepa-
rate school (which there is a Protestant school
as we know it) gets a square deal. Let us
have a square deal here.
It is not for me to say that the separate
schools are right or wrong, as I said that last
year and I repeat it, but they are here to
stay and the pupils in those separate schools
are Canadians. Let us treat them as
Canadians while nothing must be done to
do anything but improve the public school
system.
I am very proud of the public school
system, and will do everything that I can to
advance the interest of the public school
curriculum and facilities. Meanwhile, we can-
not afford to neglect the education of any
Canadian child regardless of race, colour or
creed.
It is the duty of this administration and
any administration which succeeds it, to
provide equality of opportunity for all
Canadian children at the elementary school
level.
Now the other day I had something to
say, too, about this railway issue in Canada,
something which is culminated and has
brought about a condition which is going
to backfire on the principal railway company
in Canada.
But I want to say this Mr. Speaker, with-
out the risk of repeating anything that I have
said before about this particular subject, that
one of the prime issues at the moment in
this railway issue is this; and one which I
cannot quite understand:
The report of the Kelloch Royal commis-
sion, on the diesel firemen dispute was in
the hands of the government at Ottawa long
before Parliament was dissolved, and for
some reason unknown— and I am wide open
to discussions and explanations on this
subject— that for some reason unknown to
me and unknown to anyone else, that report
was supressed until such time that Parliament
was dissolved and then it was handed to the
railway company as a very potent weapon
indeed to seek the death and the destruction
of the railway labour movement in Canada.
Now I expect that before next Monday
rolls around the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister of
Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) will make some
statement in explanation of what appears on
the surface to be a very dastardly action
indeed and I expect he will, because he has
a rather long period of interested participa-
tion in railroad labour affairs right across
the Dominion of Canada.
But for some unknown reason, and I think
that perhaps due to the very definite inexperi-
ence of the man who happened to be his
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) he was
not properly advised on this subject.
Now in conclusion Mr. Speaker, I just
want to make one further comment, and I
hope that the chair will not rule me out of
order when I discuss this particular subject
as it has to do with the Royal family, and
it has nothing to do with, I would say, about
the Royal family which would not be very
gracious and generous and something about
which I am very proud.
But I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that
next year as I understand it, we will be
graced with yet another visit from Her
Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
I think that all Canadians were very pleased
indeed with her visit last year, and with the
tender interest Her Majesty displayed to the
ordinary people of Canada.
MARCH 24, 1958
1213
I know that I was particularly impressed
with her TV address to the Canadian nation,
which to me was very homely and very
particularly directed to people of the common
walks of life in this country. I was also very
impressed with her tender solicitude toward
the disabled war veterans, particularly when
she greeted them before the National War
Memorial in Ottawa.
Now I do not know if I am out of place
in making this suggestion, but I make it in
the knowledge of the affection with which
Her Majesty is held across the breadth of
the Commonwealth and certainly across the
entire world.
I know that I, along with all the hon.
members of this House, regard our Sovereign
as the Queen of Canada, and certainly she
is so regarded particularly by other Common-
wealth countries. Her great qualities were
evident when she opened the last session of
the House of Commons.
To that end I want to suggest that, on the
occasion of the visit of her Majesty to
Ontario next year, that a humble address be
presented to Her Majesty, that she consider,
and have her senior Ministers consider, the
appointment of a Governor-General for the
United Kingdom so that she might spend
more time in residence across the Common-
wealth.
I personally can feel envious that the
people of the United Kingdom should demand
so much of her time, so much of the time
of a great Sovereign who is also ours, and I
would hope that someone in high places in the
government in Canada, perhaps initiated
through this Legislature, might suggest that
Her Majesty might consider recommending
the appointment of a Governor-General for
the United Kingdom, so that she might spend
more time with us in a land and in a nation
which is so proud of her and which is hers
and ours jointly.
Mr. R. McNeill (Elgin): Mr. Speaker, I
would move the adjournment of this debate.
Motion agreed to.
The House resolved into the committee
of the whole.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 128, An
Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act.
Sections 1 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 128 reported.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 130, An
Act to amend The Municipal Act.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, has there been a change
in The Municipal Act in reference to the
election of a deputy reeve? Last year it
was changed, I understand, to allow for
more deputy reeves, and this year there
seems to be a change back to the original
position. Who is in a position to say whether
they have or what the change has been?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I think the section referred to this,
last year there was a change which resulted
in more deputy reeves. As a matter of fact,
that sounded very well, but in some places
there was not enough courtroom space to
accommodate them. I think Barrie was one
place.
The result was this change to avoid that.
I think perhaps the feeling is just to hold
the determination of that provision until it
is seen how the thing is going to work out.
Mr. Oliver: That is a pretty lame excuse,
that they do not have room to house the
extra deputy reeves.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The same problem comes
up with voting at 21, that is why there is
an exclusion in the Act there. Some of those
things really should not affect the number
of reeves or deputy reeves a municipality
has, I think my hon. friend will agree with
that.
Mr. Oliver: Well, do we revert in this
instance to the old basis of electing a deputy
reeve?
All I want to know is if this amendment
restores us to the original position so far as
the election of a deputy reeve is concerned?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Section 4 puts it back to
where it was.
Mr. Oliver: To where it was last year?
Hon. Mr. Frost That is right.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Hon. Mr. Frost: Might I point out to the
hon. leader of the Opposition that the
problem— I am going back to that section-
further explanation was this, that it was
found that it increased the number of deputy
reeves in certain municipalities, and as a
1214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
matter of fact created disparities and difficul-
ties in connection with certain other munici-
palities by throwing the thing out of balance.
That was not anticipated when the amend-
ment was made a year ago, to become
effective I think on the 1st of January, 1959,
but it was found that it threw it out so
much, and threw the various balances out too
much.
Then there was the question af a gain in
the county of Simcoe— I think that particu-
lar county was mentioned— that it added so
many additional members to county council
that they would have to have different
accommodation to take care of them.
But quite aside from that I think the
important thing was this, that you very
materially altered the balance between urban
and rural which now is reasonably satis-
factory. But you altered that balance, and
the only way to do would be some expedient
to restore the balance by adding to urban
representation. Now it was felt in view of
all that it was far better to revert to the way
it was before.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: A number of municipali-
ties, including rural municipalities, have
asked that it be returned to the old basis?
Mr. Oliver: Did some organization ask
that it be returned to the former?
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
The municipalities have asked for it in the
first place, asked the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender) if they would
change it back.
Mr. Oliver: I never heard that before.
What association asked for its return?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Not an association, it
was the municipalities which requested it.
Mr. Oliver: Rural municipalities?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Yes, rural municipalities,
that would affect the deputy reeves.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I do not know about
that, but we will let it go.
Sections 8 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 22:
Mr. Oliver: On section 22, the explanatory
note says the amendment provides for raising
the amount of any deficit on the sale of
debentures by a levy over a period of years
not exceeding 5, as may be approved by the
municipal board.
I would like to ask somebody over there
a general question. For instance, we will be
discussing it in the next day or so, how many
successive deficits can any particular muni-
cipality have without being noticed by the
municipal board.
Now I do not know whether I have made
that question plain or not, but it seems to
me that the municipal board has over-all
supervision of the municipalities of the
province, and it would seem to me one or
two years, in which there was an over-all
deficit, would cause that municipality to come
to the attention of the municipal board, and
they would exercise then the mandatory or
the supervisory powers that they have over
that municipality.
Now there have been instances, as the hon.
Prime Minister knows, where this has gone
on for a number of years. It seems to me if
the municipal board is to exercise the func-
tions with which it is clothed, then it should
come not to the assistance, shall. we say, of
that municipality, but certainly it should at
that time attempt to supervise the financial
affairs of the municipality.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, of course, the hon.
leader of the Opposition will recognize that
his question is not really directed to this
particular section, this has to do with the
deficit. I suppose in the sale of debentures,
not realizing what they should realize, and
then that the deficit is treated in this way.
The question he has directed is, if a muni-
cipality is in trouble when does that come
to the attention of the municipal board?
I would say to him that as a matter of
fact— and he is experienced in things municipal
enough to know this— that it might not come
to the attention of the department for many
years, actually that is so. He must remember
that a municipality is an autonamous organi-
zation, and it is conducting its business
according to ordinary belief, according to
the statutes, and The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs does not step into an office or
check the books and take the responsibility
for what happens.
I think the hon. leader will agree with
that.
Now there is a section being added this
year to The Municipal Act, giving The
Department of Municipal Affairs the power
to go into a municipality and to advise and
check. It does not carry with it the power
to do anything on that particular check,
MARCH 24, 1958
1215
although as we know there is a general power
in The Municipal Act to put a municipality
under supervision.
That section has been created under the
direction of Mr. Carter, who most of the hon.
members here know quite well.
The matter arose this way: It was quite
obvious that municipalities— take for instance
the township of Cardiff which was mentioned
here— a little bush township that is finally put
in the big league because of the development
of uranium. Or take the adjoining township
of Farraday, or the village of Bancroft, and
the township of Monmouth, adjoining that.
Those areas are thrown into things which
they never thought of, and never had any
experience with, and they might get into
serious difficulties. That was the genesis of
giving, under that Act, the power of the
department to go in and examine and to
advise.
Now it does not give any powers directly
for them to do things, but nevertheless the
fact that they have that ability to go in and
look at things, I think, is dealing with the
problem along the lines the hon. leader of
the Opposition has suggested, without impos-
ing arbitrary conditions which takes away
the autonomy of the municipality.
Section 22 agreed to.
On section 23:
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Prime Minister, in section 23, the
amendment there is to limit the current
borrowing at any time to 70 per cent, of the
uncollected balance of the estimated revenues.
Now if there is no check from the municipal
board, how do they make the municipality
obey that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, how does one obey,
for instance, a prohibition of exceeding 50
miles an hour? The law is there, and I
would say that the municipalities are very
careful in most cases to obey the law.
There are plenty of cases in the 1,000
municipalities over the last 25 years where
they have gone astray. That is the subject
of many a private bill which comes here, and
many a protest which is made in this chamber.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I think the important
thing with respect to the hon. member's ques-
tion, or the answer to his question is, that
the person loaning the money— which is
usually a bank— has to have a by-law drawn
up in a proper form, and certain evidence is
required as to the municipality's financial
position, and their budget and so on and so
forth, and so they are the ones who should
perhaps at times watch some of these things
a little more closely than they have in the
odd case.
Section 23 to 28 inclusive, agreed to.
On section 29:
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, on section 29,
has it ever been suggested that the munici-
pality has not the power to establish an
operating street lighting system? I thought
they always had that right and power. That
is subsection 4.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am advised by the law
officers that it has never been spelled out in
the Act after 165 years of existence, that is so.
Mr. Oliver: Well, it is about time we got
around to regularizing it.
Sections 29 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 130 reported.
THE REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS
BROKERS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 134, An
Act to amend The Real Estate and Business
Brokers Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 134 reported.
THE REGISTRY ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 134, An
Act to amend The Registry Act.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 135 reported.
THE LAW STAMPS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 137, An
Act to repeal the Law Stamps Act.
Sessions 1 to 4 inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 137 reported.
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Bill No. 139, An Act to amend The Suc-
cession Duty Act.
Mr. Oliver: Could we perhaps leave this,
Mr. Chairman, until my hon. friend from
1216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
North Waterloo (Mr. Wintermeyer) is back.
I would like to leave that one if you would?
Bill No. 139 held.
THE LAKE OF THE WOODS
CONTROL BOARD ACT, 1922
House in committee on Bill No. 141, An
Act to Amend The Lake of the Woods Control
Board Act, 1922.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask is similar legislation
being passed by the Manitoba Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Yes, I understand that
their legislation would be parallel to this.
My hon. friend, the vice-chairman of Hydro
(Mr. Connell) could explain this in more
detail.
Hon. R. Connell (Minister Without Port-
folio): Mr. Chairman, this bill is of course
complementary to Bill No. 144, too.
To give a fair explanation of it. If the
people from northern Ontario know the Lake
St. Joseph section and the Lac Seul section,
Hydro has installed a canal up there by which
they are taking some water from over the
heights of land from the Lake St. Joseph,
and they are taking this down into the
English and Winnipeg rivers, and by that
means are getting a great deal more power
from it.
The Lake of the Woods control board have
control over that water. This bill of course
is bringing Manitoba into this picture, and
then of course the other bill is authorizing
the agreement whereby Manitoba accepts
this water.
Hon. Mr. Frost: And we get back a cer-
tain portion of the power developed on their
side of the line.
Mr. Oliver: Is that a joint operation?
Hon. Mr. Connell: We are getting back, I
believe, some 160,000 kw hours of increased
power from those dams in Manitoba, and we
are getting that at a rate of 1.4 mills per kw
hour. The estimated recovery power on our
own dams at Ear Falls and Manitou Falls
and Caribou Falls generating stations would
net us about 175,000 kw hours per year.
I do not know if there is anything else that
hon. member would like added to that or
not, but I would say coming to subsection
4 there, that I move that section 4 of the bill
be struck out, and the following substituted
therefore— that section 4, subsection 9 of The
Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1922,
be repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
The expenses of the board, including the
remuneration of the members or alternate
members of the board, shall be paid out of
such funds as may be appropriated by the
Parliament of Canada, and the Legislatures
of Ontario and Manitoba respectively, for
paying expenses incurred for the purposes
of this Act, in such proportions as His
Excellency the Governor-General-in-Coun-
cil, and the respective Honourable the
Lieutenant Governors-in-Council may agree.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask my hon. friend, does
this Act control waters in both the province
of Ontario and the province of Manitoba?
I mean, if there is an Act, a complimentary
Act passed by the Manitoba Legislature—
Hon. Mr. Connell: Actually, it is the agree-
ment to control the amount of water flowing
down from Lac Seul into Lake Winnipeg;
that is the only water that they are actually
interested in.
They can control that amount. The extra
amount, that amounts to about 2,000 cubic
feet per second, is the extra amount of water
that is being taken from Lake St. Joseph.
But Manitoba is going to have a man on
this Lake of the Woods control board. Under
this new Act, they are having a man added
to this control board.
Mr. Oliver: Well where is the power going
to be developed, in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Connell: There are 4 dams that
are generating power. There are 3 now, and
another one contemplated in Ontario. There
are 3 dams in Manitoba that they will be
developing power from, and from that power
they develop is between 160,000 kw and
170,000 kw hours per annum.
We in turn get that back at a very reason-
able rate of 1.4 mills per kw hour.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I want to bring to the hon.
members the situation. The Lake of the
Woods Control Act was passed in 1922. It is
a boundary water of course, the Lake of the
Woods is a boundary water, and my recollec-
tion that Shoal Lake drains into the Lake
of the Woods, and the Lake of the Woods
into the Winnipeg river, is not that the
course of it?
Back in 1922, the Act provided a control
board known as the Lake of the Woods
control board, with control over the Lake
MARCH 24, 1958
1217
of the Woods watershed which included
Shoal Lake.
At that time there were, I think, but 4
members of the board, two Ontario and two
Canada.
Now the Province of Manitoba of course
has a power problem, and as a matter of
fact, so have we, in that area of the
province, with the result that it was deter-
mined to take some of the water from the
Albany river— that is, Lake St. Joseph— and
run it by means of a cut into Shoal Lake,
which of course increased the flowage of the
water in the Winnipeg river as has been
indicated here tonight.
In brief, what happens then is this.
Manitoba becomes interested in it because
we are putting 2,000 feet a second down
their river more than is presently going
down, and more than is the normal flow of
that river. Therefore, representation on the
board is being changed to 2 Ontario, 1
Canada and 1 Manitoba.
The increased power development which
is made possible on the Winnipeg river is
purchasable by Ontario at the cost of produc-
tion which is, as my hon. friend says, a very
low rate.
Mr. Oliver: Over how many years?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, it is over 5 I think
perpetually. It is determinable by either
party on 4 years' notice, it is in the Act
here, determinable upon 4 years' notice.
Our position is just this. The water that
would presently go down the Albany river
is not really economical for us at the present
time. If it ever did become economical, we
of course could then terminate this agree-
ment by giving 4 years' notice, and develop
the power sites on the Albany river which
presently are really of little value. I would
remind the hon. members, as to the location,
that the Albany river crosses about 15 or 20
miles below Pickle Lake.
Actually speaking, there is no use for power
in. that particular section. On the other hand,
if it can be developed on the Winnipeg
river, then it can be used in that portion of
Ontario, we might say the Kenora-Lake of the
Woods area.
That is about the situation.
Mr. Chairman: Section 4, as amended,
stands as part of the bill carried.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 141 reported.
THE MANITOBA-ONTARIO LAKE ST.
JOSEPH DIVERSION AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 144, The
Manitoba-Ontario Lake St. Joseph Diversion
Agreement Authorization Act, 1958.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now I may say sir, that
this is the agreement between Ontario and
Manitoba. Generally speaking, this bill
permits the government to enter into an
agreement with the government of Manitoba.
In order that the fullest of information
might be given, the agreement is, as it speaks,
substantially in the form provided in
schedule A, which is the agreement.
Now the Manitoba people have been over
that, and it is conceivable there might be
some changes in detail in that. I am not
aware of anything at the present, but that is
the purpose of saying that the agreement
would be substantially in this form.
As a matter of fact, we would arrive at
very much the same conclusion by giving the
government, general powers to enter into an
agreement with the government of Manitoba.
Hon. Mr. Connell: In the agreement part,
I would move that paragraph 20 of the
schedule be struck out and the following
substituted:
This agreement shall take effect, upon
the completion by the commission of the
diversion works and notification thereof to
the board, and shall continue in full force
and effect unless and until terminated by
Manitoba, by Ontario, by the board, or
by the commission by at least 4 years*
notice, given in writing and in registered
mail addressed to the other party to the
agreement.
This brings the draft agreement up to
date and in line with the corresponding
schedule in the bill now before the Legis-
lature of Manitoba.
Schedule as amended, agreed to.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 144 reported.
THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS ACT,
1956
House in committee on Bill No. 147, An
Act to amend The Charitable Institutions Act,
1956.
1218
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare ) : I move that section 1 be amended
by striking out the following words "other
than an institution", fourth line, and by
striking out the words "home for the aged"
in the fifth line, and substituting, "children's
institution" so that the sub-section shall read:
1. There shall be paid out of such monies
as are appropriated therefore by the Legis-
lature to every charitable organization
operating a charitable institution, as speci-
fied in the regulations as a children's
institution, an amount of $8 per month for
each person present in the institution, to
be computed in accordance with the
regulations.
I move further that the new subsection
2 be amended further by striking out the
following words "as a home for the aged"
in the fourth and fifth line and substituting
the following words, "other than an institu-
tion that is specified in the regulations as a
children's institution," so that the subsection
shall read:
There shall be paid out of such monies
as are appropriated therefore by the Legis-
lature to every charitable organization
operating a charitable institution, that is
specified in the regulations other than an
institution that is specified in the regula-
tions as a children's institution, an amount
equal to 75 per cent, of the amount paid
by the charitable organization for the
maintenance of each person a resident in
the institution, be computed in accordance
to the regulations.
To explain this, Mr. Chairman, the amend-
ments are necessary by reason of the recent
decision to have the $8 monthly provincial
subsidy apply only to children's institutions,
and to have the 75 per cent, provincial subsidy
applied to all other institutions.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 147 reported.
THE PUBLIC COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 149, An
Act to amend The Public Commercial Vehicles
Act.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 149 reported.
THE PUBLIC VEHICLES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 150, An
Act to amend The Public Vehicles Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 150 reported.
THE ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT
BOARD ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 151, An
Act to amend The Ontario Highway Transport
Board Act, 1955.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 151 reported.
THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
House in committee on Bill No. 152, An
Act to provide for the control of air pollution.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to add to section 3, subsection 9, which
reads as follows:
No by-law or provincial regulation or
air pollution control shall apply to sulphur
fumes arising from the operations desig-
nated in The Damage by Fumes Arbitra-
tion Act.
This is so that it will not conflict with The
Fumes Arbitration Act.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 152 reported.
SERVICES OF HOMEMAKERS AND
NURSES
House in committee on Bill No. 148, An
Act to provide for the services of homemakers
and nurses.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 148 reported.
THE DAMAGE BY FUMES
ARBITRATION ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 153, An
Act to amend The Damage by Fumes
Arbitration Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 153 reported.
MARCH 24, 1958
1219
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 154, An
Act to amend The Department of Education
Act, 1954.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 154 reported.
THE FEMALE REFUGES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 157, An
Act to amend The Female Refuges Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 157 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I am going
to let the other two Acts, 47 and 48, stand
over for the reason that tomorrow the hospital
committee is meeting here, and if there are
any questions that might be asked about
those Acts, they would be cleared up by the
meeting here tomorrow.
REHABILITATION SERVICES ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 171, An
Act to amend The Rehabilitation Services Act,
1955.
Sections 1 to 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 171 reported.
THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 159, An
Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 159 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 162, An
Act to amend The Corporations Act, 1953.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 162 reported.
THE EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL
DIRECTORS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 163, An
Act to amend The Embalmers and Funeral
Directors Act.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 163 reported.
THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 164, An
Act to amend The Financial Administration
Act, 1954.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 164 reported.
HOMES FOR THE AGED ACT, 1955
House in committee on Bill No. 166, An Act
to amend The Homes for the Aged Act, 1955.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 166 reported.
CROWN ATTORNEYS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 172, An
Act to amend The Crown Attorneys Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 172 reported.
SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 173, An
Act to amend The Summary Convictions Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 173 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move the committee
rise and report certain bills with and certain
bills without amendment.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of the whole
House begs to report certain bills without
amendment, certain bills with certain amend-
ments, and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, before calling
the adjournment, may I say there is an item
on the order paper, resolution No. 1. The
hon. member for Kenora, (Mr. Wren) has
spoken to me about that, and intimated that,
in view of the fact that he was going to speak
partly on the subject matter of this resolu-
tion, he did not want to proceed with the
resolution and asked me to call for it and
call for its discharge, that is item No. 1 on
the notices of motions.
1220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I might say I discussed this with the hon.
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Notice of motion No. 1, stand-
ing in the name of the hon. member for
Kenora (Mr. Wren), is as follows: Resolved:
THAT it is the opinion of this House,
having regard to constitutional, legislative
and human rights to establish and maintain
elementary schools in Ontario, that dis-
crimination exists in the field of financial
burden of elementary school supporters in
Ontario, and that therefore this House
should now resolve for the removal of such
discrimination by revision of the basis upon
which the financing of elementary educa-
tion is carried on to the end that oppor-
tunity, essential facilities and human rights
in the field of elementary education shall
henceforth apply with equal force to all the
people of Ontario without regard to race,
colour or creed.
The motion is withdrawn.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In moving the adjourn-
ment of the House, may I say that tomorrow
we will have the remaining estimates of the
hon. Provincial Secretary. We will proceed
with that estimate, with the exception of one
item in it, which is necessary to call, to meet
with the formalities of the prorogation of the
House. We will call that time tomorrow with
remaining bills on the order paper, private
members' bills and motion and budget debate.
I would hope sir— well, I will leave that until
tomorrow, in regards to the conclusion of the
budget debate.
Mr. Oliver: Is there a health committee
meeting in the morning too?
Hon. Mr. Phillips: At 9.30 a.m.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.15 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 46
ONTARIO
Hegislature of (Ontario
Betmtes;
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, March 25, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 25, 1958
Third report, standing committee on municipal law, Mr. Rankin 1223
Interim report, standing committee on labour, Mr. Maloney 1223
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 1224
Estimates, Provincial Secretary's Department 1224
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Chaput, Mr. Nixon 1237
Recess, 6 o'clock 1256
1223
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 25, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. D. J. Rankin, from
the standing committee on municipal law,
presents the committee's third report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the following
bill without amendment:
Bill No. 184, An Act to amend The Housing
Development Act.
Your committee also begs to report the
following bills with certain amendments.
Bill No. 160, An Act to provide for the
extension of the municipal franchise.
Bill No. 180, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. J. A. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave
to present the interim report of the select
committee appointed on March 27, 1957,
to examine into and report regarding the
operation and administration of The Labour
Relations Act in all of its aspects.
In connection with this interim report, I
do not know that there is much that I can
usefully say to the House at this particular
time. The report has been prepared for
distribution and circulation among the hon.
members so they will have it available for
each one of them to read.
In this interim report, we make no specific
recommendations.
We are requesting that our life should be
extended to enable us to continue the investi-
gation immediately after this session is
prorogued, so that we can hear submissions
still to be presented, study legislation in force
in some other jurisdictions, and that we then
be permitted— after careful consideration of
all matters brought to the attention of the
committee— to make our report.
I might add that this interim report is
signed by all of the 11 members of the
committee and is unanimously adopted by
them. There are 3 or 4 appendices to the
report. Appendices 2, 3 and 4 contain the list
of the organizations which have presented
briefs.
Appendix 5 is a list of the briefs which
we expect to receive in the next two or three
weeks, and they are summarized as follows:
employee representatives, 30; employer repre-
sentatives, 30; other groups and individuals,
18; number of briefs still to be heard, 15.
Number of unfinished hearings, that is, people
who have presented briefs and have expressed
the desire to come back again, 8.
The committee sat for 35 days and I
might add, Mr. Speaker, that each member of
the committee attended to his duties very
assiduously, performed his work very care-
fully and conscientiously, and we are entitled
I think from this House, to be given credit for
the fact that at least we have given this mat-
ter very careful consideration.
I must say, as the chairman of the com-
mittee, it has been a pleasure for me to sit
in that capacity. I have learned much about
labour and management problems that I did
not know existed before. I know what a
tremendous responsibility has rested on the
officials of The Department of Labour, and
we are indeed indebted to the hon. Minister
of Labour (Mr. Daley), the Deputy Minister
and all of the officials of his department who
have contributed so ably to our work. As
chairman, I would also like to thank all the
members of the committee for the very won-
derful manner in which they performed their
duties.
The secretary of our committee, Mr. Perk-
ins, and his assistants, have been of great
assistance to us, and we have received very
good, conscientious advice from our counsel,
Mr. George T. Walsh, Q.C. I respectfully ask,
Mr. Speaker, that our life be extended for the
purpose already mentioned in the brief.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Before the orders of the day, I would like
to welcome the students who are here to view
the proceedings of the House— the students
from Pauline Johnston collegiate, Brantford;
1224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Doctor Cannon school, Oshawa; Delta second-
ary school, Hamilton, and St. Basil's school,
Toronto.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I desire to table answer to questions
8, 12, 17, 27, 28, 32 and 34, and I should like
to make the answers to questions 5 and 35
orders for return.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I would like to say that I mentioned the other
day a member of our press gallery, Mr. Kin-
mond. I should like today to mention another
member of the press gallery who has received
the distinguished honour of being made the
vice-president of the Canadian Union of
Journalists, that is, Mr. Roland Desmarais, of
he Droit, Ottawa. I think he is the only
Canadian journalist delegated to the inter-
national federation of journalists held in Lon-
don, England, at the end of April next, and
he will also attend the international federa-
tion of the French press in Brussels. We
extend our congratulations to him.
Mr. J. A. McCue (Lanark): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would like to
report that the committee on health met this
morning and made certain amendments to
Bill No. 169, An Act to amend The Ontario
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
I beg leave to present to the House the
following:
Twenty-sixth annual report of The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare for the fiscal year
1956-1957.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of supply; Mr. H. M.
Allen in the chair.
ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY'S DEPARTMENT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, in rising to present the esti-
mates for this department, I may say we have
3 branches; one deals with The Companies
Act, another with vital statistics, and the third
with the civil service commission.
I am reminded, by looking around the
House, that when we first came here in 1937,
there were not so many of the same faces; in
fact, just 4 on this side of the House and
just two in the Opposition. I listened to the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) for several
years as he presented in a very capable man-
ner the estimates which I am presenting to the
House today.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Old soldiers
never die.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: That was last winter,
was it not?
Mr. Thomas: Old soldiers never die.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Never die, just fade
away.
My department is completing one of the
busiest years in its history. The revenue for
the department in the present fiscal year
will likely equal that of last year, namely,
$2,086 million which is the highest revenue
in the history of the department.
In the past 5 years, our revenue has more
than doubled. This increase in revenue is
due largely to the great increase in the
number of companies being incorporated.
This year we will incorporate in the neigh-
bourhood of 4,700 new companies, which is
somewhat less than the number of new
companies incorporated last year.
While it is true that a great many of these
new companies are construction and develop-
ment companies, yet every phase of activity
is represented in these new incorporations
which, I believe, is a healthy sign for business
generally.
These new companies embrace manufactur-
ing, industry, mining, insurance and, in
short, every line of endeavour. This increase
in the number of companies is indicative of
our expanding economy and very favourable
business conditions.
Ontario incorporates more companies than
any other one of the incorporating jurisdic-
tions in Canada; Quebec is second and British
Columbia is third. There are now over
45,000 companies doing business in Ontario.
Despite the increase in the number of
companies, our companies branch is up to
date in the issuance of charters. Charters
are issued promptly and there is no delay in
getting the work out.
The revenue from filing fees for filing
annual returns has increased greatly this
year. In the fiscal year 1956-1957, the
revenue from fees for filing annual returns
was $388,000. In the present fiscal year
our revenue from annual returns will be
$445,000.
MARCH 25, 1958
1225
The new Corporations Act which was rec-
ommended by the legislative committee on
companies in 1953, and which came into force
in 1954, is working extremely well. The
general public is very satisfied with the new
Act, and there are almost no suggestions for
amendments.
In the present fiscal year, from April 1, 1957,
to January 28, 1958, there have been 41,959
marriages solemnized in Ontario, which is
about the same as last year. About two-thirds
of these marriages were solemnized under
the authority of marriage licences, and the
other one-third were solemnized under the
authority of publication of banns.
The new Marriage Act of 1950, like the
new Corporations Act, is working extremely
well, and the public is very satisfied with it.
The revenue from marriage fees, including
fees for marriage licences, special permits
and civil marriages, will be about $155,000.
Office of the registrar- general
Summary of registration services: The office
of the registrar-general performs two main
functions in the public service, one statutory,
the other statistical. The former consists of
administering The Vital Statistics Act; the
latter providing statistical data on births,
deaths, marriages and still-births, and issuing
required statistical information to qualified
medical practitioners and other authorized
agencies.
Volume of registrations
As has been the case since 1945, the total
number of registrations filed with this office
has shown an increase over the previous
year. However, this year the increase in
birth and death registrations is greater than
usual.
In this connection, a press release from the
Dominion bureau of statistics revealed that a
record number of cradles were rocking in
1957 and stated the crop to be the largest
in Canadian history. Further mention was
made to the effect that all provinces except
Saskatchewan contributed to the increased
number of babies; and that Ontario, followed
by Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia,
contributed lions' shares to the baby brigade.
The article further stated that since 1953,
more babies have been born in Ontario each
year than in any other province.
Searches
During the past year, this office performed
approximately 239,000 searches for the gen-
eral public, a 4 per cent, increase over the
previous year. Over 34,922 searches were
made for other governmental offices and
authorized agencies.
Certificates
During the past year, 266,184 certificates,
certified copies of registrations and not-in
letters were issued, a decrease of 3 per cent,
over the previous year.
Revenue
The estimated revenue collected by the
office of the registrar-general for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1958, will be an esti-
mated $280,000, compared to the actual
$273,421 collected in the preceding year.
General office
The general operation of the office of the
registrar-general has been extremely satis-
factory during the past year. The registra-
tion of births, deaths and marriages con-
tinued in a very satisfactory manner during
the year 1957. The quality of the returns
has shown steady improvement, due in no
small measure to the work of our inspection
staff.
It is the duty of these men to provide help
and instruction, and maintain the co-operation
and the liaison which exists betwen the divi-
sion registrars and this office. During 1957,
the inspectors travelled over 68,000 miles in
the performance of their duties.
The number of legitimations processed
during the past year was 353, compared to
373 in 1956.
The bulk of applications for delayed regis-
tration was once more confined to persons
born prior to 1920, indicating that there has
been much more thorough coverage of regis-
trations during the past 35 years than existed
before. There were 3,128 delayed registra-
tions processed in 1957, compared to 3,243
in 1956.
The greatest difficulty in handling delayed
registrations is in securing the necessary docu-
mentary evidence as required by the provisions
of The Vital Statistics Act. The insistence
of the registrar-general on adequate docu-
mentary proof is, of course, a vital factor,
since the whole value of birth certificates as
legal documents, proving the facts stated
thereon, would be undermined if persons
were allowed to file registrations merely on
request.
During 1957, some 4,454 adoptions were
filed in this office, of which 184 were sub-
mitted from out of the province, an increase
over the 4,374 received in 1956.
1226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
During 1957, 3,139 divorces were filed in
this office, a substantial increase over the
2,679 filed in 1956.
During the past year, this office filed 615
change-of-name orders, of which 50 were
enacted outside the province, an increase over
the 538 filed in 1956.
Some 2,950 registrations were amended.
An additional 1,890 were corrected when,
upon examining the registration in this office,
they were found to be incomplete or incorrect,
and the parents were contacted in order to
correct the registrations.
As routine procedure, all registrations of
births, marriages, deaths and still-births are
currently microfilmed. All indexes of same
are microfilmed annually. We are also near
completion in our project to microfilm and
maintain in current order all the older regis-
trations which are deteriorating from constant
use.
As required by The Vital Statistics Act, the
tabulating section provides alphabetic indexes
on a current basis for all births, deaths, mar-
riages, still-births, adoptions, change of names,
divorces and corrections. Our present project
of reindexing all marriages on file from 1869
to date is proceeding satisfactorily.
During the year, there were retirements and
deaths involving certain of our senior mem-
bers, which necessitated administration
changes and promotions.
The substantial increase in registration this
year has caused a re-examination of our space
requirements, and as a result we have already
requested consideration for the construction
of a second floor on our present building. It
is apparent now that our 10-year estimate
made 4 years ago will fall short by at least
two years, and within 4 years we will be at
the end of our facilities.
Civil service commission
In presenting the estimates of the civil
service commission, I am conscious of the
fact that this branch of the service, which
has the status of a separate department, is
perhaps the smallest in both size and in
spending. I would suggest, however, Mr.
Chairman, that the role the commission
occupies in the civil service makes it one of
the most important agencies in the admini-
stration. Through it the personnel policy
and practices of the entire service are
administered.
It is an appropriate place to acknowledge
the very high standard of service performed
by the almost 23,000 civil servants working
in all departments of government. I believe
that we have in Ontario employees of as high
a standard as one will find in any other
service on the continent. During the course
of other estimates, I have heard tributes
paid to the calibre of civil service staff, and
I would like to support those well deserved
comoliments at this time.
The development of a service of such high
standard took place because of the interest
of the government in improving working
conditions for our employees. Since this
government took office in 1943, we have
made major improvements in civil service
administration, particularly by protecting
against hirings and firings on a basis of
political affiliation.
In addition, we have introduced a 5-day
work week, improved salaries, and developed
a superannuation plan which is without peer
elsewhere. That plan has been improved by
the introduction of legislation this session to
provide for deferred annuities for employees
who, for any reason, left the service after
10 years' contributions to the fund.
The development of the service, of course,
requires that the salaries paid to employees
compare favourably with those paid in the
best industrial concerns in the province, and
I am pleased to report that since 1953 the
average annual salary of civil service per-
sonnel has increased from $2,800 to $3,700
in 1958.
In reviewing the activities of the commission
in the last year, the most important advance
made was in the way of an improved salary
schedule. Increases based on merit were
granted effective October 1, 1957, for over
22,700 employees costing approximately $4.9
million.
This illustrates two important facts: first,
that with an increase on the basis of merit,
nearly all our employees qualified because
they were performing their duties from day
to day in a competent manner; and second,
that the government realized its obligations
in keeping our pay rates at a competitive
level.
Improving working conditions has the effect
of encouraging the graduates of our universi-
ties, high and vocational schools in the prov-
ince to seek employment with Ontario. For
example, I believe that The Department of
Highways would report that this year they
were able to attract the required number of
engineering graduates needed to fill vacancies
in the department.
It is idle to speak of increased appropria-
tions for the construction of highways, public
works and increased grants to education, wel-
MARCH 25, 1958
1227
fare, and so on, without providing for the
public service personnel to carry out the func-
tion of administering these programmes.
I would like to acknowledge the success
of the work of the officers of the commission
in this respect, for I know that we have the
calibre of staff to complete their assignments
successfully.
Last year, the commission was broadened to
3 members by the additional appointment of
Miss F. V. Glenney and Mr. D. J. Collins.
Mr. C. J. Foster continued as chairman.
I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Foster,
who has served in this capacity for over
23 years, and under his able direction the
service has grown both in size and stature.
The addition of Miss Glenney to the com-
mission recognizes her many years of service
in her capacity as assistant to the chairman,
and acknowledges the very important role of
women in our service.
The work of the commission has been
streamlined with the preparation of increase
lists speeded up by a simpler certification pro-
cedure. In order to assist in the preparation
of statistics, and in the coding of informa-
tion, an International Business Machines in-
stallation has been planned which will become
the hub of a new statistical and pay research
bureau.
The commission has continued to work
closely with the various departments in devel-
oping and improving personnel procedures
and conducting organizational surveys at the
request of the departments. The civil service
association, both through the joint advisory
council and by direct contact with the civil
service commission, has represented the inter-
est of the civil servants and worked closely
with the commission to improve work con-
ditions generally.
Votes 1,601 and 1,602 agreed to.
On vote 1,603:
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
Well, Mr. Chairman, on vote 1,603 there is
a point that I want to raise because I think
that while it gets very little public considera-
tion, day to day and week to week, it is a
matter which should be considered periodic-
als in this House. I refer to the question of
redistribution.
Two years ago, in 1956, we had for the
first time in our history a quinquennial census
—midway between the normal 10-year census
in 1951 and 1961. As a result we are in a
position to proceed toward a more equitable
fulfilment of the basic principle of represen-
tation by population in the province of
Ontario.
As the House knows, 4 years ago we had
what was described as a redistribution in the
province of Ontario. In reality it was merely
the addition of 8 seats in some of the new
and suburban areas. It did not attempt a
serious scientific job in terms of redividing
seats in this province.
As a matter of fact, the hon. Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Frost), as I recall, started out by
saying that he hoped that none of the his-
toric boundaries would be touched. That
approach, of course, simply means that one
cannot have a genuine redistribution to bring
the situation up-to-date with modern con-
ditions.
During the last few years the population
growth, particularly in some areas of the
province, has become so fantastic that today
we have seats with 6, 8, 10 times the
number of people as we do on the electoral
lists of other seats. Yet there appears to
be no intention on the part of the powers-
that-be to correct this situation.
For example, without going into any great
length on this, Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to give hon. members a few population
figures. I acknowledge that these figures
for 1955 are already out of date, because
how one can keep up-to-date with the kind
of population developments in areas like
Scarborough and North York, for example,
I do not know.
In 1954, following the redistribution, at
the bottom of the scale in the province of
Ontario there were 23 seats with fewer than
20,000 voters, while at the top, the 6 sub-
urban Yorks ranged from 46,000 to 79,000.
Now, how can we pretend to be implement-
ing the principle of representation by popu-
lation, when that kind of situation is ignored
and the divergence grows every day? The
6 suburban Yorks, with a total population of
369,000, actually had more people than the
22 smallest ridings with a voting population
of 359,000.
Now, before I go any further, Mr. Chair-
man, just let me anticipate any suggestion
that I am here making a plea for equality of
ridings. This obviously is not possible, or
desirable. In a province the size of Ontario,
with great geographical areas on one hand,
and large population on the other, we must
strike some balance between population and
the geographical area of the riding. I acknow-
ledge that we have to have some balance
between these two factors; therefore rural
1228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ridings would not have as many voters as
urban ridings.
But that does not justify the absurdities
that have now emerged because of the fact
that we have ignored this problem for so
long. Let me give two or three other
examples. In York East in the last election
both the Liberal and the CCF candidates
polled over 10,000 votes, and yet they lost the
election. At the same time we find, for
example, that the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare (Mr. Cecile) was elected with 6,385
votes; the winning candidate gets something
like 60 per cent, of the losing candidates in
another constituency. At the same time, the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Dymond) was elected with 7,249 votes.
York East has more eligible voters than
these constituencies combined: the constitu-
ency of Victoria represented by the hon. Prime
Minister, plus the constituency of Prescott
represented by the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare, plus the constituency of Cochrane
North, which was then represented by the
then Minister of Mines, plus the constituency
of Northumberland represented by the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Goodfellow).
In other words, one urban constituency
represents as many voters as do those 4 or 5
cabinet Ministers in rural seats. In fact, the 6
suburban Yorks together have 30,000 more
voters than represented by 13 of the 19
cabinet Ministers.
If we continue to ignore this situation
across the province, we are permitting the
continued existence of what cannot be
described as anything other than pocket
boroughs; and it is strange the number of
these pocket boroughs which are occupied by
cabinet Ministers or representatives on the
government side of the House.
Now, in raising this, I just want to make
a final plea which I think should be accom-
panying any suggestion that we tackle the
problem of redistribution. I hope that we
can handle this problem without the political
considerations that have characterized this
in the past.
For example I draw to the attention of
the government and the House, if they are
not familiar with it, what seems to me to be
a very admirable solution of this very com-
plex situation now adopted in our sister
province of Manitoba. They have legislated an
arrangement whereby the redistribution com-
mittee is a permanent committee. It is made
up of the persons who happen to occupy 3
positions: The electoral boundaries commis-
sion consists of first, the chief justice of
Manitoba, secondly, the president of the
University of Manitoba, and thirdly the
chief electoral officer of Manitoba. There they
have 3 people who, presumably, are all
removed from politics, and therefore are
going to be in a position to decide on any
revision of boundaries without reference to
political considerations that have resulted in
the gerrymandering down through our history.
In Manitoba, every 10 years there is a
redistribution. They have worked out a
formula in trying to get a compromise
between a fair representation of urban and
rural areas on the basis of 7 to 4— in other
words an urban seat could be in a ratio of *
7 to 4 population for a rural seat.
They have another very interesting stipula-
tion in their Act which must be lived up to:
in any individual constituency, population
variations must not exceed 5 per cent, without
mandatory action by the commission in
revising boundaries.
In other words, if the variations beyond
this 7 to 4 population ratio go up 5 per cent,
or down 5 per cent., then there must be
some revision. This becomes a mandatory
proposition rather than one that can be
ignored from year to year until a constituency
grows beyond all bounds.
Now I have presented some details of the
Manitoba solution to this problem which
strikes me, Mr. Chairman, as offering a pat-
tern that is at least worthy of study. Certainly
it represents a real effort to rescue this whole
problem of redistribution from the political
arena.
My question, Mr. Chairman, that I would
like to put to the hon Provincial Secretary, or
the hon. Prime Minister, is: what is the view
of the government with regard to the need
for re-establishing the basic principle of
representation by population in this province,
in light of the variations in population, or
changes in population, and the growth of
some of the constituencies?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): The
problem with the increased population of the
province I think was met in a very practical
way. The last redistribution was in 1954.
I have not heard the hon. member for Oshawa
(Mr. Thomas) complaining about the divi-
sion that was made down there, nor have I
heard the people of the riding of Ontario
complaining about the division. Of course,
the hon. member for Oshawa could rise and
complain, now that it is drawn to his atten-
tion, but I have never heard any complaint.
MARCH 25, 1958
1229
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chair-
man, I objected to the committee at that
time. Be fair now, be fair now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Objection noted. I think
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) and the hon. member for Brant would
rather object to their historic ridings of Grey
South and Brant being called pocket boroughs.
That is the way I feel about it.
After all, remember a pocket borough is
an expression used over a century ago in
the United Kingdom when certain landed
and other gentry had a half-a-dozen votes
in an area and were able to elect themselves
to Parliament.
I do not think it is just as simple as that
in the great rural ridings of this province.
There are difficulties in the matter.
We had, for instance, a by-election in the
county of Elgin recently. Now some years
ago there were certain townships in Elgin
county that were detached and placed in the
riding of Kent East. That took place about
25 years ago, and one can hardly go to the
county of Elgin to this day without objections
being raised to that, and raised on the ground
that those townships belong to the people
who think like the people of Elgin do, there-
fore they should be in the riding from that
county. And there is a lot to be said for
that, and that was my reference to those
traditional boundaries.
As a matter of fact, the minute we start
cutting across county boundaries and muni-
cipal boundaries, then first of all we lose the
aspirations and points of view of people who
live in certain areas, and we get them very
much disturbed and very much upset.
I would say to the hon. member that it is
true that our ridings vary, that has always
been the case, in federal ridings particularly.
When one gets down to a question of put-
ting the people into set forms where, if there
is a variation of a percentage of a few, then
a township goes into another area, I think
the difficulties and the dissatisfaction in the
feeling of the people far more than offset any
advantage there may be otherwise.
I would say to the hon. member for York
South that some of our ridings are very large.
My own riding is very large, it stretches for
about 110 miles from the north boundary of
of Durham county up to Algonquin park. If
one is at Dorset on the west side, it is
100 miles over to Bancroft, which is in the
county of Hastings, but over at the Cardiff
boundary. That is a very large area, and
many of the ridings are like that, and if they
are not like that, then, of course, perhaps
the population differences, and the problems
of representing a rural constituency, are quite
difficult.
One can have all the scientific formulae—
if I can use the plural of that word formula
that way, scientific formulae— that one likes,
but after all, in Ontario we have followed this
pattern for generations past, and I do not
know that it is a bad pattern after all.
In this last redistribution, we added 8 seats
which went really into the large population
areas. It was a recognition of increased
populaton there and I do not think, by and
large, that it was a bad redistribution.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Prime Minister has just evaded the whole basic
question that I raised. He has talked around
it, and has taken refuge in the fact that some
people have an attachment to certain town-
ships and want them to remain in a certain
constituency. But if he keeps talking that
way, he can let Scarborough and York East
grow until they are 200,000 population.
For example— and these figures are out of
date, they are grossly out of date— following
1955, the total number of voters in Rainy
River, which was then the smallest constitu-
ency, was 12,350, and the total number of
voters in York East, the largest constituency,
was 79,571. In other words, a vote in York
East is worth approximately one-seventh of a
vote in Rainy River.
How can the hon. Prime Minister pretend
to be giving representation by population in
the province when that kind of situation
exists?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I do not pretend. I am
giving the hon. member the facts: Here is
Rainy River, 1,000 miles from here, away off
in a corner of the province. Now the other
area is a fine, important part of Metropolitan
Toronto, there are at least 3 daily papers
and radio stations and other things, and I
would say that it is much less difficult for
the fine area of York East to give expression
to its point of view than the people who live
out on our frontiers.
Mr. MacDonald: The answer of the hon.
Prime Minister now is to take refuge in a
far-off corner of the province. Let us go up
the list of ridings from the bottom. Next to
Rainy River is Glengarry with 12,472, Middle-
sex North with 13,426, Carleton with 14,574.
Now, there are constituencies all over the
province, and I submit that he cannot con-
tinue to ignore this basic principle.
In addition to other anomalies, just let me
draw this to the attention of the House—
1230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: The logical course of this
would be to cut down on rural representation
and add to urban. Does the hon. member
think that should be done?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it should be done to
some extent, within perhaps a fixed popula-
tion ratio— and, the hon. Prime Minister need
not look like the cat which has eaten the
canary because he thinks he has a political
point— that he will go out and talk about in
the pocket boroughs. It should be done within
the range of some population ratio, laid down
and recognized as fair between urban and
rural.
And I think we can face up to this and get
an answer— whether or not it should be the
7 to 4 ratio that they have in Manitoba, I do
not know. But there is one that was worked
out, after having had, I can assure him, even
more intense rivalry between rural and urban
than perhaps ever existed in Ontario, because
the rivalry between rural parts of Manitoba
and the city of Winnipeg is one that has been
a basic feature of the history of the province.
Another point that I wanted to draw to the
attention of hon. members is this: take the
situation, for example, in a constituency like
Port Arthur. The hon. member for Port
Arthur (Mr. Wardrope) could give more
details, but I have been around his con-
stituency enough to know that it is absurd, it
is absolutely absurd, to ask one man to serve
that number of people scattered over such a
geographical distance.
As a matter of fact, why Port Arthur was
not redistributed in 1954, when, for example,
the Ontario constituency was included to meet
the demands of a cabinet Minister at that
time, I do not know. At the time of the last
redistribution, Port Arthur had something like
40,000 to 50,000 voters, and was far more
entitled to a redistribution.
Now, with the development of areas like
Manitouwadge, of new centres down the
Canadian Pacific Railway line, of Hornepayne
and these other areas, it seems to me there
is obvious logic and equity in the proposition
that a new constituency be carved out of
there. The hon. Prime Minister takes refuge
in all these sentimental little attachments
to historic boundaries— which I would not
ignore— but it seems to me that if he places
his whole emphasis on the sentimental attach-
ment, he is going to violate more and mpre
the basic principle of representation by
population.
I am not going to pursue it any further,
because I see the government is not going
to budge. Apparendy its decision is not to
budge. We will have to continue raising the
issue year after year, and conceivably public
opinion will eventually drive them to a move.
Votes 1,603 to 1,606, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 1,607:
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry no other hon.
member is interested in these estimates, but
I can assure the hon. Provincial Secretary
that, despite his benign smile and all the
sunshine that pervades the House when he
rises, I do not think everything is quite as
happy— that the situation is quite so perfect
with regard to the civil service commission-
as he has intimated. I want to touch upon
that briefly.
I emphasize this at the outset: the com-
ments I am going to make with regard to
the civil service commission are not going to
be my views. I am going to take refuge, as I
did last year, in quoting to the hon. Provincial
Secretary what the civil servants themselves
are saying in their publication, Trillium, about
the civil service commission.
Indeed, I would like at the outset to
pay tribute to the civil service association,
the civil servants within it, for the forthright
manner in which they are persisting in trying
to get this government to move in the
establishment of a genuine, effective, opera-
tive, civil service commission in the province
of Ontario.
We have not got it. We are not within
reaching distance of the establishment of a
civil service association which handles labour-
management relations, or management-em-
ployee relations— call it what you will— in a
modern way. I would just like to relate
the kind of thing that the civil servants have
been saying for the last two or three years,
all without any apparent effects upon the
government.
Back in 1955, the president of the civil
service association, in reporting to their annual
meeting, made this comment with regard to
the work of his directors:
The total effort that the directors have
put forth is deserving of greater success,
and the lack in this regard is due to the
disregard of the association's moral right
to negotiate on behalf of the Ontario gov-
ernment employees. This is all the more
unfortunate when it is remembered that
such a right is guaranteed by the Ontario
government employees' representatives in
other fields.
MARCH 25, 1958
1231
Now that was in 1955. Let us move on
to 1956. Here, I am quoting something that
I read into the record last year, but I think
within the sequence of these quotations I
would like to repeat it. They came to grips
with this basic problem in the civil service,
namely patronage, and in an editorial in
the January issue of Trillium, the official
publication of the association, under the
heading "Patronage Produces Prejudice" this
is what they had to say:
Practiced extensively in government
services in the past, patronage has in later
years diminished, or at least to a greater
extent is being driven und°rground.
Nevertheless it still exists. It continues to
sap the efficiency of services affected and
so adds to the tax burden of citizens already
hard pressed. Any government policy, if it
is aimed at an honest, efficient and
economical service, must rest on a sound
personal programme free of interference
from outside sources. There can be no room
for patronage.
The civil servants association of Ontario
knows from bitter experience that patron-
age, political and personal, is the greatest
destroyer of initiative and efficiency encoun-
tered in the public service. It is, therefore,
consistently aimed at a service free of this
vicious system.
There we have the civil servants speaking
to a government and pleading that something
should be done about it.
Just to show hon. members that this plea
is not out of date, we had rather an interest-
ing event in our office some months ago when
an effort had been made to secure, in the
case of a certain citizen, action on behalf of
his application for commissioner of affidavits.
This was turned down, and we got in touch
with the appropriate officer in The Depart-
ment of the Attorney-General, the inspector
of legal offices, and asked why.
The first excuse was that, because the
applicant was a real estate agent, they did
not like to give this commissionership of
affidavits to a person in that position. But if
was acknowledged that this was not the only
reason. The next excuse given was that norm-
ally recommendations for such appointments
come from hon. government members only.
Well, when we queried this, there seemed to
be a "double take" at the other end of the
line when it was realized that this was rather
an indiscreet comment to make. So the next
query was whether the applicant was a
naturalized Canadian citizen. When it was
pointed out that he was not only a naturalized
Canadian citizen, but that he had been born
in Canada, the reiteration that came back over
the telephone lines was that anyway "he has
a foreign-sounding name."
So here we have a situation in which one
not only has a prejudice against persons with
foreign-sounding names getting appointed,
but, in addition, the proposition that since
this did not come as a recommendation from
a government side of the House, it was not
given the normal consideration. This was
only one of dozens of examples that could be
given down through the months. Pardon?
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Is the hon.
member satisfied that this is the case of one
of our civil servants replying that, because
he had a foreign-sounding name, this was
a reason that they had not granted it?
Mr. MacDonald: I am very satisfied, other-
wise I would not have given it to the hon.
members in the first place.
Mr. Grossman: I am very doubtful about
that, because in the 3 years I have been
around here I have never ever had any
such experience— that there was any prejudice
against anyone because of the sound of his
name.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is on
the wrong side of the House to run into that
sort of experience.
Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact, the
buildings are full of people with foreign-
sounding names— if you want to put it that
way.
Mr. MacDonald: Here is a further quota-
tion that I pulled out of my docket, when
the hon. Minister was talking about every-
body in the civil service doing a good job.
Far be it for me to place myself in the poli-
tically dangerous position of challenging this,
but may I quote from the editorial of the
May, 1956, Trillium:
We are alarmed [say the civil servants
themselves] at the growing number of
persons who indicate that in their respective
departments in the Ontario service there
are persons, in varying numbers, who are
on the payroll, who perform little or no
useful work.
Then they go on to tie it in with the need
for having a civil service commission which
will hire people to do a specific job because
they have the qualifications to do the job-
in other words, because of what they know,
rather than who they know.
1232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Pardon me—
Mr. MacDonald: May I complete this?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: This speech is not
according to the estimates, this man whom
the hon. member mentions as taking affidavits
is not a civil servant, so there is nothing. He
is talking about civil servants, and he is
speaking about a man who is not a civil
servant.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I passed that point.
I was dealing with the general practice of
patronage, and I gave the hon. Provincial
Secretary instances in the civil service, too.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: If an application came
in to me, say, for instance, where some person
wanted to have permission to take affidavits,
does the hon. member think there is any
person better qualified to give the informa-
tion, if this was a responsible citizen, than the
representative who has been elected by the
people of that riding? Would he call that
patronage? I do not think that is patronage,
I think that is being careful and protecting
the people who are already appointed, and
that unqualified people are not appointed.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary a question? Is the only
elected person who is qualified to make a
recommendation one who happens to be on
the government side of the House?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: No.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, well, that is precisely
what happened in this instance.
An hon. member: I doubt that.
Mr. MacDonald: It did, the hon. member
can doubt it all he wants. Let me bring it
up to date, January, 1958, Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: Red herring.
Another hon. member: Black herring.
Mr. MacDonald: We have heard from
York West.
In the January, 1958, Trillium there is an
editorial in which they list 15 points concern-
ing which the government has indicated that
it is willing to do something. I suspect the
civil servants had tongue in cheek when they
wrote this editorial.
As we enter a new year we may well be
entering a new era in the history of our
public service and of the association. The
government of Ontario has indicated that-
then the editorial proceeds to list 15 points. I
shall touch on just a few of them.
First, that it wishes to become one of the
better employers.
The implication of which is that it is not
at the moment— which is a fact.
Hon. Mr. Frost: A laudable objective.
Mr. MacDonald: A laudable objective, but
the hon. Prime Minister should have been one
of the better employers a long time ago.
Secondly, it wishes to eliminate the evils of
patronage. Well, that is a good aspiration on
the part of this government, and a very much-
needed one, I would say— very laudable, very
laudable, indeed.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Read the whole 15, this
is very good.
Mr. MacDonald: Thirdly, it wants all
employees with more than one year's service
appointed to the permanent service. Here let
me congratulate the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Mapledoram) who last
year rose and laid this principle down. I said
at the time that I hoped that his other hon.
colleagues in the cabinet would follow suit.
Apparently now this has been stated as
government policy.
In its ninth point, it strongly supports
modern personnel practices. Well, as long
as we have the present kind of civil service
commission, we are simply not living up to
that.
Finally it considers the civil service associa-
tion of Ontario the—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Is this the civil service
commission?
Mr. MacDonald: I will come to that in
a moment.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: What is wrong with the
civil service commission?
Mr. MacDonald: Then the editorial adds
this comment after these 15 points, and I
hope the hon. Prime Minister will listen
to this:
It is unfortunate that many senior civil
servants who, by reason of their position in
the public service, are responsible for
carrying out the policies of the government,
are instead, if not definitely blocking
progress, doing very little to assist the
government in becoming one of the better
employers. There is every indication—
MARCH 25, 1958
1233
I would like the hon. Prime Minister to
explain this because this may be the key to
the progress—
—that the Prime Minister is growing im-
patient with the slow progress being made
and will take more direct action in the
future.
I now depart from the civil service publi-
cations and the views of the civil servants
themselves to remind the House briefly of
the observations last year by the citizens
research institute of Canada— a very reliable
and independent body— in which they com-
ment with regard to the Ontario civil service:
The Ontario commissioner enjoys less
than full security of tenure and, what is
more, exercises no direct authority over
a selection of personnel with the sole
exception of typists and stenographers.
Then the citizens research institute makes
what I suggest, is an accurate description of
the stage which we have reached in our
present civil service commission:
Sometimes the establishment of a civil
service commission with appropriate re-
sponsibilities over appointments, transfers
and promotions, has not at once served to
free the service from the evils of political
influence. A civil service commission may
survive for a long time as nothing more
than a screen behind which the spoilsman
is left to continue his unsavoury activities.
I do not know what the Trillium editorial
meant when it says that the hon. Prime
Minister is getting a little unhappy about the
lack of progress in this connection, or who
the civil servants are that are standing in the
way of progress. But I want to ask the hon.
Provincial Secretary, or the hon. Prime Mini-
ster: when are we going to establish a civil
service commission with real powers, instead
of the kind of caretaker set-up that we have at
the present time?
I am not saying anything critical of the
personnel of the civil service commission.
They are working within the framework of
rules that are laid down by the government,
and, as the civil servants themselves say, the
government has to move.
In fact, I could quote from editorials on
the eve of our last legislative session when
they put the question straight to us:
You, Mr. Legislature, when are you
going to move to establish the basic frame-
work within which we can set up an effec-
tive civil servants association which will
advertise jobs, have examinations, and
through this process, hire people in ac-
cordance with what they have to offer in
terms of ability, and experience, and not
in terms of the political influence exercised
on their behalf?
What is the government planning to do
and why is the hon. Prime Minister— as the
editorial said— growing impatient with the
slow progress and planning to take direct
action? What is this direct action and when
can we expect it?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: There is not any per-
son appointed to the civil service without
a certificate from the civil service association.
Mr. MacDonald: A rubber stamp after the
appointment is made.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The hon. member is
not making any charge personally against
them, well, then how is that when they are
making the appointments-
Mr. MacDonald: Ah, now the hon. Provin-
cial Secretary know, in most instances, what
happens. The appointment is made by the
department, and then is rubber stamped by
the commissioner.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: We have not got rubber
stamps in the civil service.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the hon. Prime
Minister going to do about it? He cannot
sit there and ignore this whole thing.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I cannot rise while another
hon. member is on his feet.
Mr. H. A. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary a question. I understand that
last October the civil service obtained a raise,
and I understand that in our civil service in
Guelph, namely the college, that some of them
have not obtained that raise as yet. Now is
that so?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I am informed that they
were taken care of earlier, they had received
that same advance salary that the others were
receiving October 1. They had received it
earlier, and there might be the odd one— I
would not say that there would be any there,
surely not there— but this was on the merit
system, and there might be the odd one left
out who might not merit the increase, but
the others had been looked after earlier.
Mr. Worton: I do not wish to dispute what
my hon. friend says, because he should be
1234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
perhaps in a better position than I am to
judge. But these people were notified that they
were to receive the raise, yet as of March 1,
they have not. Now I think they may be
expecting it before the end of March, but I
feel that 5 months is a little too long a wait
to receive that raise.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I thought that most of
them— the great majority of them, I was told—
got the raise in February. There might be
a few who did not receive it in March, but
they tell me that some of them in that institu-
tion had received that advance prior to
adjustment, on the recommendation of the
committee.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to say a word at this time. There
are two types of persons whom I have not too
much use for. Firstly, the type of person who
discriminates in any way; and secondly, the
type of person who deliberately tries to stir
up one group against another, namely the hon.
member for York South. His only purpose in
this, I am—
Mr. MacDonald: Pompous, unctuous.
Mr. Yaremko: His only purpose in this, I am
speaking to what the—
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. member stick
to the issue instead of being personal.
Mr. Yaremko: I am speaking on the issue
the hon. member raised, and I will have my
say.
The hon. member deliberately brought that
up because he wants to create the impres-
sion that somewhere in this Legislature, right
in the Parliament buildings, there is a dis-
crimination against foreign-sounding names.
But the amazing thing is that, in trying to
bring that in, in speaking of civil service
matters, he had to go completely outside the
sphere of the civil service to even bring up
what he thought was an instance. It is amaz-
ing to me that an hon. member can be
around this Legislature without, at least on
one occasion, looking in this black book, and I
recommend it very highly to the hon. member
for York South.
I do not know these people, I just opened
it at one page, let us look at some of the
names, I am in the "D" section:
Dinorcia, Linsmore, Dion, Dionne, Div-
inec, Dixon, and so on. Dobrouits, Dobson,
Dodds, Dodge, Doerr, Doidge, Dolasowski,
Dominski, Dolnyckyj, Donaghue, Donald,
Donaldson, Donnely, Donofrio, Donskov,
Dooner, Dopp, Doratti, all good Canadian
names.
Then we will take the special pages, the
"Z". I bring this especially to the attention
of the hon. member for York South, and I
am reading exactly every name in the order
it appears on the page:
Zabolotsky, Zachary, Zajac, Zajac, Zaluski,
Zanchin, Zatrepalek, Zavitz, Zeldin, Zem-
bal, Zerbeck, Zettler, Zidenberg, Zigurs,
Zimmerling, Zimmerman, Zinn, Zivanovich,
Zoberman, Zonnenburg, Zucker, Zukowsky,
Zulis, Zwicker.
I recommend the hon. member for York
South take a look at this book and he will
see exactly the type of names that do appear.
If I should ever have the occasion to hear
anybody refer to a foreign-sounding name,
I too will rise and protest it, I will not rise
for one specific reason, and the only reason
the hon. member raises this point is to make
political capital.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, some time
I may be in a position to document this more
fully than circumstances will permit at the
moment. But, in the one case I have cited, I
am not going to give the name because there
is no purpose. I can give it to the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary privately.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: That would not prove
anything, anyway.
Mr. MacDonald: It will. This was said to
us by the official in question, "it was a
foreign-sounding name anyway." No, do not
dispute it. This is a fact.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Who do you mean by
"us"? Was it the hon. member's political
party? We are supposed to accept what the
hon. member says?
Mr. MacDonald: In our office, he said that.
I tell the hon. Provincial Secretary this is
what happened. We attempted to assist this
man in getting an appointment.
No, Mr. Chairman, before we leave this—
the hon. Prime Minister is sitting in his seat
and hoping that this will go by. Let me quote
this one sentence to him:
There is every indication that the hon.
Prime Minister is growing impatient with
this whole proposition of the civil service
commission with the slow progress being
made and will take more direct action in
the future.
Now, what does that mean?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say to my
hon. friend that as a matter of fact I was
MARCH 25, 1958
1235
rather itching to make a speech but I thought
that perhaps I had better not. Now, in con-
nection with the last sentence that my hon.
friend has read I would say to him that such
is my attitude towards the problems of the
day. I can assure my hon. friend that it is
never well to be complacent. It is always well
to keep oneself in a state of, I should say,
reasonable dissatisfaction. He does under-
stand?
Mr. MacDonald: I do try to do that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If one does not do that,
then he gets into a rut. I would say this—
Mr. MacDonald: For this government.
Hon. Mr. Frost: —that this government has
made such an outstanding contribution to the
growth of this province because we have
never been satisfied that we cannot do better.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the issue I
have raised?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I was just coming around
to that. I wanted to lay the ground work.
This is all very relevant. The position of
being critical, I think myself, is a good one
to take. I think that it adds to the betterment
of one's personal self and the associations
that one has. We have to be reasonable about
these things. That is the place where my
hon. friend falls down. He is dissatisfied with
the most terrific performance. Always.
Mr. MacDonald: It is the civil servants
who are dissatisfied, not me. I am quoting
the civil servants. Speak up to what they
are protesting about.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I was just speaking to my
hon. friend in terms of—
Mr. MacDonald: Forget about me for a
moment.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say to my hon.
friend that this is my objective frankly, and
I mean I am speaking personally, and I think
that in speaking personally I speak as the
head of the government. I am very anxious
that our civil service should be improved
constantly. Now I feel the civil service here
in Ontario is the best civil service in Canada
including Saskatchewan. Further, I feel that
we have the best methods and I think that
we do the best job, and I think our personnel
is the best. Now that is my summing up.
I would not say there is no room for
improvement, and I believe we should have
constant talks with the civil servants on this
basis, on the near cases. I like to see progress
made. Now my hon. friend has been in this
House since 1955. Every year he has seen
improvements. He must admit, as he sits in
his seat today, that there is a great improve-
ment.
Mr. MacDonald: Does the hon. Prime
Minister think his commission is—
Hon. Mr. Frost: In saying that—
Mr. MacDonald: There is very little on
this score.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, wait a minute, there
is a great improvement this year over last
year. I am hopeful that this time next year
there will be further improvements. First
of all, our civil service commission is not a
rubber-stamp organization at all. Our civil
service commission is a very efficient com-
mission.
As a matter of fact we have changed the
set-up there. Mr. Foster used to operate as
a one-man commission. In the last year or
two, we have placed a woman on that com-
mission, which I think is a great recognition
of the days in which we live. Mr. Collins
has been serving on that commission; he is
a very able young man who came up from
the commission itself.
Mr. MacDonald: I will say this to the hon.
Prime Minister, if he put 5 Mr. Collinses on
there, this would change overnight.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I say this to the hon.
member, that he, Miss Glenney, and Mr.
Foster are very fine servants, and we refer
to them in no derogatory way, which is what
my hon. friend is doing.
Now, I would say that Mr. Collins himself
joined the service as a member of the
commission. He served in various capacities,
and now he is a very responsible executive
in government service. I would also say
to my hon. friend, we have at the present
time, directly in government service, some
27,000 employees. One can add to that I
suppose another 10,000 in the liquor board
and some of our subsidiaries. But in any
event, we have 27,000 people in the civil
service.
Now I am very anxious, in many ways,
to make that better use of our man-power.
I think that is true of Canada as a whole.
I think that one of the great jobs, that
we have in this country, is to make the best
use we can of our 17 million people, because
we are certainly going to cross that mark.
Now I would say with our civil service I
would like to see a betterment in the uses
of our man-power services. That is a difficult
thing with 27,000 employees, but I think
1236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that we would make notable advances in the
next year towards achieving this.
I would like to provide better opportuni-
ties of promotion. It is a great thing that
somebody can come into this service, low
down on the rungs, and become a Deputy
Minister, or can achieve some other high
post. In any event, I would say there will
always be a chance of promotion for these
people.
As a matter of fact, I have found this,
that oft times there might be some person
who is serving as a guard, say in one of
our reform institutions, or perhaps as an
ordinary helper in one of our hospitals or
other services, who has great capacity, and
if the opportunity for development is given,
that person could achieve better things.
Now, sir, those are some of the objectives
that I would like to see accomplished, and
those are some of the things that I have talked
about to the service.
Regarding those 15 points or so that the
hon. member has mentioned, he did not read
them all. But I have discussed those with
the civil servants and I have said what I
am saying here now, that I think that there
is great room always for improvement of
our services and opportunities of develop-
ing the talents of our civil servants. Now
I would like to see, and I am hopeful that
this may come about in the next year, the
establishment of a school in our civil service
for the development of persons with executive
and other talents.
Now, that is quite a big order, and it
is a difficult thing perhaps to bring about,
but I think that we can bring it about.
As a matter of fact, one of the crying
needs of these days everywhere is for the
development of talent of those who have
the know-how to do things and can get them
done, people who can supply the spark to
inspire various types of personalities and
get the job done.
I must admit that a person may be a uni-
versity trained person, or something of the
sort, and that in itself is not the thing.
It is that inherited ability that people have
to get things done, and who perhaps can
draw under them people with high technical
abilities, university and other people, to get
things done. Now those are things which
I have talked to our civil service about. I
have had in the last number of years, but
not particularly the last year or two, a very
great many discussions with our civil service
association, and I want to pay tribute to
them now as a very fine body of people.
I may say that they have sometimes expressed
impatience about things. Perhaps that is
natural enough, as things arise in every
organization. Now I would say that I think
that our civil service association have the
feeling there is a government here which is
anxious to co-operate with them and is pre-
pared to talk things over. I always like to
have an open door and never have an iron
curtain around my office.
But there are only 24 hours in the day,
and one has to sleep so long and one has
to take time out to eat and so on, and it
is difficult to see everybody.
Now, I set up a cabinet committee a
year or two ago, under the chairmanship
of the hon. Minister of Labour, so that
the civil servants could come in and dis-
cuss their problems and get them down.
Now, I can say that there are many things,
and that is being done constantly, and I
think that is a good thing. But I admit
that some petty grievances are not dealt with
promptly. Perhaps it falls between two de-
partments. Those things cause difficulties.
Now one of my hon. friend's jobs and
his committee's is to bring people together
and keep them together in order to get
things done. I would say to my hon. friend
that in government, in democratic govern-
ment in these days of 1958, there are many
things in the organization of government
that can be done to better things. Now I
think that that is implicit in the question
that the provincial auditor asked about gov-
ernments and commissions. I do not want
to get into that question, but I would say
this, that it is the question of getting things
done well and efficiently, and at the same
time retaining all of the benefits of an elec-
tive system.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the Prime
Minister a question?
Hon. Mr. Frost: There is the situation,
and I think that is the answer that I would
give to my hon. friend, and I think that he
will agree that that is a fairly good answer.
Mr. MacDonald: After I have struggled out
from the Niagara of words that has been
poured on me, I have one final question I
would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister.
In this set of objectives that the hon. Prime
Minister has just spelled out, is there in-
cluded the proposition of building a civil
service commission which will, in appoint-
ments or promotions, make them through
competitive examinations? This is the basic
thing. Does he envisage this as being the
MARCH 25, 1958
1237
role of the civil service commission on all
appointments, not just a few in The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare, but all of them?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that two of the commissioners are sit-
ting here, and they might disagree with me.
I would say that in government they very
often do disagree with me. I am not referring
to them, but I am talking of others. I never
ask for agreement with my point of view
but I would say this, that I think that my hon.
friend is wrong in saying that the whole
thing depends upon written examinations. I
doubt that very much, and I think myself that
very often, and I would take it with my own
experience that now goes back a very great
many years, it is the appraisal of a man, per-
haps not what he rates in an examination
paper, that counts.
I think there is a place for examinations.
I think there is a place for written tests, but
I do not think those things occupy the whole
stage by any means.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say written, I
said competitive examinations.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree
with what the hon. Prime Minister has said
about the high regard for the civil servants,
but being in a city where there is often much
discussion in regard to salaries, it has come
out quite recently that in our area there were
20 per cent, of the high school teachers re-
ceiving $7,000 and yet only 25 per cent, of
our college staff receiving $7,000. Now those
arguments were based on a 10-month period,
and while I quite agree that we have a very
efficient service, I also feel there should be
a more realistic view taken to bring the
salaries up to be more competitive with cer-
tain lines of work.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I just want to say a word
on vote 1,608. I am surprised when the hon.
member for York South reads so many articles
from the civil service association paper that
he did not read that nice one they wrote about
me— that editorial.
Mr. MacDonald: Which one is that?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: I have not got it here,
but the civil servants were very pleased with
my actions as Provincial Secretary. It is a
long editorial. The hon. member never read
that at all.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Provincial Sec-
retary is going to cross himself up. Last year I
read it, and then pointed out that two months
later they wrote another one and said they
were unhappy, that the trickle of changes had
dried up. Even they had become unhappy
with the smile that turned to clouds.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move that the committee
rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the committee of
supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to speak on the budget debate I would
like to take this opportunity to thank the hon.
members of this House for the assistance,
guidance and advice which they have given
me during this session. Having been elected
on January 30, naturally I have required a
great deal of assistance from the senior hon.
members of this House and when I turned
to them for advice they have always been
ready and willing to assist.
It is a great privilege to represent the
historic riding of Elgin, which has been so
capably represented in the past. My immedi-
ate predecessor, the late F. S. Thomas, was a
most capable representative of that riding for
many years. His life was one devoted to
public service and he served the riding and
province well— first as agricultural representa-
tive, then as a private member, next as Mini-
ster of Public Works, and finally as Minister
of Agriculture.
For the last number of years of his life he
was plagued with ill-health but he fought
valiantly against it and his life of service is
an inspiration to all of us who knew him
well.
Last week the portrait of a former Prime
Minister of the province was unveiled in this
Legislature, and as the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) said in the unveiling ceremony,
Mr. Hepburn shall be remembered as a great
Canadian who added colour and vision to the
political scenes of his day. The late Mitchell
F. Hepburn shall long be remembered by
the constituents of Elgin and by the people
1238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Ontario. The riding was represented for
almost a quarter of a century by these two
prominent men.
So, Mr. Speaker, you can understand what
I mean when I say that it is a great privilege
to represent the riding of Elgin. The riding
is comprised of the city of St. Thomas and
the county of Elgin, excluding two townships
and 3 villages in the western part of the
county which are included in the riding of
my very good friend, the hon. member for
Kent East (Mr. Spence).
As the hon. Prime Minister has mentioned,
these 5 municipalities would like to be
included in the riding of Elgin. It was in
1933 that the riding was so formed. They are
appreciative of the high calibre of representa-
tion which they have had, but, as one editor
of a weekly newspaper has termed it, they
have never felt that they belonged.
The county of Elgin was organized in 1852
and was named after the Governor-General of
the day, the Earl of Elgin. St. Thomas was
organized as a village in the same year and
derives its name from Colonel Thomas Talbot,
founder of the Talbot settlement.
We have a history and tradition of which
we may be justly proud. It was in the year
1803 that Colonel Thomas Talbot, a very
close friend and associate of Lord Welling-
ton, landed at Port Talbot in Elgin county
and founded the famous Talbot settlement,
which absorbed Elgin and overflowed into
Middlesex and Kent counties.
Colonel Talbot had visited western Ontario
a few years previous as an aide-de-camp of
Colonel John Graves Simcoe, and had then
decided to terminate his military career and
settle in the wilderness of western Ontario.
Colonel Talbot was responsible for the set-
tling of many families in the area, and the
hardships and suffering of those early settlers
are responsible for the fertile farms, com-
fortable homes, prosperous villages, towns
and cities throughout the area today.
Elgin county is a long narrow county
bounded on the south by Lake Erie, on the
west by the county of Kent, on the north by
Middlesex, and on the east by the counties
of Norfolk and Oxford. Bordering Lake Erie,
and thereby having some 90 miles of shore-
line, the villages of Port Stanley, Port Bruce
and Port Burwell are popular for their bath-
ing beaches and recreational facilities. Many
citizens of the surrounding area own cottages
in these villages with the result that their
population is greatly increased during the
summer months.
A few years ago The Department of High-
ways extended highway No. 73 along the
beach of Port Bruce, which not only relieved
the congestion of traffic but enhanced the
value of the village as a summer resort. Port
Burwell and Port Stanley have rather serious
traffic problems.
I humbly suggest to the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Allan) that the situation in
these villages might be handled in a like
manner, an extension of highway No. 4 in
Port Stanley and an extension of highway
No. 19 in Port Burwell. These summer re-
sorts are becoming more popular each year
with the increase in population of this area.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Elgin is 50
per cent urban and 50 per cent, rural. The
main urban centre is St. Thomas, a city of
approximately 20,000 people, and known
as the railroad city of Canada. It is situated
half-way between Buffalo and Windsor, com-
parable in latitude to southern France and
Italy and, I believe, it is the only city in
Canada with 6 railroads running through it.
Due to the many changes in railroading
during the past number of years, crews in
railroad shops have been reduced. However,
with a decrease in the number of men em-
ployed in railroad work, St. Thomas— with
an alert city council and an active and pro-
gressive board of trade, headed by one of
the top industrial commissioners in Canada-
has been able to offset this change in em-
ployment by attracting a large number of
industries and many American subsidiary
firms.
St. Thomas is also a city of fine homes,
churches, schools, business places and in
partnership with the county has one of
the most modern general hospitals in the
province. The citizens of the city and county
contributed some $.5 million by public sub-
scription for furnishings in this $3.5 million
institution, which was completed in 1954.
This was a remarkable accomplishment
brought about by public spirited citizens
interested in the health and betterment of
this community.
In this city we also have established, in
conjunction with the county, one of the first
health units in the province. Among the
educational institutions in the city is Alma
college, founded in 1877, and predominantly
a training and cultural centre for young ladies.
As many as 15 nationalities have been rep-
resented in the students studying at this
institution.
Naturally, being a rapidly growing urban
centre, St. Thomas does have problems. One
MARCH 25, 1958
1239
of the foremost is the congestion of through
traffic on the main street of the city. Talbot
street is a narrow street, 2 miles in length,
and the traffic on highway No. 3 must pass
over it. However, it has been announced
that a new western entrance to the city will
be built this year, and a by-pass around the
city will be started, so this problem will be
eliminated.
The second overhead bridge, east of the
city, will soon be completed. The old bridge
was the scene of many fatal accidents, and
the people of the riding are appreciative of
this project.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to
note that one of the first macadamized roads in
Ontario was built on East street in St. Thomas.
Today we have many hard surfaced county
roads in the riding because of the generous
financial assistance given to our municipalities
by The Department of Highways. This year
over $1 million has been approved by the
department for the maintenance of the roads
in the city and county. Approximately one-
half of this will be in the form of subsidies,
and in our country there is being developed a
road system that is a credit to the county
and province.
This government being interested in the
welfare of all people will continue to improve
our highways and through financial assistance
will help the municipalities build better
county and township roads.
Another problem which has faced St.
Thomas is an adequate supply of water. St.
Thomas had its first water system in 1874
when a small dam and pumping station were
constructed mainly for fire fighting purposes.
The contest over the construction of this
system was one of the bitterest in the city's
history. In 1889 another merry battle took
place when the ratepayers of the city voted to
establish a modern filtration plant in nearby
Yarmouth township. At that time, two daily
papers were in circulation in St. Thomas
and Elgin, the one supported the plan while
the other opposed it. The opposition's greatest
punch was a lyric which read something like
this:
We will drink from the vats
On Kettle creek flats
Installed by the filtering pack
and the citizens have been doing so since
without regret.
In 1921 a reservoir that held 340 million
gallons was constructed, and by 1951 this was
enlarged to hold another 235 million gallons
in storage.
However, in the future it may be necessary
for St. Thomas, along with many other urban
centres, to obtain its water from the lake. I
would like to congratulate the Ontario water
resources commission for the very good work
which they are doing in connection with
problems such as water supply for urban
centres.
The main town in the riding is Aylmer,
with a population of some 4,000 people, and
in which is located the Canadian manufactur-
ing headquarters for Carnation milk, a plant
that has been in operation for over 40 years.
A few years ago, the company also constructed
a can company and now the cans used in the
manufacture of Carnation milk are made in
Aylmer.
The birth-place of the Aylmer brand of
canned goods took place in Aylmer, where one
of the first factories of Canadian canners was
built.
Then, a few years ago, the Imperial
Tobacco Company built a large processing
plant at a cost of some $3 million, and recently
it has completed the erection of two large
additional warehouses. During the past year,
one of the buildings used in the auction sell-
ing of tobacco was constructed in Aylmer.
Three buildings have been built for this pur-
pose in the tobacco growing area of the
province, and represent an investment, I
understand, of over $1.5 million.
The growing of tobacco is an important
branch of agriculture in the riding. When
cultivation was first started in the early
1920's, some 1,100 acres were in production
in the province, and the average yield was
something like 800 pounds per acre. Now, in
Ontario, there is an allocated acreage of some
113,000 acres, yielding around 1,400 pounds
per acre with a total market value of some
$70 million.
It is interesting to note that, in the early
1920's, a 100-acre farm in the now tobacco
producing area of our county could be pur-
chased for from $2,000 to $4,000. Today that
same farm, with an addition of tobacco kilns,
greenhouses and pack barns, will command a
price of $60,000 and upwards.
We in the riding are proud of our tobacco
growers, many of whom immigrated to this
country during this century, and have made
a great contribution to the economy of this
province.
As a matter of interest, the federal govern-
ment derives an income of some $233 million
a year from the industry, by including
property taxes, income tax and excise tax on
the finished product.
1240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This year the growers have inaugurated a
new system of selling their crop. During the
past summer they have built 3 auction houses,
and as I mentioned before, one is located in
Aylmer. At this auction house, I understand,
they are employing around 100 people, and
are selling by bale auction using the Dutch
clock method.
This system is new and has presented
problems. However I have heard many fav-
ourable reports from growers regarding the
price per pound which they are now receiv-
ing for their crop.
I would like to commend the hon.
Prime Minister and hon. Minister of Agri-
culture (Mr. Goodfellow) for the very capable
manner in which they have handled a
critical situation in tobacco marketing in
January. At that time, less than one million
pounds of tobacco were being sold in a day,
but after 30 bales replaced 10 on a pallet, the
sales have stepped up to 2.5 million pounds
and over.
Some growers have reported an increase of
5 cents per pound, in selling price of their
crop compared to last year. This money is
circulated throughout the area and affects the
economy of the entire district.
In Elgin we have a very diversified type of
farming. On the lighter land along the lake-
front, with tobacco we have many fruit farms
and a great deal of the crop is marketed
through a fruit growers' co-operative in St.
Thomas. One of the main branches of agri-
culture is livestock production, and our
livestock are among the best of the province;
demanding a ready export market and a
premium price.
Milk produced in the county is manufac-
tured into condensed milk, powdered milk
and cheese. A large plant manufacturing
concentrated milk is located as I mentioned
before, in Aylmer, and a Borden plant manu-
facturing powdered milk and ice cream is
situated in Belmont. Milk is shipped from the
county to dairies in Aylmer and St. Thomas
within the county, London, and even as far
west as Windsor, and east to Toronto. In
Elgin we have two of the few remaining
cheese factories in western Ontario.
There is a large acreage of corn, beans,
sugar beets and wheat grown annually, and
a large number of commercial feeder cattle
are fed each year. In addition there are some
prominent turkey and poultry producers in the
riding.
In 1944, to cope with a rapidly expanding
agricultural economy, the farmers organized
a co-operative known as the Elgin co-opera-
tive services. In that year the business
amounted to some $.5 million while in 1957
the sales were $4,123,000. This co-operative
has a membership of 2,400 farmers and 80
per cent, of the business is done with the
members. Some $600,000 have been returned
to the farmers of Elgin county in the form of
patronage dividends and $50,000 have been
paid to members as interest on loan units.
This year a dividend of $60,000 will be paid
to the members on the business of 1957.
The farmers of the county have invested
$93,400 as loan units in the business, and
today the investment in plants, trucks, equip-
ment and stock amounts to some $830,334
with an earned surplus of $344,000.
This, Mr. Speaker, is an enviable record
accomplished by an alert board of directors,
an active and responsible management, and
by the policy of this government in loaning
money to co-operatives.
In 1837, a farmer produced enough food
for his family and one other person. In 1957
he produced enough food for his family and
23 other people. Farming today is big busi-
ness, representing a large investment of
capital in land, buildings, livestock and
equipment. A farmer must be familiar with
new and powerful fertilizers, insecticides,
weed killers, antibiotics, new varieties of
crops and modern machinery. He must be
quick to fit modern discoveries into his pro-
gramme, and the ultimate result is that his
efficiency of operation is second to none in
the agricultural world.
One of the mediums which has brought
about this agricultural expansion and econ-
omy is the extension of hydro-electric power
to the farms of this province. Hydro was
first introduced into Elgin in 1912, and I
think I can safely say that power lines are
now built so that all the farmers of the
county are able to avail themselves of this
great commodity. Hydro has contributed
much to the comfort of our farm home.
Another medium which has contributed
to the changes and expansion of agriculture
is the great amount of research and the
emphasis on extension promoted by this
government. Farming has been revolution-
ized during the past 15 years and today
is becoming highly specialized. Through
research, we have seen developed high
yielding varieties of field crops adapted to
wider climatic and soil conditions along with
better methods of disease and weed control
and easier methods of handling and pro-
ducing crops and livestock.
MARCH 25, 1958
1241
As Ezra Taft Benson, United States Sec-
retary of Agriculture, says:
Farming efficiency is many things. It
is crops, livestock, soil, methods and men.
It is machines and electric power. It is
the use of adapted plant and seed varieties
that will produce big yields of high quality
crops. It is good rotations to help main-
tain and build soil fertility. It is protecting
land against erosion. It is the wise use
of plant food, of fertilizers, of crop residues,
of lime and other soil building aids.
In the field of agricultural extension, many
well-trained men and women are performing
a great service to rural Ontario. In the
agricultural representative branch, we in Elgin
are proud of the contribution which our agri-
cultural representative has made to the farm
communities of our county. Mr. A. V. Lang-
ton received his early training as an agri-
cultural representative in the county of
Middlesex, and later served in Glengarry, so
he is conversant with the farm problems
throughout the province.
The junior farmer programme developed
by our Department of Agriculture through
our agricultural representative is making a
very worthwhile contribution to agriculture.
Last year there were some 161 club projects
completed by 152 members in 13 4-H
agricultural clubs. In the 4-H home-making
clubs there were 24 clubs with 131 girls
completing their projects. We also have
3 very active junior farmer organizations in
the county, carrying out their slogan of self-
help community betterment.
Junior farmer loans have helped many
young farmers become established on farms
in our county. Farming has many problems,
which cannot be solved by governments alone
through research and extension, but many of
which must be solved by farmers themselves.
Farming is a satisfying way of life to anyone
who likes working with soil, plants and
animals. Farmers are an independent class of
citizens who are not afraid of hard work and
long hours. They have no problems of air
pollution, and prosperous farm families enjoy
a sense of security which cannot be equalled
in town or city.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned only
a few of the accomplishments of this govern-
ment in agriculture pertaining to research,
extension and marketing. Time would not
permit, nor would I attempt as a freshman
member, to outline the accomplishments of
this government in the fields of education,
welfare, health, municipal affairs, highways
planning and development, and in its ability
to cope with conditions and problems that are
characteristic of a rapidly expanding agricul-
ture.
The people of Elgin on January 30 signified
that they appreciate the capable administration
of this government— a people's government-
dedicated to work for the betterment of all
the people of Ontario. As a freshman mem-
ber, I have been very much impressed by the
great amount of legislation that is being con-
tinuously introduced for the welfare of
Ontario's citizens, and I, too, realize that this
government is in the hands of capable men,
headed by a great statesman who believes in
the future prosperity and expansion of this
province.
Mr. J. M. Chaput: (Nipissing): As I rise to
speak, Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the
necessity to recognize your authority. I do so
with pleasure, because your authority here has
been beneficial to all elected representatives
of the ridings of the province who make up
this important session of the twenty-fifth
Legislature of the province of Ontario.
Without the maintenance of your authority,
and without the discipline that is the pre-
requisite to orderly discussion and debate, it
would be impossible to transact the essential
business that insures the continuing growth
of our expanding province.
It is to your credit, sir, that we have, under
your guidance and help, succeeded in doing
what we have been elected to do. I hope
sincerely that you will continue to so guide us
for many years to come, and that, through the
inspiration your conduct has injected into the
operations of this House, we shall be capable
of making Ontario a better place in which
to live.
In these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to
compliment the hon. mover and seconder of
the speech delivered by Her Majesty's repre-
sentative in Ontario.
In the one case the hon. member for Peel
(Mr. Kennedy) spoke the words of a lifetime
of experience— a man whose knowledge of this
province is second to none. I know him as a
man with a gentle approach, a real Canadian
whose feelings and knowledge have helped
us determine a line of policy that will insure
the proper and good development of the
province he loves, the country of his birth.
Then there was the voice of one of our
younger members of this Legislature, the
hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Guindon), a
young stalwart of the Progressive Conservative
party, neat in appearance and neat in thought,
1242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who brought us the message resounding with
the fervour that only youth can produce.
May I, Mr. Speaker, be permitted to say
that this young man, the new hon. member
for Glengarry, is a bilinguist who is a
product of my own alma mater, the University
of Ottawa, and that, in his debut in this
House, he reflected to the full the philosophy
of that great institution which rises and grows,
and will continue to grow in the shadows of
the peace tower on Parliament Hill.
Furthermore, I think it proper to say, sir,
that from this great institution of learning
shall pour out in ever growing numbers, men
of good will, men of determination, to help
us all in our efforts to solve the immense
problems we must face now and in the days
ahead.
Yours is a trying task and, as I have said
before, and as other hon. members of this
House who have preceded me have said,
you have accomplished to perfection the
duties that you have inherited from your
predecessor. It is to the credit of your
assistant in these duties, the hon. member
for Middlesex South ( Mr. Allen ) , that he
not only has been able to do well the job
he has to do but in the way he has handled
his new-found responsibilities. It makes us
all proud of his determination to carry on,
and carry on he has.
Two hon. members of this House have
been appointed to the cabinet since our last
session. One is the hon. member for Ontario
( Mr. Dymond ) , an outstanding physician
by profession, who has become the Minister
of Reform Institutions; the other is the hon.
member for Cochrane South (Mr. Spooner),
a long-time friend of mine, upon whose
shoulders falls the heavy responsibilities of
the Mines portfolio.
In both cases I join my fellow members
in extending to the new hon. members of the
cabinet my sincere congratulations and my
best wishes for success in the tasks that they
have accepted.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot permit this occasion
to pass by without saying how sorry I was
on the one hand, and elated on the other,
when I learned that the former hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Porter) resigned from
this House to be elevated to one of the
highest positions that is possible for any
individual to reach within the confines of
our judicial structure. May I offer my most
sincere congratulations to his lordship.
To the former member for Renfrew North,
my very close friend, Stan Hunt, who
resigned recently from this House, I wish
success on March 31 next. If you will permit
me, Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like
to join with the hon. Prime Minister in
extending a word of greeting in French to my
good friend from the press gallery, Mr.
Roland Desmarais:
Mes compatriotes de langue frangaise, ils
se chiffrent par pres d'un million en Ontario,
veulent exprimer ici toute leur appreciation au
gouvernement que dirige l'honorable Leslie
Frost. Le gouvernement progressiste-conser-
vateur a rendu justice a tous les citoyens de
la province. Je voudrais souligner ici la
presence d'un representant du journal Le
Droit a la tribune de la presse. Le Droit
informe de facon impartiale la population
franco-ontarienne des deliberations de la legis-
lature.
Je veux egalement feliciter M. Roland
Desmarais, representant du Droit, de sa
recente election au poste de premier vice-
president de TUnion Canadienne des journa-
listes de langue francaise. Le Droit peut etre
fier de son representant a la legislature de la
province.
Translation
My French-speaking compatriots of whom
there are close to a million in Ontario,
wish to express to this House their apprecia-
tion for the government directed by hon.
Prime Minister Leslie Frost. The Conserva-
tive government has done justice to all citi-
zens of this province.
I would like to mention here the presence
of a representative from the French language
daily newspaper Le Droit, of Ottawa. This
paper informs in an impartial manner of the
deliberations of this House. I wish also to
congratulate Mr. Roland Desmarais, reporter
from Le Droit at the Ontario press gallery,
for his recent election as first vice-president
of the Canadian union of journalists, French
section. The Ottawa Le Droit may be proud
of its representative in Toronto.
It was with great regret that I learned of
the sudden passing of two members of this
Legislature in the persons of Tom Pryde and
Fletcher Thomas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say
something that I am directing as a special
message to the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Griesinger) and to the architects and
builders of Ontario.
In our construction industry, much of the
materials employed come from points outside
this province, indeed much of the stone used
is imported from the United States. The varied
geology of Ontario is such that we can find
MARCH 25, 1958
1243
the finest of materials right here within our
boundaries, to satisfy the requirements of the
building industry. I feel sure that the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) will agree that
it would be wise and good for the province, if
Ontario products entered into the construction
of our public buildings and bridges, wherever
that is possible.
I have been told that in Ottawa's new city
hall, limestone from the Kingston area was
extensively used. I read somewhere that
marble from the Bancroft area was used in
the Whitney block, and it is probable that
the red sandstone that faces this building is
of Ontario origin.
But I also know that it is so very easy for
Ontario architects and builders to suggest
that well-established quarries outside the
province could supply them with good
material at probably cheaper prices than
could be obtained from available supplies
here.
I could agree with some of that thinking,
but I believe, sir, that if the architects and
The Department of Public Works got together
along with The Department of Mines, and
with the help of some intelligent publicity, we
could open up in Ontario a vast industry that
has been neglected in the past.
In my own riding of Nipissing in the
River Valley area just about 20 miles north
of Sturgeon Falls, lies the source of one of
the highest qualities of black granite ever
produced in Canada. The qualifying remarks
are not my own, they are contained in a
report published in 1955 by the industrial
mineral division of The Department of Mines
and Technical Surveys of Ottawa.
Here is the site where the highest quality
of materials for building and monumental
purposes can be obtained. I have a sample
here of this high quality product, Mr.
Speaker, that I would like to pass around, so
that the hon. members of this House can see
for themselves that this indeed is a product
of the highest quality. I can imagine that
all of them would be proud indeed if, in the
future, we could admire some of our new
Ontario government buildings adorned with
the products of our own native stone, such
as this high quality granite from my own
riding.
I would even go so far as to suggest to the
hon. Prime Minister that a committee of this
House would not be losing any of its time if
it investigated the possibilities of using
Ontario raw materials in the field of public
works of this province. In the long run,
accent on Ontario products would mean the
establishment of hundreds of small industries
all over the province. In the case of River
Valley it would mean, in my estimation,
employment for at least 240 workers.
The River Valley project would be only one
of the hundreds of other similar industries
that could be developed across Ontario, if we
could get the government, the architects and
the builders proud enough, and interested
enough, in our own potential in the field of
raw materials to specify that Ontario build-
ing products be used in their projects.
One of the most brilliant feathers in the
cap of this government is the widespread
programme of access roads that now criss-
cross the north. We are making it possible for
people in many sectors of that vast land to
get out of the state of isolation which, up until
a few years ago, they feared would be their
permanent lot. But the government acted,
and now thousands of such people breathe
easier, and have a feeling of belonging with
the rest of the residents of Ontario, because
they drive from their homes and thanks to an
access road can get onto our vast highway
system and go where they please, whenever
they please.
The people of the north are thankful to
this government for having made this possible,
and they are not the kind of people who
forget. In my own riding of Nipissing, the
government which had promised such a road
between Mattawa and Thome in the fall of
1954, 3 weeks after I was elected carried out
their promise. In January, 1957, the first
car drove over the new road link which taps
traffic from highway No. 63, the North Bay-
Temiskaming highway, and brings it to high-
way No. 17 which services North Bay, Ottawa
and points east and west.
This is one of the most scenic roads which
we have in the province. It has opened up a
great number of lakes and streams to the
motorist and will prove invaluable to the local
tourist industry.
It has also increased the flow of traffic
from the Quebec town of Temiskaming, much
to the relief of those good people who have
taken time out to write to me and express
their thanks for this government's action.
If the building of roads is a problem in
the southern part of Ontario, this problem
is compounded in the north where severe
weather changes play havoc with all but the
more super-engineered types of modern roads.
Maintenance costs are ever so much higher,
not only because of frost and thaw damage,
but because in my riding we normally get a
super-abundance of snow, and snow clearing
1244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is a costly business insofar as highways are
concerned.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a suggestion to the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Allan).
It is this. I am sorry that he is leaving
the House at this moment. However, any
contract given for highway work in the north-
ern section of the province should specify
that work shall be done on a 24-hour basis,
because otherwise time is lost, the road build-
ing season in the north is only half that of
the south, and I am sure that all the hon.
members representing northern ridings will
agree with me. If such a condition were
incorporated in all future contracts, such
contracts would be completed at a much earli-
er date, and the people of the north would
be spared the exasperating conditions of mud,
muck and detours which now exist, because
the limited work factor leads over from one
short work season into another.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the north are
conscious of the fact that the estimates for
one fiscal year will not wait and pay for
delayed action in any one rigid fiscal year of
work, so I would like to suggest to my good
friend, the hon. Minister of Highways, that
in view of the fact that the northern regions of
this province do not enjoy the type of weather
that exists in his riding, it may be good
for all of us if he listened to this suggestion,
which after all is the key to a more realistic
approach to road building in that part of
the province that is northern Ontario.
While on the subject of highways, might
I ask my hon. friend why it was that highway
No. 64, which connects highway No. 69 to
highway No. 17 and highway No. 11, which
had been placed on the priority list in 1957,
was taken off in 1957? Further, I do not see
this in the estimates of 1958. I would
strongly recommend and urge, Mr. Speaker,
that this highway be renovated.
The school children from the town of Noel-
ville, in the west end of my riding, must take
a bus and travel over that road twice daily,
a distance of approximately 40 miles, which
makes a total of 80 miles per day. It is a very
dangerous, rough road and in the spring of
the year is almost impassable.
I would strongly recommend that some-
thing be done for that road in 1958. I am
very happy to say that from North Bay
by-pass to Corbeil, which turns at the Dionne
turn, highway No. 94, work is now in
progress. There is also an access road from
the lookout hill, 3 miles west of Mattawa,
which is being completed at the present time.
However, the distance between those two
points, might be approximately 30 miles or
25 miles. I was over it last Saturday night
and Sunday night, and I am sure that a
trans-Canada highway— it is the alternate
route, Mr. Speaker— should be in better con-
dition.
I was happy to note the access roads which
The Department of Lands and Forests have
brought out to help the employment situa-
tion. There is an access road being built at
the present time in the township of Papineau
in my riding, and there is also an access road
promised from Thome to Rib Lake.
I was very happy to learn from the Deputy
Minister of Transport that a transport driver
examination centre is contemplated in the
vicinity of North Bay. This centre will have
a driver examiner and a clerk to conduct eye
and written tests, an area of approximately
2,000 square feet will be paved where the
tests may take place. A suitable building,
which is now in the planning stage, will be
erected some time next fall.
May I point out that this centre will also
be used for re-examination of persons sus-
pended for convictions under The Highway
Traffic Act.
A new home for the aged will also be con-
structed in North Bay. The registry office
was completed last September and was
officially opened by the hon. Attorney-General
(Mr. Roberts) last January. The Department
of Public Works is planning to provide for the
construction of public works office and stores
buildings.
I am happy to report to this House that
the construction to the new Ontario hospital
in Widdifield township was completed on the
first group of buildings. This new 1,200 bed
hospital comprises the following buildings:
administration, 4 pavilions, power house,
kitchen and office, together with water supply
and sewage disposal building and facilities.
I have the assurance of the hon. Minister
of Public Works that two new pavilions will
be constructed as soon as possible along with
a new medical-surgical building.
I had the honour of officially opening this
hospital last October 15. The first patients
were admitted to this hospital on October 22.
Since that time patients have either been
admitted or transferred to reach a total of
593 as of February 1.
Staff members at that date were 298,
broken down as follows: medical personnel,
which included attendants, graduate nurses,
nurses' aids, instructors and medical specialists
numbering 174; maintenance staff, consisting
of kitchen and cafeteria help, maids, engi-
MARCH 25, 1958
1245
neers and office employees totalling 154. This
gives a total number of personnel of 298
as of February 1, last.
The opening of this hospital has greatly
helped to relieve the shortage of space avail-
able throughout the province for persons
afflicted with mental illness. It has also made
it much more convenient for relatives and
friends of these patients to visit them in my
part of northern Ontario.
While on the subject of hospitals, might I
point out that in the city of North Bay, St.
Joseph's general hospital recently completed
a large addition which can now accommodate
180 beds. I had the pleasure of accompanying
the hon. Prime Minister last August when
he officially opened the new wing of this
fine institution. The citizens of North Bay
and district may well be proud of this hospital.
For some years now, the civic hospital of
North Bay has made application for permis-
sion to undertake a similar expansion pro-
gramme.
It was pointed out to the hospital board
that, by adhering strictly to the government
formula of 5.5 beds per 1,000 of population,
in the areas served by the hospitals, in apply-
ing this to the latest population figures
available they were entitled to approximately
only 53 beds. Their demands were for an
additional 100 beds. Their contention was
that this formula is not realistic today, in
view of such a rapidly expanding area owing
to the large new industries, the new Ontario
hospital, and the RCAF station.
The medical staff is alarmed over conditions
which may be expected following the intro-
duction of the Ontario hospital insurance plan,
which will become effective January 1, 1959.
Now, in view of these facts, I would strongly
recommend that the commission give favour-
able consideration to the programme sub-
mitted by the North Bay civic hospital for
an extension providing that the board has
met the requirements of the commission.
I am proud to announce to the hon. mem-
bers of this House, that an Ontario provincial
police building is now being constructed in
my home town of Sturgeon Falls. This build-
ing is helping to relieve to some extent the
unemployment situation in that area.
In 1954, a new headquarters building for
The Department of Lands and Forests had
been promised for Sturgeon Falls. I have
assurance that this building will be built
this year, at a cost of approximately $225,000.
It will consist of an office, a large section
of woodworking shops, and a section for
sign painting, and also space will be made
available for research laboratory facilities.
The site of this proposed headquarters
building has been purchased within the
town limits on the north shore of Sturgeon
river. I am sure that the citizens of Stur-
geon Falls will rejoice when they see the
start of that project.
In my native town of Mattawa I am happy
to report that I was instrumental in having
The Department of Lands and Forests re-
serve a site for the erection of a tourist park
just below the new Otto Holden dam on
the Ottawa- river, and work is now in pro-
gress at this park site. It has been proposed
that another park be established at Moore lake
some seven miles west of Mattawa on high-
way No. 17. The cost of this project will
be in the neighbourhood of $225,000 over a
period of 10 years. This park will have
suitable accommodations for picnic tables,
trailers, tents, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other things
I could say about my riding— new important
industries have settled in different parts of
the riding. I am looking to the future of
Nipissing, with an optimistic view of the
potential natural resources of my district.
Its beautiful forests, lakes and streams are
something that every tourist admires. I pre-
dict a great future for the district which I
have the honour to represent in this Legis-
lature.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that
I am not only happy, but I am proud, to
be a member of this legislative assembly.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker,
though it may seem somewhat late in the ses-
sion, I still would like to give myself the
pleasure of extending solicitations and very
warm regards to you in your official capacity.
My hon. friend, the Provincial Secretary
(Mr. Dunbar), reminded us this afternoon
that there were only some 6 or 7 of us left
in this Legislature who were here in 1937,
and so, irrespective of party, there are certain
happy associations and memories that bind us
together socially.
I am most happy to see you, Mr. Speaker,
enjoying continual good health and discharg-
ing your important duties in such an able and
satisfactory manner.
I am ready at any time to testify, as a
member of the Opposition, to the fair and
unprejudiced manner in which you discharge
your duties and decisions. You know me well
enough to realize that if I did not think this,
I would not say it.
1246
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It has not aways been so in the House, I
can assure hon. members, during my stay in
this Legislature. There was a reference made
earlier this session to the reading of a resolu-
tion, under a former Conservative adminstra-
tion, in regard to an amendment on the speech
from the Throne, seconded by the present
hon. leader of the Opposition ( Mr. Oliver ) .
This resolution I had moved, back in 1934,
was a straight want of confidence motion in
the government of that day. It was intended to
be so, and one would have thought that it
would have been in order under any circum-
stances.
But I had no sooner finished reading it to
the House when the hon. Prime Minister of
the day rose and demanded, Mr. Speaker,
that it be ruled out of order, and it was
ruled out of order immediately, and I was
given 3 minutes or something to that effect—
although the debate was continuing for weeks
—to revise that particular amendment so that
it would meet the pleasure of the hon. Prime
Minister and the Speaker.
Had I considered it from that day to this,
I could not have devised one that would be
more in order or more appropriate to the
situation of the moment.
Indeed, it was a rare day indeed as my
hon. friend, the hon. Prime Minister, will
agree with me, when the party steam roller
of that day did not roll over and roll back
again.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): No
roller these days.
Mr. Nixon: I am bound to say to the hon.
Prime Minister that, with all the temptations
he has and the great majority of hon. govern-
ment members, he has been extremely con-
siderate of the rights of the Opposition.
Now I do not know whether that is a
good thing for the Opposition or not, because
it rather draws the venom from our attack.
In those days, the Conservatives had 91
members in the Legislature. Even this govern-
ment, sir, has not reached that particular
number. We were able to leave our mark
upon the government— is that not the case?—
to such an extent that with the wonderful
campaign that our leader-at-large, the late
Mr. Hepburn, was conducting throughout the
province, that while there were 91 Conserva-
tives in this House previous to the election
of 1934, and only 14 Liberals, when the
election was over there were only 17 Con-
servatives and some 73 supporters of the
government of Mr. Hepburn.
So you can see, Mr. Speaker, how quickly
the condition can change at times in this
Legislature, and no matter how dark the
situation may appear today, I, from a study
of the past as well as from experience, never
give up hope, because as I pointed out in
this particular instance, there was a very
radical and sudden change indeed.
Now there is certainly one thing that I
have observed during my life in this Legisla-
ture, and before, and that is that the people
of Ontario will not long stand for a Tory
government in this province and another one
in Ottawa. Look back over the records and
hon. members will be bound to agree with
me in this.
Now, therefore, one would think that with
a federal election just a few days away,
we might for our own selfish purposes hope
for a Conservative victory at Ottawa. I say
this because certainly, then, the government
of Ontario would find it difficult indeed, as
times become more and more depressed— as
they will under two Tory governments in this
country— to blame their opposite number at
Ottawa. Therefore the fortunes of the Liberal
party in Ontario must necessarily be enhanced.
But I feel that it is too great a price for
this country to pay for our personal benefit,
and I certainly intend to do my best next
Monday to see that it does not happen.
Now like the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Dunlop), I have always been a great
admirer of the hon. leader of the Opposition,
the hon. member for Grey South. One of the
happiest memories that I will carry with me
to the end of my life is my association with
him since he came into this House, I think in
the election of 1926.
At that time, he was just 22 years of age.
He has made a great contribution to the
deliberations of this Legislature in all of these
intervening years. He has been a member
of 3 governments, and is a man of vast
experience and outstanding ability.
We can all agree, I am sure, Mr. Speaker,
that he is never addressing this House but
what we listen with almost amazement, and
marvel, at his ability in debates, and sound
views on all subjects that come before the
House. It has pleased me indeed, under
these difficult circumstances which we as a
party are going through in the House, to
hear the many marks of commendation in
his direction, not only from hon. members of
this party but from my hon. friend from
Renfrew South (Mr. Maloney), and many
others.
MARCH 25, 1958
1247
I say this because it is true that we are
now facing a crisis in the matter of our politi-
cal organization, and my hon. friend has seen
fit to say that in his opinion it was time
for a reassessment or reappraisal of the leader-
ship of the Liberal party, and the policies
of the Liberal party before the next provin-
cial election takes place. To that end, a
leadership convention will be assembled in
this city on April 18.
I do not think that when that date was
set there was any knowledge that there was
to be a federal election on March 31. But
I for one am happy to say that I have been
extremely proud of the leadership given by
the present head of our party. For myself,
personally, I would be extremely happy to
serve out the rest of my public life— whether
it be short or lengthy— on this side of the
House or on that side of the House, under
his able leadership.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would not certainly
count him out even yet. It is a perfectly
democratic procedure, I take it, just as demo-
cratic as it is for all the hon. members of
this House, when this Legislature is dis-
solved—which we are informed will be very
shortly— and the new election called, we all
present ourselves to the conventions of the
electors in our ridings for re-endorsement,
or otherwise, as the official candidates of our
particular parties.
I say it is just as emphatic in the process,
for the hon. leader of the Opposition, when
this convention is called on April 18, to
again present himself among the others and
I hope he will do so— for re-endorsement by
the Liberals of Ontario as their leader in this
Legislature and throughout the province at
large.
Now, Mr. Speaker, many hon. members
have spoken with pride of their constituencies,
and properly so. I have listened with a good
deal of interest to the hon. speakers who pre-
ceded me on this particular matter.
I also am very proud— and with justification,
I think— of the great riding of Brant that has
so honoured me in these many years.
Now every riding, of course, is supposedly
the best riding according to the hon. member
who represents it, and some of them also
have the distinction of being great historic
ridings. But certainly I can claim both for
the riding of Brant. It was named well over
100 years ago now. We celebrated our cen-
tennial some few years ago, and we were
proud to have the hon. Prime Minister with
us at that time.
Brant was named in honour of, and to com-
memorate, that great Indian chieftain, Captain
Joseph Brant, who, in the American revolution
fought with the Six Nations Indians with much
distinction, on the side of the British Crown.
The cause was lost, certainly through
no fault of the Six Nations Indians, or the
brilliant leadership of Captain Joseph Brant.
Actually, if the Imperial forces had been led
as brilliantly, there might well have been a
different outcome.
Captain Brant and his people were dis-
possessed of their land in New York and Ohio
states, and along with my own great grand-
father he came to Ontario as a United
Empire Loyalist. King George III himself,
by Royal decree, gave a great tract of land to
him and his people, which extended 6 miles in
width on each side of the Grand River from
its mouth to its source.
Now, I think that would have taken us
even up into your county, Mr. Speaker, but,
of course, the Indians feel that they have
always been swindled out of their possessions,
as they generally have in years past, and when
they came to survey this tract they found the
government did not own it all to give away.
In fact, it had only been cleared— by treaty
with the Indians possessing the lands— to the
neighbourhood of Guelph, so that from there
on up into your county, they never really had
title to the land at all.
Joseph Brant said that the land itself was
of no use to his people, and that for fishing
and hunting they had the use of the land
anyway, and they certainly had no thought
of farming it. They were not given to that
particular way of life.
So Captain Brant proceeded to dispose of
this tremendous tract, starting at 600,000
acres by lease and by sale, and in other
ways, until he had narrowed it down to the
40,000 acres which now constitutes the reser-
vation of the Six Nations Indians.
To show just how generous and lavish
Captain Brant was in the disposal of these
lands, he sold two great tracts of land which
are now North and South Dumfries, two
great townships, for £8,000 and he received
nothing whatever for it except an IOU.
In the course of a few years, it changed
hands several times until it was obtained
by the hon. William Dickson, a member of
the Upper House of Upper Canada, for the
sum of £.24,000, so that much more was
made by speculating in the land than the
Indians received for the land in the original
instance.
When my own grandfather came to Brant
county in 1839, he obtained the farm upon
1248
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which I now live for the sum of £.212 for
the 200 acres.
So hon. members can see that the price
of this land increased quite rapidly, but
unfortunately the poor Indians did not get
much benefit from it. As a matter of fact
the people who bought these lands or leased
them were not paying for them, and the
government of the day set up a commission
to look after their affairs, and this commis-
sion got all the money they could from those
purchasers or the lessees and invested it in
Grand River Navigation Company.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Grand River Navi-
gation Company was not a financial success.
We have heard a great deal about the con-
dition of the Grand River, but it has never
been in connection with navigation, and that
money was all lost.
The Indians claim that the federal gov-
ernment of Canada have a responsibility to
them to make good on this money which
they invested so unwisely and lost; they
have a claim of $3 million against the federal
authorities, and I am surprised that Rt. hon.
Mr. Diefenbaker has not already hastened
to pay off that claim.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Give him time.
Mr. Nixon: I was interested in the re-
marks of the hon. Minister of Education on
his estimates with regard to the increase of
of the Indian children of this province. I have
spoken before on this question, and I had
thought to address a few remarks to the
House on that subject.
I am sorry that more progress has not been
made in this respect because I feel that it is
an unnecessary and ineffectual duplication of
services between the two governments, when
we have all the rest of the children of this
great province, probably totalling 1.3 million
or 1.4 million, under the one system of
education supervised by The Department of
Education, and a federal set-up to administer
the education of 4,000 or 5,000 Indian chil-
dren.
I had hoped up to a few years ago, that
some progress might be made in placing the
education of the Indian children under the
same system as all the rest of the children
of the province.
I think that it is the starting point on which
we must work, to see to it that our Indian
people receive the benefits of the great ex-
pansion and improved prosperity and living
conditions that the rest of us have enjoyed
in recent years, and of which they have had
a very small part indeed.
I have never suggested to the hon. Minister
that to achieve this it would be necessary for
The Department of Education to actually take
over the physical assets, like the school houses
and so on. There is no reason why the
Indians cannot set up their own school boards,
and I can certainly assure hon. members that
on the reservation of the Six Nations— the
Iroquois— in Brant-Haldimand, we could get
just as capable a board of education to super-
vise the education of that area as we can in
any other section in the province of Ontario.
There are certainly some very able, talented
and competent Indian individuals who could
look after that matter, and the federal Indian
affairs branch could provide that board with
the money to pay for the cost of education.
Indian schools as such would disappear.
They would simply become part of the school
system of the province of Ontario, and I can
assure hon. members that this would better
the education of these children.
Neither have I suggested that it would be
necessary for the children to be loaded into
buses and taken away from the reserve for
their education.
In dealing with this matter very briefly,
I would like to mention the passing of one
of the outstanding citizens of Brant county,
one who was born on the reservation, and
educated in the schools.
I refer to Magistrate O. M. Martin. He
was a veteran of the two World Wars. Before
enlisting in World War I, Magistrate Martin
was a school teacher on the reservation. After
enlistment, he rose rapidly, and before the
end of World War II he attained the position
of brigadier in Her Majesty's services.
Subsequently, he was appointed to the posi-
tion of magistrate here in the city of Toronto,
and discharged those important duties with
great capability and distinction to the date of
his death.
Just a few weeks before his death, I had the
honour of being with him at the unveiling of a
plaque to the great Indian athlete, Mr. Tom
Longboat, at Ohsweken, and he then delivered
a very stern and most able address and it was
with deep regret that we learned of his un-
timely death.
Now, I am very happy to acknowledge
that during the last two sessions of this Legis-
lature, we have done a great deal for the
Indians of the province of Ontario— possibly
as far as we can under the Constitution,
in many ways. But much should still be done.
In addition to this question of education,
that I have touched upon, they are certainly
badly in need of better roads.
MARCH 25, 1958
1249
This reserve is located in a highly indus-
trialized area. There are splendid roads on
all sides of it, and because it is the short-cut
across the country, the roads are used a great
deal by other than those living on the reserve.
A part of the Six Nations reservation is in
the riding of my hon. friend, the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Allan). I had hoped that,
before this, in some way— and he seems to
have the ability of getting things done, if he
wants to do them badly enough— we would
see more improvement than we have on the
roads of the reservation.
Hon. J. N. Allan ( Minister of Highways ) :
Mr. Speaker, are we not doing very well
there? We are building that main road and
our only limit is the amount of money that
the federal government, through their immi-
gration branch, would contribute.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I admit there has been
some progress. We had a 3-year programme
on that main road, and they were able to
proceed for two of those years. Then the
money somehow ran out and, from Ohsweken
east to the highway, they were not able to
carry on.
Apart altogether from that main road to
the 69 corners, and on up to Ohsweken, the
other roads— my hon. friend will admit, even
in his own riding— could do with a whole lot
of improvement.
I know the hon. Minister is ready to pay
50 per cent, subsidy on the work that the
Indian affairs branch decides to spend. But
possibly he might use a little of his well
known affability and influence in certain
quarters to have even that done more rapidly.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I have been trying that.
Mr. Nixon: While the hon. Minister is at
it, a nice bridge across the Grand river just
north of Oshweken would be very greatly
appreciated, I can assure him. It is a long
way from the bridge at Caledonia to the
next bridge at Brantford, and these people
own land on both sides of the river. There
used to be a ferry there which was oper-
ated by a crank and a chain, but even that
got in such a bad condition that people would
not trust their cars on it. And now they
have to drive probably 30 miles to visit
their relatives across a stream where they
could shoot an arrow across, as the crow
flies, or as the arrow flies. A bridge there
would be greatly appreciated, and would
serve a useful purpose entirely apart from
the benefit to the Indians themselves.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Make it a toll bridge.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, even make it a toll bridge,
as has been suggested. I have paid toll there
many a time to go across on the old ferry.
Before dealing with the budget, I would
like to make a few comments on the rural
way of life, Mr. Speaker, and that should
be a very appropriate subject here. We have
had some very interesting debates on this
subject, and I do not know that I can add
much to the store of wisdom, but I can
assure hon. members that it is a subject
which is certainly very near and dear to
my heart.
I was rather interested in an excerpt from
an article by our good friend Gordon Sinclair,
in Liberty magazine. He said the farmer is
the captain of the good earth, he is the one
essential man without whom no city dweller
can long survive. He gets no paid vacation,
no 40-hour week, no pension scheme, and
no paid time off for illness. No Canadian
has more built-in integrity and self-respect
than the farmer, but he gets the worst of
the deal of any citizen in this rich land.
Now that sounds pretty bad, but one is
always interested in the views of city people
as to rural life, and I can assure the hon.
members that, although some of this may
be true, farming has many compensating
advantages.
I was home over the weekend and the sun
was shining on both sides of the fence, the
wheat was all "greened up" and the grand-
children were playing on the lawns, and all
in all it was a most beautiful and happy
experience. It was only with the greatest
difficulty that I compelled myself to return to
these important duties last Monday.
I had the opportunity to walk all over the
farm, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Goodfellow), I am sure, will be pleased
to know that the wheat has come through the
winter splendidly, there has been no heaving.
The new seedlings have not been destroyed
by the winter. There is every prospect of a
bumper crop. It evidently has been a most
satisfactory winter. I am not one who is always
persistently complaining about the weather.
In this, I think perhaps the present hon.
Minister misses a few good opportunities. His
predecessor the hon. member for Peel (Mr.
Kennedy ) never missed an opportunity to take
credit for the weather, and certainly under
such good conditions that we have existing
now in the early spring, he would certainly
have been commenting on it.
1250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I can remember, under the former Minister,
we never enjoyed a good shower of rain when
it was needed but what there was an official
statement that there was a $5 million or $6
million rain, and we farmers would say,
"Thank heavens, we have someone there who
is looking after our interests with the powers-
that-be."
Maybe the present hon. Minister is missing
this opportunity. He can help us out, though,
very considerably I am sure.
The hon. member for Peel in his interesting
address at the beginning of this session, in
moving the speech from the Throne, said that
he had not grown wheat for many years, that
he found it unprofitable to do so. Of course,
I do not know what one could grow on the
land that he held. That property was worth so
much money that he could not grow anything
to show a return on the investment.
But with us it is a little different. As a
matter of fact, I take more pleasure in a good
crop of wheat, I think, than anything else we
grow on the farm. It distributes the labour
over that part of the season when conditions
are ideal for sowing the crop, and then when
everything is sere and brown in the late fall
these fields of wheat are a beautiful picture
indeed.
The early snow comes and certainly if you
have a good mat of wheat on the soil you are
not going to lose the very valuable top soil by
erosion washing it away.
It produces a paying crop. Taken year in
year out over the 120 years that my family has
farmed that land, I suppose fall wheat has
paid about as well as any other crop. But the
prices are low and the cost of producing is
increasing all the time.
Now that we have the wheat marketing
scheme which was carried by such a large
vote recently, I hope the hon. Minister will be
able to co-operate with the new board and
see to it that the farmers who are in this
business of producing wheat get a reasonably
satisfactory price.
There has been a great deal of talk about
contract farming, particularly in the Legisla-
ture this session. But it is something that I
certainly am not afraid of. I am not afraid
of losing my independence as a farmer. If I
happen to be able to get a little better price
for my produce by signing a contract, than if
I gamble on the open market which very
seldom pays off, I am willing to settle for
security and certainty rather than to take
any such gamble.
Now just with respect to contract farming,
maybe I do not clearly understand just what
the people are talking about. There are
various degrees, I presume, of contract
farming but I have always thought it was a
good thing. I hope the hon. Minister will not
start passing any laws which are going to
put this contract business out of our reach,
because he would certainly have me on
relief in very short order.
When I first took over the responsibility
of the old family farm in 1913, the very first
thing I did was try to get the buildings in
shape, and improve the surrounding yards
and so on, so I could secure a milk contract
in the neighbouring city of Hamilton. Ulti-
mately, I was able to do that. That contract
has now continued for over 40 years, and
I have found it most satisfactory indeed.
In fact I do not know what I would have
done in the days of the depression and other
times, even before that, without such a con-
tract, and I have always thought that the
dairyman farmer was to be envied if he was
able to get himself into that position.
Hon. members might be interested in a
little history. When I first took over the
farm, times were not particularly good. That
was another time when we had the Conser-
vative government in Ottawa and here in
Toronto, and my father had heavy obligations,
so I only received a third of what I could
make off the farm.
I sought to augment this a little, because
after all I was a graduate of the Ontario
agricultural college; with what is supposed to
be as a Bachelor of Scientific Agriculture
degree. So I took a part-time job with the
government.
I used to go around to farmers' institute
meetings and fall fairs and so on, and in that
way I augmented the revenue from the farm.
But in 1918 I received a letter from the
"top brass" of The Department of Agricul-
ture, saying they had notice that I had
accepted the nomination to run for the pro-
vincial Legislature for the United Farmers
of Ontario in my riding of Brant, and there-
fore my services would no longer be required
with The Department of Agriculture. It
was my first run-in with Tory patronage in
the province of Ontario.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I had to de-
pend entirely upon the revenues from the
farm again, with a family of 3 children, and
I was glad indeed to have the good old
milk contract to fall back on.
Now, as I have said, I have never felt that
by agreeing to such a contract, I was losing
my independence in any way, or that I was
endangering the operation as a family farm.
MARCH 25, 1958
1251
On the contrary, we have always found it
possible to provide work for an unlimited
number of children, and I can say for my-
self that I have never known what it was
to be out of a job since I was 5 years old.
Although someone may pass the observation
that by time of the next election I will be out
of a job, no matter what happens then, I can
assure them that there will always be a job
waiting for me on the old farm.
As the years pass by it seems to me that
I look forward with more eagerness to the
return of each seeding than even previously,
and I would ask of the kindly Providence,
who has never failed in the carrying out of
a seed time and harvest, that even at my
advanced stage of life I might have a few
more in which I could assist in the spring
seeding, because there is nothing that gives me
more pleasure than to break the good ground
and put the seed in and watch the crop
developing to the harvest.
With the children that is always an in-
teresting occupation. There is no better place
in the world, Mr. Speaker, to bring up a
family.
I have had quite an opportunity to be
observant because, as I have said, we have
lived there for 120 years — 5 generations —
and at 67 years of age I was exactly in the
middle, so I could observe both up and down,
and there is always plenty of opportunity
to interest the children in necessary activi-
ties—and there are lots of them— so that our
problem of juvenile delinquency is kept to
an absolute minimum. In 5 generations we
have had nothing that a short visit to the
woodshed could not permanently cure.
So as I say, there are many compensations
of living in the country, and if I could live
my life all over again, I would not dream of
changing farming for any other occupation
in the country. Even though the times are
more difficult than they were in the past,
the price squeeze is making it hard for many
farmers to get by, certainly with my experi-
ence in contract farming, I would say that any
farmer who can get a city milk contract, and
produce 500 pounds of milk a day at prevail-
ing prices, should be well away towards meet-
ing these new problems.
' In this connection I want to make some
reference to the formula of pricing.
We have heard a great deal about stabiliza-
tion prices— floor prices— for farm products,
Mr. Speaker, and personally I am not too
optimistic as to the manner in which the
recent legislation at Ottawa will work out.
Stabilization prices and the floor prices under-
mine farming. Certainly, I have no great
hope that a floor price existing of 80 per cent,
of the average price per week, during the last
10 years, will give us any great lift with this
year's wheat problem even with the new
wheat board.
But The Department of Agriculture over a
number of years has worked out a system of
formula pricing for fluid milk sold on the city
market, and it has been the feeling of many
agricultural organizations that this system of
formula pricing must be carried much further
than with the one product of fluid milk sold
on the city market.
I think that is what they were desiring in
their representations to Ottawa when the
stabilization price legislation was under con-
sideration.
In 1951, at the request of the Ontario milk
producers' league, a study of the possibilities
and desirability of introducing the pricing of
fluid milk to the producer by formula was
undertaken by the office of the dairy commis-
sioner. The then hon. Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Kennedy) at that time appointed a special
committee to study the methods of arriving
at a price.
The chairman of that committee was Mr.
Biggs, the dairy commissioner of the province
of Ontario, and the members were Dr. E. C.
Hope, economist of the Canadian federation
of agriculture office at Ottawa, Dr. H. L.
Patterson, director of the farm economics
branch, and Professor Drummond, the head of
the department of agricultural economics at
the Ontario agricultural college.
A thorough study was made of all existing
formula pricing methods in use in various
markets of the United States, and it had
progressed in the country to the south of us
to a very considerable degree, and was work-
ing out very satisfactorily.
The study was made by the committee of
all the factories which entered into the pricing
of fluid milk to the farmer in the province
of Ontario. Special attention was given to
the selection of an indicator which would best
measure the change in farm production costs.
Formula pricing of fluid milk is an attempt
to relate automatically the price of fluid milk
to demand and supply conditions. Negotiations
which may require large amounts of time, and
possibly create suspicion, would be eliminated,
and prices would be determined by the com-
bination of industries described below.
Formula pricing is used in 49 markets in
the United States including Chicago, New
York and Boston.
Formula pricing was first considered in
Ontario in 1951, and since that time a com-
1252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mission or committee of economists have met
from time to time to examine various formulae
in an effort to find one that is satisfactory.
Now this is a formula that was recom-
mended. The indicators were 6 in number.
The wholesale prices in Canada, on the
Dominion bureau of statistics were given
20 points. The weekly earnings Ontario
DVF were given 20 points; commodities and
services used by farmers in eastern Canada,
Dominion bureau of statistics, 30 points; the
price of butter fat, Ontario, in the dairy
branch, 10 points; price of condensed prod-
ucts, Ontario, 10 points; the price of cheese
from the cheese boards, 10 points. This totals
100.
The wholesale price index was chosen as
an indicator, because it moves with the general
economic conditions and reflects the demand
for all products including milk. Now a base
was selected, the base period should be as
recent as possible.
After considering several periods, the com-
mittee chose 1947 to 1952 as the base, be-
cause this period was after the war. It included
one year of declining prices as well as
several years of rising prices and was long
enough to eliminate any short fluctuation.
Now the method of calculating this formula
is very complicated, and I will not attempt to
deal with this in detail. But the fact is that
it has worked out amazingly well. The com-
mittee considers that price changes should be
in fairly large steps, so that they would not
occur too often and thereby upset the pro-
ducers, distributors and consumers.
It was suggested that any changes in the
price paid to producers should occur when
formula indicated at least a 19 cent per
100 pounds movement, either up or down.
Thus with the price of $4.53 per 100
pounds, no change would occur until the
formula showed either $4.72 or $4.34.
Now, I do not propose to go into this mat-
ter any further. This bulletin is a little old,
but I do not think, however, that it is out of
date entirely, and as I say it has worked out
remarkably well.
Before this system was adopted, almost
every year, when the spring came along,
cattle were turned out to pasture and the
milk increased slightly. Then there was a
demand for a reduction in price, and there
was recrimination and difficulties of all kinds,
and the same would occur again in the late
fall when the farmers sought to have the price
put back again in order to keep up with the
cost of production.
This situation has largely been eliminated
by this formula, and I hope that it will con-
tinue indefinitely.
Almost every month some publicity is given
to the cost of living and the position of the
formula, and before it reaches the 19 cent
differential, everybody is more or less expect-
ing the change that is coming about, and
there is no particular criticism.
So much for the milk contract system of
farming. I have found it most satisfactory
indeed, and those with whom I come in
contact in the same activities will bear me
out in this, I am sure.
Another system of contract farming that I
had some experience with, and I am glad to
say a little more favourable than that of the
hon. Minister of Agriculture, is in the produc-
tion of canning crops. For some 20 years now,
I have personally grown canning-factory peas,
and for many more years the sweet corn for
the canning factories. Under the plan of the
marketing board we have worked out a solu-
tion to our pricing difficulty which, here again,
has been fairly satisfactory, and it is sold
entirely on a quality basis, and definite prices
are agreed upon before the spring seeding
time of the year.
Last year, for instance, everything of a
better quality than 85 on the tenderometer
ring was paid for at $150 per ton; 86 to 90,
$124 per ton; and it went on to 126 up,
so the crop is priced on that quality basis.
The point I want to make is that we know
beforehand— before we even have this expense
of seeding and fertilizing the ground— what
we are going to receive for the product when
it is harvested.
There is an old saying that good under-
standing leads to long friendship, and the
relationships of producer and the processor,
or the contracting corporation, have always
been most pleasant.
Now I deprecate the attitude that seems
to exist in some places that there must be
friction between the producer and the pro-
cessor who buys his product. That has not
been my experience, or the experience in my
community, at all, and we appreciate having
these industries located in that particular
area, and do our utmost to get along with
them.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, just recently
a new canning factory was established west
of Brantford on the old airport known as
the York farms, and last year— although it
is not the largest probably in the country,
it is certainly one of the most modern and
efncient-they distributed $612,552 to the
MARCH 25, 1958
1253
farmers in a very small community for the
peas and the corn that were processed there.
Incidentally, hon. members might be in-
terested in knowing that the management of
this plant is under the very capable direction
of the brother of our hon. Minister of Public
Welfare (Mr. Cecile).
They built a new and most modern freezer,
which cost more than $.25 million, and it
has a capacity of freezing 4 tons of products
per hour in a continuous process.
We think that this is a very fine industry
indeed, and any time the hon. Minister of
Planning and Development (Mr. Nickle)
knows of some industry that is interested in
processing farm products, I can assure him
that we have room for them yet, up there in
Brant. We will welcome them with open
arms, we will get along well with them, and
we will furnish them with any required
amount of the various produce that they can
find anywhere in the province of Ontario.
I am not worried about the contract
speeches of this great canning era, Mr.
Speaker, but I am worried that, in these
depressed times, people are not using enough
of our products. I note with regret that one
or two canning factories do not propose to
operate this year, and I am afraid that with
many others there will be a greatly reduced
acreage.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I presume when a
member speaks on the budget debate he
ought to at least say a word or two about a
budget of my good hon. friend, neighbour and
to mention a few brief points that have
struck me about this particular document;
although after the very able criticism of the
budget of my good friend, neighbour and
colleague from Waterloo North (Mr. Winter-
meyer), there is little required indeed from
me in addional criticism of the budget. I
certainly want to congratulate him on his
splendid address in opening this debate.
Before I go any further in this matter
I want to note that the hon. Provincial
Treasurer and Prime Minister, when he finds
it impossible to defend, always attacks. Now
that is certainly a very good strategy. He
says: "Why look at the way that old Grit
government carried on in this province years
ago. All the money they spent for capital,
they added to the debts."
Now, my recollection of that is not exactly
in accordance with what he said, Mr. Speaker,
so I went to the trouble of getting Mr. Clare
Gordon's last budget speech from the library,
and this is what he had to say: To start
with, there was an overall surplus, my hon.
friend will remember that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I have had two or three
of those, too. Not lately though.
Mr. Nixon: Not lately; the hon. Provincial
Treasurer is a long way from it now.
The foregoing statements of expenditure
and revenue, both on ordinary and capital
account, show an interim overall surplus for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, of
$20.7 million. This is the overall surplus.
Ordinary revenue of $115 million; capital
revenue of $32 million; or a total revenue of
$147 million. Expenditures totalled $127
million, so that there was an overall surplus
of revenue over all expenditures of $20.7
million.
So, Mr. Speaker, far from adding all of our
capital expenditures to the debts, we not only
paid it all out of current revenue and capital
revenue, but we actually had an overall
surplus of $20.7 million, and then the indirect
debt, contingent liability.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Of course, that is only in
one case. In taking the 9 years-
Mr. Nixon: He said that there was not
another reference to an overall except this last
one, if I remember correctly.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, on my— no, I guess
that is—
Mr. Nixon: Well, do not try to trim on this,
now that I have gone to all the trouble to
get it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out to my hon.
friend that on that budget the government of
the day went out of office.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, well, I do not know, Mr.
Speaker, I do not know. Is that an admission
that we are going in debt by $100 million
just for the sake of winning this next election
which is taking place? Surely my hon. friend
is not saying that by increase—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, no, but I—
Mr. Nixon: I think that we are all inter-
ested in doing a good job for the province of
Ontario, and let the chips fall where they
may when the election comes along.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would like to point this
out, that the people at that time expressed
their disapproval of piling up huge surpluses.
They want the work done, not higher sur-
pluses.
1254
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Well, we did have an overall
surplus. The hon. Provincial Treasurer will
admit that.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, yes.
Mr. Nixon: And then the indirect debt was
reduced by $2 million. The next debt was
reduced by $9 million; and the next debt—
we have heard so much about the next debt
that was reduced by $3.8 million, and as the
hon. Provincial Treasurer says the gross debt
was reduced by $20 million.
Maybe we were too tough, and the people
did not want their debts paid off, but the
hon. Provincial Treasurer certainly found the
finances of this province in a whole lot dif-
ferent shape than we found it when we came
in 1934, he will admit that.
Some time when he wants to go back and
point— he must go back and point out what
was happening under the Henry government,
when every dollar they spent for relief pur-
poses in this province was called a capital
expenditure, and was added to the debt.
For the information of the House I desire to
table an interim statement of the gross ordi-
nary revenue for the fiscal year April 1, 1941
to March 31, 1942.
As for a previous overall surplus, we will
note that, in the last budget address of the
hon. Mitchell Hepburn, on page 1,922; the
total ordinary revenue for that year is
estimated to be $120 million, and the overall
surplus— total of ordinary and capital revenue
—$140 million, total capital in ordinary
expenditures, $139,445 million, giving an
overall surplus of $1,383 million so that there
were overall surpluses even before Mr.
Gordon's budget speech, and in the one or
two that the hon. Provincial Treasurer had in
the early days of his Treasuryship of the prov-
ince, when he was more economically minded
than he has been subsequently.
But he certainly started out with the
finances of this province in a very splendid
condition, and the debts were being reduced
and were certainly under control, which is
more than I can say for them at the present
time.
Now we have just this afternoon, Mr.
Speaker, finished the voting of the estimates,
and hon. members will note on page 5 that
these total $932,946 million, so we are getting
these pretty nearly up to the billion point as
well, and with the supplementary estimates
that we voted this year which will un-
doubtedly be added to these estimates next
year— we will have it just about on the billion
mark. Everything will be big and much more
easily remembered when we get into the
billions than when we are only talking in
these little sums of $990 million being voted
in the estimates.
I wonder if, sometimes, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer is not just a little uneasy as to
where we are going in this question of public
expenditure, because it is to my mind at
least an alarming situation when we have the
debts piling up as they have during the last
few years with no effort to control them.
Now last year, when we had a different
Provincial Treasurer than my hon. friend,
the Prime Minister, he was taking a more
liberal view of these matters. He is reported
as having said that the 10 surpluses are maybe
unreal. The hon. Prime Minister has admitted
his government's budget surplus since 1948
might not be real ones.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Who said that?
Mr. Nixon: The hon. Prime Minister did.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I will send this over to
him after I have finished reading it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I could not have been
correctly quoted.
Mr. Nixon: I asked in the Legislature
yesterday what he thought of a Conservative
hon. member's charge that Ontario is acutally
going $45 million a year deeper in debt, he
replied: "There is a great deal in what he
says." There certainly is no doubt about his
going into debt by $45 million last year and
this year, and he is going $100 million deeper
on the next debt.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take the budget
which was presented. I would say that the
hon. Prime Minister returned to this job as
Provincial Treasurer and, returning to this job
as Provincial Treasurer, certainly did the
best possible with a very difficult job. He has
developed a technique such as I have not seen
with any other hon. Provincial Treasurer,
neither here nor at Ottawa.
He first lays this great document upon the
table, and then proceeds to present a second
budget address, to some extent "off the cuff,"
and any similarity that it bears to this original
document, I can assure him, is purely coinci-
dental.
But whereas this document would not give
the troops much opportunity to cheer, the
budget address which he delivered does give
them a little chance once in awhile.
However, I think this year he missed out
on one of the best opportunities. He could
easily have said: "There will not only be no
MARCH 25, 1958
1255
new increased taxation, but there will actually
be a reduction in taxation."
Mr. Oliver: He did not know it at the time.
Mr. Nixon: No, but he leaves it to the
hon. Minister of Highways to slip onto the
table yesterday this great reduction in taxa-
tion of the tax on diesel fuel oil from 20
cents to 18.5 cents. Now, see the cheers that
the hon. Prime Minister might have received.
Of course, we are not supposed to remember
that last year he increased it from 11 cents
to 20 cents.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I was taking a statesman-
like attitude.
Mr. Nixon: Now, I understand the cost of
diesel fuel oil is about 18.5 cents and the tax
is about 18.5 cents, so it is 50/50 each way,
the tax is 100 per cent., and certainly every-
body should be happy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we take the budget,
the net ordinary and capital expenditures for
1957-1958 estimated at $758 million, includ-
ing $75 million for sinking funds— highway
construction account— and according to a
statement on page A-5, there is 45.4 per cent,
of the capital expenditure to be paid for out
of current income.
This seems to be dwindling down from
what the hon. Provincial Treasurer used to
boast about— paying over 60 per cent, of
captial expenditures out of income— and the
budget for 1958-1959, the estimates for
which we have just voted, a total of $39
million, then that is crossed out and $23
million written in with a pen.
That amount of money is to be paid on
capital expenditure out of ordinary revenue,
and we find on page A- 16, that this has
shrunk again from 45.4 per cent, to 33.9
per cent., and I can see, if that is to be
continued, it will not be long before this
present government will be in the position
the hon. Provincial Treasurer said the Liberal
government many years ago was in, where
they are adding all of their capital expen-
ditures to the debt.
There are just one or two matters that I
would like to draw to the attention of the
House in connection with the debt state-
ments, and I will close my remarks in a very
brief moment.
The hon. Provincial Treasurer certainly did
not stress the gross capital debts at all in his
presentation of the budget. As of March 31,
this year, these will amount to $1,315 billion,
and that is an increase of $118.5 million over
last year so that our gross debt has increased
this year by $118 million.
Then our net debt which is now at $858
million, will also be at $1 billion next year
if the rate of increase continues propor-
tionately to this.
That has increased this year by almost an
even $100 million, Mr. Speaker. It is priced
like a bargain in Eaton's basement, $99.6
million, but for all intents and purposes we
can call it $100 million increase in the debt.
I wonder if the hon. Provincial Treasurer
actually read all of this budget document?
Yesterday I wondered, if he had read it, if he
would have made the statement he did about
the municipal improvement corporation loan-
ing so much money to the municipalities of
the province, because right here we have
the statement that they have loaned only,
since their inception, some $37 million.
Now just in conclusion, I would like to
hurriedly turn to another statement, that I
wonder if it was not put in here by officials
of the brains trust just in the hope that the
hon. Provincial Treasurer might see it and
get a little uneasy at the way the net debt
is increasing, because it gives 5 years on
page A-50, 5 years of the increase in the net
capital debt. It is now, as I have said, in-
creased this year by $100 million, last year
by $52.9 million, the year before it increased
by $44 million, the year before by $40 million,
and in 1953-1954 it increased by $25 million,
so that in these 5 years the increase in the net
debt has totalled $253 millions.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do submit that it is high
time that some check was made on this ever-
mounting net debt of the province. The hon.
Prime Minister has said if he only had
another $1 million from Ottawa we would
be in good shape. This year, he had $103
million of revenue more than he had last
and still we go into debt to the tune of
an extra $100 million. It seems to be impos-
sible, no matter how much money comes in,
to balance our budget or even control the
mounting debt.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say that we
could avoid that $100 million increase by
cutting into our capital expenditure. Now
would the hon. member for Brant want that
or does he think we should do that?
Mr. Nixon: Well, what I am saying—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is a simple question.
We can balance the budget and—
Mr. Nixon: He is spending the money today
that posterity will have to pay.
1256
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: But look at the assets.
Mr. Nixon: And people will have their own
problems, Mr. Speaker, in their day and
generation, I am very sure, and it is certainly
too bad that their posterity is not here
today to see what is going on. The hon.
Prime Minister is spending their money.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, that this spend-
ing spree that has reached such astronomical
proportions has to be checked. Even if the
hon. members opposite cannot do so, some
day in the very near future the people of this
province, as they did in 1934, will decide that
the expenditures of this province are going to
be brought into some reasonable relationship
with the revenues. They will call upon the
Liberal government to do this job for them.
Believe me, they will be just as capable
of doing it as was the Liberal government of
Mr. Hepburn in 1934.
It being 6.00 of the clock p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 47
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
©ebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Tuesday, March 25, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 25, 1958
Resumption of the debate on the budget, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Sandercock,
Mr. Rankin, Mr. Reaume, Mr. Letherby, Mr. Jolley 1259
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Wardrope, agreed to 1277
Succession Duty Act, bill to amend, reported 1277
Assessment Act, bill to amend, reported 1277
Municipal Act, bill to amend, reported 1278
University of Toronto Act, 1947, bill to amend, reported 1278
Veterinarians Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 1278
Town of Eastview, bill respecting, Mr. Lavergne, second reading 1279
Public Service Act, bill (129) to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 1287
Public Service Act, bill (158) to amend, Mr. Dunbar, second reading 1287
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, 1956, bill to amend, Mr. Allan, second reading 1289
Resolution by Mr. MacDonald, withdrawn 1289
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 1289
.
1259
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 25, 1958
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in
this budget debate, but before doing so, I
would like to add my own congratulations and
appreciation for the wonderful job that you
are doing. I noticed your graciousness speaks
for itself and all hon. members of the Legis-
lature must appreciate deeply the great efforts
you make to assist them in every way pos-
sible.
I likewise would like to compliment the
Deputy Speaker, the hon. Ministers who have
presented estimates during this budget ses-
sion, and all speakers who have taken part in
a Throne and budget debate. I think that
the speeches have been of unusually good
calibre this year.
Now as we are speaking on the budget, I
would also like to compliment the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost) on his budget. It is
in keeping with the budgets that we have had
for the last 10 years, and that is a budget
which shows the faith that this government
and our hon. Prime Minister have in the
people in Ontario. It shows the knowledge
of those things they require, it shows a desire
to serve the people, it shows their willingness
to change where changes justify and it shows
that there is a desire that this province shall
progress to that great destiny which it so
richly deserves.
We could give examples of that in the
changes that we have had in education grants.
This government has taken into consideration
the difficulties that our rural areas, our built-
up areas, have had when they suddenly found
themselves with an urban population settling
there. Our Department of Education and this
government have considered that difficulty,
and the difficulty of financing their schools,
and have endeavoured to give equal oppor-
tunity for education all over this province,
which is something completely unknown pre-
vious to this government.
This forenoon, I listened to the explanations
that were given regarding hospital insurance.
There again the government pioneered and
went ahead with something that was talked
of for 20 years, and it is another evidence of
the service that is being given to our people.
Now, I have listened with some interest to
the criticisms that have been levelled at this
government. I listened particularly to the
criticisms of the hon. member for Waterloo
North (Mr. Wintermeyer) in which he stated
that we have had noTegitimate surplus in the
last 10 years. I wonder how many businesses
have had a legitimate surplus? I ask because
this government is big business, let us make
no mistake about it, in fact it is the greatest
business that is taking place in our province
at the present time.
For instance, when we are criticized for
our capital expenditures, and for not taking
our full capital expenditures out of ordinary
accounts, we must consider the position for
instance, of the farmer.
The farmer who constructs the plain barn
can charge that barn off at the rate of 5 per
cent, per annum for depreciation purposes.
He can charge off ordinary farm machinery
at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, and
a tractor at 15 per cent, and so on.
Certainly within this province the greatest
efforts have been made to supply our people.
It has been a time of capital investment to
enable the people of this province to make
the progress we have in the last few years.
Without this progress, our schools could not
have advanced, the people could not have
afforded the cost of education, and certainly
we would not have had the industry and the
progress that we have had.
Now the hon. member for Waterloo North
also mentioned the budget. His theory is
very good for a business that is at a standstill,
a business that has progressed and come up
to a certain peak, then levels off. The
directors say: "Well, in our good years we
will reserve our revenue, we will not pay
it out in dividends, we will keep so much in
surplus so that in our poorer years we can
pay that constant dividend that we have paid
all this time."
That has not been the position in this
province because it is making progress. We
are in a similiar position to a company,
starting out, which must have a large capital
1260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
expenditure, or to a farmer who is starting
out who must over a period of years acquire
cattle, machinery and so on, besides paying
for his farm and setting himself up in business.
Without that capital investment, where
would we have been? We might ask: "What
would have been the alternative had these
things not been done?" For one thing, we
would not have had expenditures, and we
would not have had the taxation. The ques-
tion is, where would we have cut down on
our expenditures? Should we have spent less
on roads, should we have spent less for educa-
tion? Should we have spent less for health
matters? Should we have spent less on any-
thing?
I do not believe that any hon. member of
the Opposition would suggest that we should
have spent less.
Well, then, the only other way that we
could have built up a surplus would have
been by imposing extra tax. It is as simple
as that. I believe the hon. member for Water-
loo North suggested that in certain places
taxes should be reduced. He said that in
education matters, we should pay for all of
the teachers' salaries so that it would have
been impossible to have built up a surplus
during the last few years without either
spending more money or taxing the people a
far greater amount than they have been
taxed.
Then, last night, I heard the hon. member
for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) being quite critical
of the surpluses that were shown by some of
our public utility commissions. Now, our
public utility commissions have been in the
position of the established business, so to
speak, and it would have been natural for
them to reserve a portion of their income,
because they know that some of their plant
equipment is going to need replacing. Con-
sequently, they keep this surplus there in
order that, when the time comes, they will
have that money or a portion of that money
to replace this plant equipment. Therefore the
hydro rates are stable more or less to those
people whom they serve.
Yet if they spend this money all at once, or
from time time, and then are faced with a
drastic necessity for replacing of equipment
and so on, immediately their rates would go
skyhigh to take care of it.
How is it that we see on the one hand the
hon. member for Waterloo North suggesting
that we should have created a surplus during
the last few years, while the hon. member for
Bruce is suggesting that it is wrong for the
public utility commission to have any
surplus? In other words, to a certain extent
it is somewhat like the remarks that were
made last year and previous to that.
In 1953, Canada had a general election.
The Conservative party claimed that taxes
were excessive and that if they were let into
power they would reduce them by $500 mil-
lion. The Liberal party and the newspaper
supporters said that this was impossible, and
no later than last year, hon. Mr. Pearson,
when he was Minister of State for External
Affairs, said in an address at Gore Bay:
Our quarrel with the Conservatives is
that they cannot cut $500 million of taxes
without interfering with the essential
services.
Then the Toronto Daily Star last year also
spoke of Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker's pledge to
cut the excise tax on automobiles, and said in
that regard:
Tax cutting is a splendid fantasy for
politicians who have no responsibility to
run a country and keep it in good financial
shape. Where is the money coming from,
Mr. Diefenbaker?
Nevertheless, the new federal government
at Ottawa did cut taxes in the amount of
$178 million per year. At the same time,
they made far more generous fiscal arrange-
ments with the balances, and showed far
more consideration for the pensioners, than
the Liberals had ever done.
But who suddenly appeared on the scene?
Why, it is hon. Mr. Pearson, now Liberal
leader, kicking off his campaign for his March
31 election— and what does he say? He says
—let hon. members hold their breath— that
taxes can be cut by $400 million. That is
one example.
Now the hon. member for Waterloo North,
in starting his budget address, in criticism,
said that he had a difficult task to do. Today
the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon)
for whom we have a great respect, said that
the hon. Provincial Treasurer had a difficult
task in presenting that budget.
I do not believe that our questioning Op-
position are even agreed. I believe that the
policy of the federal Liberal party in Ottawa
is making a radical change from last year
to this year.
Here, in this House, the hon. member for
Bruce says that we should not have a surplus,
and the hon. member for Waterloo North
says that we should build up surpluses in
good years. Therefore, it would seem that
MARCH 25, 1958
1261
the thinking is entirely according to the con-
dition that exists.
Of course, I am not going to be too critical
of our hon. friends in this House because I
know that it is difficult for them to criticize.
Nevertheless, speaking frankly, it would
appear that the difference in opinion is a
result of whether they are in power or out
of power.
Before I leave that matter, I would like to
mention also that the hon. member for Water-
loo North and the hon. member for Brant
have said, in the matter of our increasing debt,
that it is and should be a matter of concern.
Well, all these things are relative. In 1943,
it would have taken the total revenue of this
province for 4 years to have wiped out all
our liabilities. Last year, it would have taken
the revenues for just two and a half years
to take care of all our liabilities.
I think that hon. members will all admit,
in reading on a balance sheet, that the assets
and liabilities must be balanced one against
the other. It is not fair just to take the lia-
bilities and say they are increasing.
In other words, if our liabilities do increase
but our assets are increasing at a far greater
rate, I would suggest that the balance of the
whole should be examined.
Certainly, as far as we ourselves are con-
cerned, I think that the capital investment
made in this province is paying off and paying
dividends.
Again, we have heard it said that the great-
est asset that we have are our school children
and our people. In this connection we are
paying for education, paying for hospitals,
and paying for all manner of public serv-
ices. These in turn are going to bring revenues
to this province that certainly will justify
the investment that this government is making
in them.
I might say that the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) spoke at some length
the other day, and described the tremendous
gross earnings of 4 of our large corporations.
I believe that he mentioned the Canadian
Pacific Railway and International Nickel.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I do
not think I mentioned the Canadian Pacific
Railway.
Mr. Whitney: Pardon me, but there were
4 large corporations that I heard the hon.
member mention and the Canadian Pacific
Railway was one of them. I did not think
too much of it at the time, but then after-
wards I got to thinking: "What do the gross
profits mean?"
The gross profits mean nothing. They do
not take into consideration wages, cost of
materials, or business of any kind. They just
mention a sum of money with the idea of
giving to working people the thought that
some people are making new fortunes at
the expense of their labour. Because the gross
profits actually have no relation to net profits,
they do not say what the stockholders or
what the shareholders of those companies
received in earnings.
Mr. MacDonald: Let the hon. member tell
that to his farmers.
Mr. Whitney: Our farmers know all about
gross profits. As they know so well, it is the
net profit that counts, not the gross profit.
They know full well what their expenses are,
and they certainly would not tell the hon.
member or anyone else how much they took
in without telling him also how much it took
to produce the commodity.
Such statements regarding gross profits, and
suggestions that there should be planning and
public ownership, remind me somewhat of
Walter Reuther's statement in Calcutta, India.
Probably the hon. member for York South
will know who Walter Reuther is. He stated
that in western countries the capital is owned
by factories, but the workers build the auto-
mobiles, but in Soviet Russia, for instance,
the workers own the factories but it is the
bureaucrats who build the automobiles.
The statement regarding gross profits and
so on, while completely ignoring net profits,
expenses and so on, is very similar to the case
of the Irishman who went to his employer
and asked for an increase in pay. The
employer said: "If you were worth it, I would
be glad to give it to you. Now, let us see
what you do in a year. Pat, we have 365 days
in a year. You sleep 8 hours every day, which
makes 122 days of sleep. Taken from 365
days it leaves 243.
"Now, you have 8 hours' recreation a day,
which makes 122 days. This, taken from 243,
leaves 121 days.
"We have 52 Sundays in a year, which you
have off, leaving you 69 days. Take off 14
days' vacation and you have 55 days left.
"You do not work Saturday afternoons,
which makes 26 days in a year. Take this ofE
and you have 29 days left.
"Now, Pat, you allow 1.5 hours for meals:
which totals in a year 28 days; take this off
and you have 1 day left. I always give you:
St. Patrick's day off, so I ask you, Pat, are
you entitled to a raise?"
Mr. MacDonald: That is typical Tory logic.
1262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whitney: No, it is an example of the
logic the hon. member was using when he
referred to gross profits.
In this regard, there always seemed to be
some kind of stigma attached to those people
who invest capital in a development of this
kind. Down in Prince Edward county, we
have a man who is well established, and was
satisfied, but because it was a dream of his,
he went to work and was finally instrumental
in the establishment of a cement plant, which
will give employment to our people.
That man travelled miles, and worked very
hard to accomplish that end. All over this
country we have had those people who have
taken that chance, have been willing to
gamble their efforts, and gamble their capital
to try to develop this country. Why should
they be the object of criticism from some
who are not developing anything of this kind?
Mr. MacDonald: What is his name? Is it
Fraser or MacFarland?
Mr. Whitney: I refer to mayor H. J. Mac-
Farland of Picton, and wish we had more
like him who would go out and create indus-
try and help develop this province.
Mr. MacDonald: He made $1 million out
of highway contracts anyway.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Is that all?
Mr. Whitney: I would say, regarding the
remark about the $1 million on the highway
contracts, that I have no knowledge of any $1
million or any money, or anything of the
kind.
I wonder if perhaps the hon. member thinks
no one is entitled to a legitimate profit of any
kind, or if the hon. member could prove he
made any profit to which he was not entitled?
I am sure everyone would appreciate hearing
about it.
I would say that, if we had more men
who would put capital into our industry and
into our development in this country, we
would not be in the same position as the
article in the paper yesterday, in which it
said that the Ford Motor Company of Canada
was unable to deliver automobiles to the
Prime Minister of China because the higher
officials in the United States said they could
not do so.
I think that is what we need, and I do not
think that the people in this country who risk
their capital, do the work, and develop things,
and so on, should be the butt of the gibes
of members such as the hon. member for
York South.
I would like at this time to mention some
of the things of particular interest to the
riding of Prince Edward-Lennox. The in-
creased hospital grants that have been made
by both federal and provincial governments
will make possible, at long last, a new Prince
Edward county hospital.
This is something that has been needed for
a great length of time. The people have
raised a great deal of money by subscription
and many other ways, yet, due to rising
costs, they were unable to undertake this
project which was so greatly needed. I am
sure all the people in Prince Edward county
are grateful for what has been done.
In regard to Lennox and Addington county,
there was great legislation here this year be-
cause it so happens that a couple of years ago
I had the opportunity of visiting the St.
Lawrence seaway development, where George
Challies and Dr. Carroll are doing such a
great job on the St. Lawrence parkways,
and I did see some of the work.
Dr. Carroll took a party— and I happened
to be with the members of the Toronto
branch of the United Empire Loyalists asso-
ciation—on a tour and showed us what they
were doing, and how historical houses and
churches and furniture and different things
were going to be gathered together and
placed in a spot where they would help to
give a story of the early history of this great
province. I think that is a great thing.
The whole Bay of Quinte area is rich in
history, as is the city of Kingston, and along
highway No. 33, which is a beautiful area
in its own rights, there are many historical
spots. We have two fine houses there which
were constructed in 1793 and 1796. They
are the Fairfield properties, and those people
who occupy those houses are most willing
to show people through.
The house constructed in 1793 has a
certain amount of the original furniture put
in at that time, and at Adolphustown, at the
spot where the original band of United
Empire Loyalists landed in the 1790's, two
years ago the United Empire Loyalists asso-
ciation from Toronto renovated and restored
a cemetery, thanks to a great extent to the
great assistance given by the late R. S. Mc-
Laughlin, who was a native of our area and
who I do know took a great delight in seeing
this great work carried out.
And now that Frontenac, Lennox and Ad-
dington counties have been added to the
St. Lawrence parkway commission I know
that this is going to be a great thing. We
appreciate what the parks department is
MARCH 25, 1958
1263
doing, but these were smaller properties,
this is a waterfront.
I listened with a great deal of interest to
the speech given by the hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Daley) a few weeks ago, when
he described the Niagara parkway, and I
can see a vision, although it will be a long
time in reaching its fulfilment. Starting with
the St. Lawrence seaway and progressing up
to the historical city of Kingston, where we
have Fort Henry, and along highway No. 33
to Adolphustown— where we have the park
and the other historic sites— we certainly have
a bright future ahead.
I was particularly interested also in the
remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-
Dundas (Mr. Cass) who gave us a lot of
information the other evening.
Of course, in Prince Edward county, the
Outlet Beach provincial park is being
developed. Pete McGillen of the Toronto
Telegram described that park as having the
finest natural sand beach in the province of
Ontario, and I think that is very high adver-
tising indeed.
Then again, I must commend the hon.
Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Maple-
doram) for the fact that the sand banks,
which are unique in their way, have been
transferred from lands and forests to the
parks branch within that department.
Now in The Department of Travel and
Publicity, we understand it is the plan of the
historic sites committee to establish some
historic sites within the riding of Prince
Edward-Lennox within the near future, and
we certainly think that is a great idea, and we
do believe that in the future this government
will be praised for initiating this great plan.
In that regard, to promote the tourist
traffic, I have long felt that perhaps we are
missing one opportunity, and that is at con-
venient spots along our provincial highways
we might have a place where people could
turn off the highway and drive onto a parking
ground, and that a huge map might be erected
there showing various roads in different
directions, showing parks, provincial parks,
historic sites, and giving travellers generally
an idea where they are, what is available, and
giving them a choice as to where they might
like to go next.
If this was done perhaps every 50 miles
or so, it would be of considerable help to
tourists, and particularly our American tourists.
Many Americans come over to Prince Edward-
Lennox riding, and they are interested in the
United Empire Loyalists in particular, and
wondering about them, because some of them
have the same family names, and know of
some ancestor who joined the United Empire
Loyalists and came to Canada. And they are
certainly interested in following up anything
along that line and seeing what they can.
I think that, in time, there will be greater
direction given so that instead of going
through in a hurry— when highway No. 401 is
completed, people can pass by in a hurry
from one city to another and think they have
seen our province but such will not be the
case— I think every encouragement should be
given for them to see, here and there, high
points of interest in the area through which
they are passing.
I would like to commend the hon. Minister
of Highways (Mr. Allan) for the announce-
ment he made the other day that construction
on highway No. 33 between Wellington and
Bloomfield would be commenced this year,
because that has been a very narrow highway
and one badly in need of repair. I know the
people will appreciate that very much.
Likewise, there is a plan to build a small
portion of road east from Picton which broke
up very badly last year and had temporary
repairs. I might say that our local mayor
of Picton— who has been referred to in not
such glowing terms by the hon. member for
York South— is interested in this road and
said: "I wonder if I could get a chance to
put my cement on there as cheaply as they
can get any other kind of material?" So we
know these things will have to come by tender
but nevertheless we think it would be a great
thing if his tender was such that that highway
could be serviced by concrete— that small por-
tion of 3.5 miles— because it has been breaking
up badly.
Referring to agriculture, I would like to
commend this government for the fine work
they have been doing in granting junior
farmers' loans. In Prince Edward-Lennox
riding, there have been 37 of these granted
to a total of about $271,975.
In another phase of agriculture, we are
facing some difficulties. A Delmonte organiza-
tion or California Fruit bought out Canadian
Canners a year or so ago and they are closing
several plants in the riding of Prince Edward-
Lennox.
In addition, many of the other small
privately-owned factories are filled with sur-
plus goods they have been unable to market.
One reason why they were unable to market
canned peas, for instance, was due to the fact
that until recently frozen peas from the
United States were coming in here all winter
and selling at a very low price. But fruit and
1264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
vegetable growers did go to Ottawa and they
made this known, and immediately, despite
agreements and so on, the government at
Ottawa have imposed a substantial tariff on
the imported peas. It is to be hoped that that
situation will change.
In regard to setting these agricultural
prices, not only is there to be an 80 per cent,
average of the price over the last 10 years,
but there are going to be people on that board
who are the representatives of farm organiza-
tions, with the greatest knowledge of farm
conditions, and those people are going to be
in a position to advise the government as to
the condition in agriculture.
I do not believe our government in Ottawa
is going to say to our farmers and to other
people: "Oh, we cannot oppose the United
States." I think they have shown they are
able to stand on their own feet and to state
our case for our people. I think they will gain
respect by doing so, and I think that is the
only way that we can look for any progress,
as far as agriculture is concerned, in this
country and in this province. Certainly, I can-
not commend that attitude too highly.
Now I am going to deal as briefly as pos-
sible with a matter which is very important
to me, and that is in regard to the per capita
grants relating to the administration of justice.
Last year, as hon. members know, $1 per
capita was granted to each county in a
judicial district to take care of the administra-
tion of justice costs of that county.
Having served on Prince Edward county
council, and having knowledge of the Lennox
and Addington county council, I realize that
those grants of $1 per capita would not in
any instance enable the people of those
counties to break even, as far as administra-
tion adjustment costs in any one year are
concerned, because their populations are ap-
proximately 20,000, and therefore their grants
would be approximately $20,000 each, and
their costs approximately $30,000 a year
each.
The reason their costs are so high is largely
because of overheads, cost of maintaining the
jail, paying salaries, fuel, and so on. Even
in years when they have no excessive costs
or repairs of any kind, or murder trials, those
costs will still run around $30,000 a year.
With that in mind, I talked to the hon.
Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts) and in order
to enable me to make a survey he gave me
the figure for administration adjustments for
the province of Ontario for the year 1955,
and I discovered that for that year 1955,
16 counties, each with a population exceeding
50,000, would, with a per capita grant of $1,
have a profit of $502,705.50 in excess of
their administration adjustment costs, approxi-
mately 15 cents per capita. Eleven counties
with population exceeding 50,000 would have
a small cost, approximately 14 cents per
capita.
Huron county was the only county with
a population of under 50,000 which showed
a small profit of approximately 5 cents per
capita; 4 counties with a population between
35,000 and 50,000 were also in debt.
One county had one excessive cost, but
with that county omitted, the average cost
worked out to 29 cents per capita of those
people, but the 5 small counties with popu-
lations under 35,000 — namely Dufferin,
Haldimand, Lennox and Addington, Prince
Edward and Victoria — with a combined
population of 112,940, would pay, in excess
of $1 per capita grants in the province, an
amount of $51,189.45.
As a result, these figures confirmed my
opinion that certainly the smaller counties
were not being given the same consideration,
or could not realize the same status, as the
larger ones, as long as the administration
adjustments grant remained at $1 per capita.
Therefore it was my opinion that since
the public welfare per capita grant is on a
sliding scale basis where the grant starts at a
low amount for the rural areas, and as popu-
lations increase this grant increases, certainly
in converse this same principle should be
applied to the smaller counties as far as the
administration adjustments are concerned.
With that in mind, it would seem that coun-
ties with populations between 35,000 and
50,000 should receive a grant of $1.25 per
capita up to a maximum of $50,000, so that
they would not receive more than those coun-
ties of over 50,000.
Similarly, the counties with populations
under 35,000 should receive a per capita
grant of $1.50 up to a maximum of $43,750,
which would be the starting point for the
35,000 per capita people, who would receive
that as soon as they are over 35,000, so that
they would not receive more than the other
people above them.
On the basis of the 1955 figures, the total
cost to the province of Ontario for these ad-
justments would be $66,710, and I do not
think that would be unreasonable. It would
give the county with the lower population
that same opportunity to break even, at least
part of the time, insofar as administration
adjustments are concerned.
MARCH 25, 1958
1265
Now, in summing up some of the matters
in our riding, all our people including those
in Lennox are optimistic about the future. We
know that the St. Lawrence seaway will be
completed before very many months. We
know that at Picton we have a deep-water
harbour. We know that we have cement
being produced there, and that we have iron
ore being shipped from Picton harbour, we
know that we have a great pair of plants
owned by the Canadian Industries Limited
Company at Millhaven. We understand that
the aluminum company has purchased several
hundred acres for expansion in the Millhaven
area.
We know that we have housing develop-
ments in Napanee and the Aberdeen Iron
Works has doubled its capacity. We know
that in our Lennox-Addington area, being
under the St. Lawrence commission, we are
bound to have increased tourist traffic, and we
know that there will be industries up there.
For a long, long time, our neoole down
there have wanted an additional bridge. They
have not altogether decided where thev want
it, but with the growth that is coming I think
that we are safe in assuming that the bridge
is inevitable. I know that the hon. Minister
of Highways cannot agree that it is iustified
at the present time, but I expect when we
consider what is going to happen, we must
realize that that bridge is inevitable and I
am sure that the people of our area have faith
that the bridge will be coming.
I have another reason for thinking that is
going to be the case.
I would like to mention the pleasure with
which many of our older residents have
received the certificates that have been
mailed from the office of the hon. Provincial
Secretary (Mr. Dunbar), and just this week
I sent out a certificate for a ninetieth birthday
and I have in my desk a certificate for a
sixtieth wedding anniversary that will be
going out tomorrow.
Yesterdav I mailed a certificate to Miss Nell
Park of R.R. 1, Napanee, who, on March 27—
Thursdav of this week— will be celebrating
her 110th birthday, and who is believed to
be the oldest woman in Canada. In part the
certificate says this peppy, alert, white-haired
woman lived in an age when homemakers
did almost everything for themselves. She
made candles, churned butter, spun cloth
to make her own clothes, filled the ice house,
cooked and baked. She was particularly noted
for her home-made bread and she even
worked in the field.
Since the spring day she was born in 1848,
times have indeed changed, but they have
been all for the better, according to Miss
Park. Modern automobiles, she says, are all
right, but television is just a fraud. When
Miss Park was interviewed by the Napanee
Beaver, she was in good spirits and talkative.
Her hearing and eyesight are failing, but
her vigour is little impaired. Doctors say that
her heart is as good as new.
Her appetite is excellent. She often eats 4
meals a day, topping off with a cup of
coffee and a sandwich at bedtime.
She talks freely of the days of Sir John A.
Macdonald. Canada's first Prime Minister.
She used to live in the Kingston area, when
campaigns throughout the vicinity were con-
ducted bv horse and buggv. She recalls hear-
ing Sir John A. Macdonald speak at Napanee.
Miss Park last voted at the age of 102.
I thought that those remarks might be
interesting, and certainlv we are proud of our
elder people in our riding.
I might suggest to the hon. Minister of
Highways, if he thinks that he is going to get
awav without building a bridge down there
in the near future, our people are just going
to help increase that population. Their
longevity is going to give us a chance and we
certainly hope that they all live for a good
long time.
Mr. W. Sandercock (Hastings West): Mr.
Speaker, speaking in the budget debate, I
would like to compliment the government on
the assistance that municipalities are receiv-
ing. Year after year, these grants are increased
by tremendous amounts of money, thus reliev-
ing the property owners of taxes that would
be staggering.
With the very generous grants that have
been made to schools in the riding which I
have the honour to represent, new schools
have been built from one end to the other of
our riding which is well over 100 miles long.
These schools are modern in every way; buses
transport students to and from school, morn-
ing and night, winter and summer; and there
is not a school room lacking a teacher. This
system provides opportunity for all who desire
to obtain an education.
We, in our part of Ontario, appreciate the
large sums of money that have been spent on
highways and in developing roads. We expect
that highway No. 401, between Belleville and
Trenton, will be opened this year to relieve
the ever-increasing traffic problem of these
two cities.
The municipal council of Trenton is greatly
worried about the condition of the bridge
over the Trent river in the centre of the town.
1266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This bridge is in need of extensive repairs,
and was never constructed to carry the
present day traffic of highway No. 2.
The city of Belleville is faced with a large
expenditure on city streets, as the heavy
traffic continues to break up the pavement. A
great deal of patching has been done but
the time has come when a complete resur-
facing is required. We are looking to the
government to pay a substantial share of
this work.
The people in our riding are very grateful
for the money they received in developing
roads. The county, with a long lineup of county
roads that have to be maintained to a good
standard winter and summer, finds it im-
possible to do as much construction of new
roads as it would like, due to the limited
budget.
The same problem applies to the townships,
but a few thousand dollars of development
money spent on cutting off dangerous cor-
ners, straightening out sharp curves, and re-
pairing some bridges would change the whole
appearance of the roads and, without cost-
ing a large sum of money, would make it
into a much safer one for travel.
While on the subject of highways, I may
say we realize that everything possible is
being done by this branch of government for
the safety of those using our roads. Signs
of every description, guard rails, lights of
all kinds, highway crews patrolling the roads
night and day, snow plows, salting, sanding
bulletins, radio warnings of road conditions
and many other safety measures have been
adopted by the department to try to cut
down on accidents.
With all the safety precautions conceiv-
able, a large number of accidents are still
occurring on our highways, to say the least.
So many times we are sickened with grief
to read in the paper, or hear on the radio,
that some of our friends, relatives or neigh-
bours have been killed in a car accident.
The riding that I represent has been thrown
into a state of sadness many times when one
or more of their promising citizens have been
killed on the highway.
No one seems to have the answer. It would
appear almost beyond human power to
control.
The riding of Hastings West is over 100
miles long and many types of industry and
occupation are carried on. The northern part
of the riding is a tourist's paradise which,
with its many beautiful lakes and streams,
has attracted people who have spent large
sums of money on cottages and equipment.
Lumbering and pulp is still a very important
business.
One of the greatest assets to this part of
the riding was the discovery of uranium
by one of our local citizens. The uranium
mines have been developed and used, and
modern processing plants have been built,
which gives employment to hundreds of men.
The Farity Uranium Mines Limited have
been very community conscious, and have
built a number of beautiful homes for their
staff near the mines, and a large section of
very modern homes for their employees in
the village of Bancroft. A new curling rink
has also just been completed. The whole
community is most grateful to the executive
of these mines for their public spirited
attitude.
The village of Marmora, on highway No.
7, was very fortunate in the fact that a few
years ago a large iron-ore deposit was dis-
covered in that locality. The mine has now
been developed and is known as the Mara-
moth Mining Company Limited. This is an
open pit mine, the ore being processed to
a higher grade and shipped in pellet form
by train to their storage docks in Pickering,
from where it is shipped by boat. The project
cost many millions of dollars and has been a
great boom for the community.
The officers and employees of this mine
take a very active part in the community life
of the district by helping any worthwhile
project.
The 3 southern townships of Hastings
riding consist of good farm land used for
mixed farming. They are known for their high
grade cheese and canning products. This is
also a great livestock producing area.
Sterling, a beautiful village 15 miles north
of Belleville, situated in one of the most
fertile valleys of the province, is celebrating
its centennial from August 3 to 6 of this
year.
Its citizens are very progressive and are
making great preparations for an outstanding
event to which everyone will be made
welcome.
The citizens of the municipalities of
Belleville and Trenton which are located on
the Bay of Quinte, with their many industries
providing employment for their citizens, have
steadily grown in number year after year until
the municipalities are now surrounded by new
housing developments.
We are most fortunate in having some
very scenic spots in the riding. One of the
most outstanding is the Trent river, which
starts at the village of Hastings and winds
MARCH 25, 1958
1267
its way through the Trent valley, finally
flowing out through the centre of the town of
Trenton into the Bay of Quinte and on into
Lake Ontario. This is a navigable river,
where scores of pleasure boats travel from
Trenton to Georgian Bay, leaving Trenton
and travelling north a distance of only 7 miles
to the village of Frankford on highway No.
33 which closely follows the west side of the
river, sometimes called the Iroquois Trail.
There, one is in view of two hydro-generat-
ing plants, 3 railroad bridges, 3 road bridges
including the monstrous highway No. 401
bridge high above the Trent river, and 6
dams, where the white foaming waters tumble
over.
There are in addition, 6 locks where boats
are locked through. Also, on this stretch of
the road, is the Glen Miller Paper Mill, an
old established business that has been a land-
mark for many years. Next is Batawa, the
home of the Bata shoes, with their huge
modern factory towering skyward, surrounded
by their community buildings and homes. In
this factory the shoes are made for their 100
stores across Canada.
On the east side of the river a county road
follows the river quite closely back into
the town of Trenton. On the drive around
this section of the river many camping parks
could be established. At this time the Trenton
and suburban planning board and local
municipalities are negotiating with the dif-
ferent departments of the government for the
financial assistance necessary to develop this
scenic section of the river into one of the
most outstanding beauty spots and tourist
attractions in that part of Ontario.
I would like to congratulate the planning
board for making the start. We are hopeful
that the government will see its way clear
to help in carrying out this project, to make
it into a very fine park and camping centre,
which will attract thousands of tourists and
be of great benefit to the public.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of my
riding I would sincerely like to thank the hon.
Provincial Treasurer, the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost), for the very generous financial
assistance we have received, and also the
hon. Ministers of every department of the
government for the co-operation we have
received at all times.
During the present session the different
hon. members, in rising to take part in the
debates, have expressed the great respect
they have for the hon. Prime Minister per-
sonally for his achievements, and the warm
regard they have for him.
I, of course, share very fully in these
sentiments. In addition, I should like to say
it is with the greatest pride I hear the hon.
Prime Minister's name mentioned in the same
way by the people of my riding wherever I
go.
I would equally like to join in the sincere
expressions of appreciation extended to the
Speaker of the House for the very fine way
in which he has conducted the affairs of this
and past sessions.
Mr. D. J. Rankin ( Frontenac- Addington ) :
Mr. Speaker, may I give hearty endorsement
to the many commendations that have been
given you on your work in this office. Since
the last session of this Legislature, two new
hon. Ministers have been promoted to port-
folios. I wish to particularly commend the
new hon. Minister of Reform Institutions
(Mr. Dymond) and the new hon. Minis-
ter of Mines ( Mr. Spooner ) on the quick way
in which they have grasped the problems of
their departments. I think it speaks well for
the choice of these men by the hon. Prime
Minister.
I would like also at this time to congratulate
the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox
(Mr. Sandercock), my adjoining colleague, on
the excellent speech he has just given, and I
think we both join in commending the govern-
ment on the introduction of the bill adding our
respective counties to the Ontario- St. Law-
rence commission. I think we both have a
keen appreciation of the history of our
counties, and of the necessity of having some
organization that will preserve their history.
Tonight I am going to speak very shortly,
but I am going to make a few remarks as
well as give the history of the Kingston area.
The Kingston area, situated as it is at
the juncture of Cataraqui and St. Lawrence
rivers, was well known to the Indians, and
Champlain stopped there in 1615. In 1673,
Count Frontenac established an outpost there
in his war with the Iroquois. The post was
captured by the British during the Seven
Years' War.
In 1783, when the American Revolution
was successful, the British government as-
sisted thousands who had remained loyal to
the Crown to travel to what is now Canada.
One of my great-great-grandfathers, Daniel
McGuin, was commissioned by Guy Carleton
as a captain in the Fourth Company, First
Frontenac Regiment, in 1784.
Captain Michael Grass, who had been at
Fort Frontenac during the Seven Years' War,
led the first parties of Loyalists to Kingston
in 1784, and his immediate party, consisting
1268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the Ellerbecks, the Wartmans, the Days,
the Everetts, and others drew farm lots in
Kingston township from the present city
westerly.
There are several accounts of the hard-
ships of these early settlers, but by 1800
Kingston was well established as a settle-
ment, and by 1812 was fortified with several
batteries.
When the War of 1812 broke out, King-
ston became the chief naval base on Lake
Ontario and several heavily armed warships
were built there.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, York was cap-
tured and burned by the Yankees, and the
following article from the Kingston Gazette
of November 17, 1812, tells the story of the
early attack on Kingston:
Early on Tuesday morning last, infor-
mation was conveyed to town that 7
American vessels, full of men, were ap-
proaching. At daylight the troops and
militia were under arms, and detachments
were immediately sent to occupy the dif-
ferent avenues to the town in order to
give the enemy a proper reception should
they be disposed to land. The Flying
Artillery were dispatched in advance of
the troops.
When they had passed Collin's Bay,
several shots were fired by our gun boat
at the nearest vessels, which they returned,
but without effect on either side. At
Everitt's Point one of our field pieces
opened upon them, the shot from which
appeared to strike several times, and they
thought it prudent to sheer farther off.
About two o'clock they approached the
town and were fired at from all our bat-
teries. They opened and kept up a brisk
fire in their turn upon the Royal George
and upon our batteries, which continued
till after sunset, when the enemy hauled
their wind and anchored under the 4-mile
point, having done no other mischief than
killing one man on board the Royal George.
It is supposed that some damage was
done to their largest vessel, the Oneyda,
as some of our shot from the battery at
Messisaugoe Point were seen to strike her.
On their way down the Bay of Kenty in
the morning, they burned a small schooner
belonging to Messrs. B. Fairfield & Com-
pany.
The alarm had been early communicated
throughout the country, and persons of
every age flocked into town from every
quarter, eager to repulse the invaders from
our peaceful shores. The veteran Loyalists
who had manifested their zeal for their
Sovereign during the American rebellion,
showed that age had not extinguished their
ardour, and though many of them had
passed that time of life when military
service could be legally required, they
scorned exemption when their inveterate
foes approached.
Before night the town was crowded with
brave men, who insensible to fatigue, were
anxious only to grapple with the enemy;
who had they attempted to land would
have paid dearly for their temerity. The
conduct of the inhabitants of the Midland
district on this occasion, will be long re-
membered to their honour.
On Wednesday morning the American
fleet got under way. After beating up
towards the lake for some time, two of
them bore away and sailed down the river,
keeping at a respectful distance from our
batteries, which nevertheless gave them
a shot in passing. The other 5 continued
their progress.
Early in the afternoon another vessel
appeared in sight, which proved to be the
Simcoe. She was chased by the enemy,
who fired upward of 50 shots at her. But
she escaped by the intrepidity of her master
and crew, not, however, without receiving
a shot between wind and water, that must
have sunk her had she been much farther
from port. In the evening they were out
of sight.
As a result of the War of 1812 the British
government, who in those days were in charge
of the fortification and defence of Canada,
decided to construct what is now known as
the Rideau canal as a safe and secure route
to Montreal, away from the boundary line
of the St. Lawrence river.
In order to construct this canal they sent
to Canada Colonel By, and the canal was
completed in 1832. Even today the stone
work is a credit to any engineer and the cost
of $800,000 seems small today for such an
undertaking, although at the time it was 4
times the original estimate.
Fort Henry, which is in my riding, was
completed in 1842 at a total cost of $10,632
and was garrisoned by British troops until
Confederation. This fort, of course, was built
as a defence to the entrance of the canal from
the lake, and after World War I the
fort fell into ruins, but in 1936, during the
depression, it was completely rebuilt, jointly
by the provincial and Dominion governments
and under the capable management of Mr.
MARCH 25, 1958
1269
Ronald Way. It has become one of the
greatest tourist attractions on the continent.
Our hon. Prime Minister has a keen
appreciation of history and the importance
of its preservation to intertwine into the
fabric of our growing nation, and I hope that
the Ontario-St. Lawrence commission will
play its part in this regard.
I foresee a great growth of population in
the St. Lawrence-Quinte area but it would
be regrettable if the lore of those early days
were allowed to be altogether forgotten.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate,
I want to say that I think the people who are
handling the estimates, the hon. Ministers
of the Crown, in almost every instance did
very good work. I know that they must have
worked hard on the estimates, but there is
one thing that I do know. Every time an
hon. Minister of the Crown, after having
worked so hard on his budget, tries to do
a good job, he is interfered with by the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) of the province.
Now we have gone through Hansard and
each and every year, a number of times
while presenting his estimates, an hon. Min-
ister has been interfered with. In one instance,
the hon. Minister of a department was inter-
fered with 18 times.
Now I would think that, at the time the
hon. Prime Minister invited the hon. members
into the Cabinet, he had enough faith in
them to allow them to run their own affairs.
It must be embarrassing to the hon. Ministers
of the Cabinet, after working so hard on
their estimates, to arrive at the important
hour here in the House, and have the hon.
Prime Minister say: "Sit down now, I will
take charge."
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): When did that happen?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): When
did it happen? When did it not happen?
Mr. Reaume: I think it is almost time
the hon. members on the opposite side of the
House were to rebel. I suppose that is hoping
for a lot, but I do feel that after all, when
an hon. member of the Opposition directs
a question to one of the hon. Ministers of the
Crown, he really expects that the hon.
Minister, of whom he is asking the question,
will be the person to answer it. Instead of
that, we practically always get our answer
from the "boss".
Some hon. members: Oh, no, no.
Mr. Reaume: Now, the hon. members on
the government side must admit that they
are all acting like the fifth wheel on a wagon.
The government has grown into a one-man
affair; it is a one-ring circus with only one
of the actors taking part.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: What about the
hon. member and hon. Paul Martin?
Mr. Reaume: Therefore I am hopeful that
some day, some of the hon. Ministers over
there will stand up on their hind feet and
tell the hon. boss of their party that they
are quite able— I think they are and I think
every hon. member in the House thinks they
are—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member is
afraid to.
Mr. Reaume: Afraid to? Certainly the hon.
Ministers are afraid. But they should not be
afraid—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: No, we are loyal.
Mr. Reaume: They should not be afraid
because after all their people put them where
they are, and they expect them to stand on
their own feet without being told by the man
with the iron heel that they must sit down
while he takes over.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member
does not believe that.
Mr. Reaume: Well, that is true, so we will
let that stick.
Now, the other evening there was an ex-
change here in the House between the hon.
Prime Minister and me—
Mr. J. A. Maloney (Renfrew South): The
hon. member for Essex North does not call
that an exchange, surely.
Mr. Reaume: —and it was rather hot in
spots, but there was one point I thought of
importance—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Who made that point?
Mr. Reaume: It was not the hon. Minister,
because he has not made an important point
in years.
When we looked at Hansard the following
day part of the exchange was not there, so
we went up to the files and checked Hansard
with the tape, and while it was on the
tape there was nothing at all in Hansard
about the part where I made mention
of a foreign-made car parked at the east
end of the building— one that was driven
around the streets of Windsor— or rather here
in Toronto; of course, Windsor is the most
1270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
important place in the province and that is
why I mentioned that—
An hon. member: The hon. member for
Essex North should get back to town.
Mr. Reaume: This car was placed at the
use of the hon. Prime Minister of the province.
Now the point I am trying to make is this—
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr. Reaume: It is pretty near time we had
a little of that. I have said that this was the
hon. Prime Minister's car, but I understand
that these cars are registered in the name of
The Department of Highways, and if this be
true, it makes it all the worse, because if the
hon. Prime Minister of the province wants to
find fault with the automobile industry of the
province, that is not any reason why he
should not purchase the car that is made by
the hands and the brains of the people who
put him here.
It is an insult, I would say, to the people
who make these fine cars. Or it might be
that, in the opinion of the hon. Prime Minister
*— and indeed I must say in the opinion of some
of the other hon. members of the government,
too— that the cars made here in Canada are
not good enough for them.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: No, I would not say
so.
Mr. Reaume: No, the hon. Minister would
not say it. Why does he not do something
about it?
Now, I think it is important because they
are apparently finding fault with our cars,
and are buying other implements shipped here
from other parts of the world If we, who
are occupying places of importance in the
province, are going to urge our people to pur-
chase things which are made in Canada, we
should set an example. But it is a fine example
indeed, when about 9 o'clock every morning,
Monday through Friday, one can watch that
bottleneck, Mr. Speaker, outside of the hotel
entrance uptown and see these great big
black cars with white-walled tires blocking
the entrance of the hotel and holding up the
traffic passing by.
Mr. Maloney: Oh, terrible.
Mr. Reaume: And it would not be half bad
if they would only purchase cars that are
made by the people here.
Now, there is a beautiful article in the
Windsor Star, under a recent date, urging
people to buy cars made in Canada, and there
are some of the hon. members tonight on the
government benches who are using cars, I
understand, that have been paid for out of
the funds of the province, or out of the funds
of the people, but are not built in Canada.
If that be so, they might answer this ques-
tion now if they wish: Why is it that they
will not purchase a car which is made in
Canada? Is there anything wrong with the
cars that are built here? My hon. friend, the
hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger)
—who is not here tonight— and I had a little
exchange the other day. It did not amount to
too much, in fact, any exchange I have ever
had with him never amounted to an awful
lot because it takes almost an A-bomb to
get him out of that place over there, he is so
happy in it.
So I am just going to make the suggestion
—hon. members know of whom I am speak-
ing—that those who are occupying important
places in the province know whether or not
certain hon. members are driving cars built
in Canada. If they are not driving cars! built
here in Canada, my plea is that they immedi-
ately sell those cars and purchase ones which
are.
An hon. member: I have a DeSoto.
Mr. Reaume: Let him give it away then if
he cannot get anything for it.
An hon. member: I cannot afford to buy
one at all.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Reaume: We will have a little order.
That is good.
Now, the other matter I wanted to deal
with is this: Yesterday afternoon we were
speaking about Bill No. 161. Hon. members
know, Mr. Speaker, that is really a most
amusing bill. I read it all over dozens of
times, and I want to say again that it is just
typical of the hypocrisy of the government of
the province in dealing with the affairs of the
people. They deal with part of the people in
one way, and then the other part of the
people in a very opposite way.
Now, in this bill, they go on and say that
people can have liquor or beer—
Hon. G. H. Dunbar ( Provincial Secretary ) :
This bill is before the House.
Mr. Reaume: I do not care whether it was
reported in the House or not.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Well, I am saying-
Mr. Reaume: Just a moment now, my dear
hon. friend. Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?
MARCH 25, 1958
1271
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member
is out of order because he is anticipating
something which is already on the order
paper.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Before you finally say that the hon. member
is out of order, I would remind you, Mr.
Speaker, that on these two general debates—
the debate in reply to the speech from the
Throne and the budget debate— it is quite
well known that the hon. members are
allowed the widest of latitude, and I cannot
see that it is going outside that latitude to
discuss a bill which is before the House.
What harm is there in it to the general
debate?
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this
instance this bill is before the House, the
debates are before the House. What is the
matter with discussing anything that is before
the House?
Mr. Speaker: Well, I would just say to
the hon. leader of the Opposition that if it
had not been brought to my attention, we
would have let it go.
But having been brought to my attention—
and I am not saying this because an hon.
member of the government brought it to
my attention— I must say that this is the
rule of the House. Once the matter has been
disposed of, I will be very glad to give the
hon. member for Essex North the opportunity
of discussing it.
Mr. Reaume: May I ask a question? I
will not even mention this bill, because I
was going into something else that this bill
directly or indirectly might have something
to do with.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I will have
to rule it out on that basis, but we give you
the opportunity to speak once again if you will
hold down to that.
Mr. Reaume: When will that be, on
Friday?
Mr. Speaker: That is right.
Mr. H. C. Nixon (Brant): May I ask the
Speaker if we can still talk about liquor?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, quite.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Well, may I say to that
when that bill comes up before the committee
I want to vote on it. I want to know how
that party stands, because the hon. member
who was making the accusation tonight was
not a member of that party two months ago.
He shook hands down in Ottawa at the con-
vention.
Mr. Reaume: No, that is not true.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: He was with the
Conservative party, with the CCF party.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Sit down.
There is nothing to prevent the hon. mem-
ber from speaking about liquor if he so
desires, in the raw sense of the word. But
he cannot deal with this particular bill.
Mr. Oliver: Can he discuss that portion of
liquor that is talked about or mentioned in
this particular bill?
Mr. Speaker: If he does not link it up with
the bill.
Mr. Reaume: Mr. Speaker, I want to
promise you that in no way purposely will
I mention anything about liquor at all, as
it may affect any portion of that bill other
than it is insane. I have always been a
great fighter for the rights of everybody,
and I cannot understand it, without making
any reference whatsoever to the bill. I was
up at Elliot Lake a while ago and that is
where the idea came from actually.
On one side of the street there was a
group of people living in a trailer. I think
that there were 8 in the trailer, and these
people were allowed to have liquor and
beer in the trailer. But immediately across
the street there was a bunk house with 6
people in it. Or, there were several bunk
houses, of course, but only 6 people in each
one. Do hon. members know what I mean?
These people were not allowed to have liquor
or beer in the bunk houses.
I cannot think of anything more discrim-
inatory than to imagine that in some way,
some law in this province would allow the
people in the trailer on the east side of the
street to have beer and alcoholic beverages
that come out of bottles, when the people
on the opposite side of the street in bunk
houses cannot.
Now, the only point other than that which
I want to make is this, that it appears to
me that in that area, a beautiful area too,
and I think "the heart of," shall we say,,
"the country," is now swallowing many
many thousands of people who are building
up that great part of the province. I really
do not think, Mr. Speaker, that an individual
whether it be you or I, having our residence
uptown in a hotel, should be allowed to have
anything in our room which pertains to-
alcoholic beverages unless those people up
there may have it too.
I would ask the hon. Provincial Secretary,
if he wants to explain to me, in his office on
Friday, just what they intend to do about it.
1272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, the liquor laws of the province, of
course, are a hypocritical bunch of laws.
As chairman of the board, there is a man
by the name of judge Robb. He is supposed
to sit at the head, I understand, of a 3-man
board. But in effect it is only a one-man
board because he, like the hon. Prime Minis-
ter of the province, runs the whole show
up there.
I want to give a couple of what I think
are outstanding cases. Whether these cases
happen only to people who represent the
Opposition, I do not know.
In my riding, some time ago, a sports-
men's club, which had been established for
quite some time, and made up of very fine
people, made application for a licence in
the club. Mind you, there are sportsmen's
clubs all over the province which have such
a licence, but in this riding of mine we
could not get by first base. Why, I do not
know.
One other instance occurred in a small
town in the riding from which I come. A
vote was taken that the hotel might sell
whisky. And 9 out of 10 people in every
instance voted for it, years ago, back I think
about in 1955.
That licence has not been granted yet and,
as I understand it, there are no black marks
against the owner of the institution.
The question that I want to ask, and I do
not think that I will ever have an answer to
it, of course— I do not think that anyone over
there will ever answer it— is this: Are appli-
cants, who happen to be in a riding repre-
sented by us over here, being treated in one
fashion while others are being treated in the
very opposite fashion? Because, without men-
tioning that bill, if anyone could be so hypo-
critical as to draw up a document such as I
was reading the other day, then they can do
almost anything on a little white piece of
paper.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Well, the hon. member
has done almost everything he can.
Mr. Reaume: Does the hon. Provincial Sec-
retary want to make a speech, too?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Yes, and that proves it,
too.
Mr. Reaume: All right. Now, another thing
I want to speak about again is an old subject.
But I think that we can go over it once more,
at least. That is this phony, half-baked plan
of the hon. Prime Minister's to solve this great
unemployment problem. I spent the whole
afternoon on the phone calling up various
places, within a radius of 150 miles of here,
and the only place that I could find taking
advantage of this phony scheme is right here
in the area we are in. And that can easily be
understood, a metropolitan area, because if
Mr. Gardiner did not play ball with the boss,
Mr. Gardiner would not be a member of the
ball team for very long.
So, when hon. members go back home,
they might interview the mayors of their own
home towns and find out for themselves what
they think of this half-baked plan. After once
having found out, please drop a line back to
the office of the hon. Prime Minister and tell
him what they hear.
I know exactly what they will hear, and
once having heard it, let them ask the hon.
Prime Minister to please change his plan, and
come out with a plan that is sensible, so that
the places involved might take advantage of
it.
Well now, the session is coming almost to
an end, and I want to say again that the hon.
members of the government, the hon. Minis-
ters of the Crown— I really meant what I
said— are a group of hard-working jackasses.
When the budget comes up in 1959, I think
the hon. gentlemen should take charge of
their own affairs without allowing the hon.
Prime Minister of the province to constantly
interrupt them, because if he is going to
be a one-man show, then he might as well
take on all their jobs in one breath.
It leads us up to this one point. It appears
as though the hon. Prime Minister— I am
very sorry that he is not in his seat tonight
—is getting impatient, is getting irritated and
he is using his iron heel a little more often
than he has done in the past. This might
be an indication that he and the government
are starting to fall apart, and there is one
thing-
Mr. Wardrope: What a laugh!
Mr. Reaume: Oh, the hon. member started
to fall apart years ago. There is one thing
that he might feel certain of— that we over
here will do all that we can to help this
government fall apart as quickly as it can.
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to join all others who
have spoken before me, during the various
debates and discussions in this House, in
extending to you my sincere congratulations
on the very pleasing and excellent manner
in which you continue to discharge your
many responsibilities as Speaker.
Since the Legislature met last year, Mr.
Speaker, there have been many changes in
MARCH 25, 1958
1273
the House; changes brought about by death;
changes brought about by illness; and those
brought by those seeking to serve in the
greater sphere of the public service of the
people of our province.
We regret the circumstances which have
brought about their removal from the House,
because we do recall our friendships with
them and their fine contribution to their
constituents and to the province.
We sincerely welcome all the new hon.
members of the House, and will look for-
ward, not only to our friendship and fellow-
ship with them, but to their counsel and
guidance as we seek to carry out the wishes
of the people of this province.
Now I would like to congratulate each
and every hon. member of this House who
has taken part in this discussion. I think that
the speeches have been on a very high
plane, and I am not one who stops at the
presence in this House of the Opposition
members.
I think the hon. members of the Opposition
have a very definite and important part to
play in the business of this House, and I
was very pleased, some days ago, to hear the
hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Winter-
meyer) pay a well-deserved tribute to his
hon. leader, the hon. member for Grey South
(Mr. Oliver). I would like to add to that, and
say that the hon. leader of the Opposition
has had a long, honourable, and distinguished
record in the public service of the people
of this province. What with elections and
rumours of elections, leadership conventions
and rumours of leadership conventions, I
do sincerely trust that his fine qualities and
talents may long be available, and recognized
and desired by the people of this province.
I had hoped to pay a glowing tribute
to my good friend the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald). I had hoped that
he had improved this sesssion, and I thought
he had until we ran into the estimates of
The Department of Mines.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Let us
not spoil it now.
Mr. Letherby: No, we will not spoil it.
Well I say to my good friend from York
South, far be it from me to say for one moment
that he fouled himself up on those estimates,
far be it from me to say in this House that he
levelled charges against those who were not
here to answer him.
However, I am confident that as time goes
on, the hon. member from York South will
reach the height that he is capable of, and
I think that he is a man of outstanding ability,
and I think that without him in this House
we would have many dull moments. I will
pay the hon. member that tribute, and his
two followers in the House, to me, have
always been conscientious, level-headed and
outstanding men.
Now, after having said these few things, I
should pay a tribute and some congratulations
to my own leader the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost). I would like to congratulate him,
Mr. Speaker, on his fourteenth and record
budget in this House, a budget which in my
mind reflected the imagination, the confi-
dence, the determination and the desire of the
hon. Prime Minister and this party to give the
leadership to the people of this province that
I think they so richly deserve.
I was mighty proud, some few days ago,
when the hon. Prime Minister journeyed to
Ottawa to sit down with the federal hon.
Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith)
and conclude the hospital insurance agree-
ments for the forthcoming plan.
My mind went back to 1919— and I am still
comparatively young, but I was intensely
interested at the Liberal convention of that
date. I think that was the occasion when the
late hon. MacKenzie King was chosen leader
of the party.
One of the main planks that he and his
lieutenant hammered into the platform of
their party on that occasion was the hospital
insurance plan. They were in office for many
years— I think that it was something like 35
or more years.
Now, I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether
it was the termites of the riding of my hon.
friend from Woodbine (Mr. Fishleigh) which
had eaten it out, or whether it just became so
precarious that the members of the party were
afraid to tread on it, but I do know that
there had been no definite or concrete action
on it until some few months ago when a Rt.
hon. Conservative Prime Minister of Canada
(Mr. Diefenbaker) who had only been in
office 9 months, sat down with my leader, the
hon. Prime Minister of Ontario, and for the
first province signed those federal-provincial
agreements on hospital insurance.
Now, I would like to say just a few words
about unemployment. The subject of un-
employment has been booted around this
Legislature, and I suppose on every political
platform in the Dominion of Canada during
the past few weeks and the past few months.
Mr. T. D. Thomas ( Oshawa ) : It is quite
a problem.
1274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Letherby: It is a problem, my hon.
friend, but I think sincerely that, although
this has been not only a problem for this level
of government, and for the government of
Canada and United States, it might be well
for us to examine carefully some of the causes
which have brought about this condition.
I think that unless we do, and make some
effort to correct them, we might be in a little
deeper and hotter water.
In the so-called days of prosperity, follow-
ing World War II, we all realized that goods
and services were most difficult to get, and
the people had to pay whatever was asked
from them or go without.
We agree and realize that we have
probably one of the highest standards of
living of any people in the world. We have
more money in the banks and tucked away
elsewhere at this particular time than we
have ever had before, and the people are
refusing to buy the goods which are offered
them today because of the high cost of manu-
facturing.
Now, if we have lost considerable of our
foreign markets and our domestic market
is threatened, then I think that it is about
time that the employer and labourer— that
great combination and team which has done
so much to build this great standard of living
and prosperity for our people— sit down
together and try to solve this problem.
I have heard my good friend— and I am
sorry that he is not in the House, not that
I have anything nasty to say about him— the
hon. member for Essex North (Mr. Reaume)
—complaining a few minutes ago, asking why
we do not buy Canadian-made automobiles.
Well in my opinion, sir, there has been
a rat race among the big 3 in the automo-
bile industry for some years now. They
are concentrating on bigger cars, more stream-
lined cars, higher powered cars and greater
priced cars. The Canadian people today
feel that they can buy these English and
German makes of cars for a great deal less
money, and get just as good transportation,
as they can with these expensive cars.
Now I know, in my own particular case,
I am like my good hon. friend from Welling-
ton South (Mr. Worton). He and I
are about one axe handle taller than most
men in this House, and when we try to get
into one of these modern cars it reminds
me of crawling into an igloo or going down
south. I think that if the automobile in-
dustry in Canada would try to make cars
to suit the needs and the pocket books of
Canadian people, that they would sell them.
That is my answer to the hon. member for
Essex North.
It is all very well for these great automo-
bile industries to make cars in such quantity
that we cannot sell them, and when there
is a mass lay-off the first people to whom the
workers turn to is the government. They
do not go to the automobile industry. So,
sir, I think that it is about time that serious
consideration was given to some of these
causes.
Well, I can recall this I think, as most
hon. members of this House can recall, that
during the so-called days of great prosperity
following World War II, we were given to
understand by the Liberal government of
that day, that never again would there be a
depression, never again would there be a
recession. They said to the people of Canada:
"We have a great backlog of public works
tucked away on a shelf, and just the very
moment that there is any indication of a
recession, down she comes off the shelf and
away we go." Well, I appreciated that.
We remember that when the government
of Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker came into office
last June, he, of course, was conscious of this
growing unemployment situation and he im-
mediately—which was the wise tiling to do-
went to that supposed shelf to pull down this
great backlog of public works. But like
Mother Hubbard's cupboard, the backlog was
not there and never had been.
I say, sir, that was hypocrisy and a
betrayal of the Canadian people. That was
the government, the party at least, which was
booted out of office last June for mis-
management of the Canadian people's busi-
ness, and they are the party today
which is trying to get back into office on
March 31. I would say, sir, as you would
when you preach in your Anglican Church,
that by their fruits you shall know them, and
on March 31, the Canadian people will give
them their answer.
Now I do not think that the government, or
the governments of our various levels, have
acted unwisely in trying to correct this situa-
tion. The federal government, I think, took
the necessary steps. They reduced taxes; they
helped the western farmer; they increased
the old age pension; and as the hon. leader
of the Opposition said in his remarks the other
day, they instituted a $1 billion public works
programme.
Well, in Ontario we have never had that
backlog of public works. For 10 years now
we have had an outstanding public works
programme going on continually from one
MARCH 25, 1958
1275
end of this province to the other, and I would
like to thank this government for what they
have done for my own riding of Simcoe East,
to assist my people in their public works
project.
I am sorry that the hon. Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Allan) is not in his seat. The riding
of Simcoe East is so geographically situ-
ated that all the traffic from southern Ontario
must pass through our riding to get to north-
ern Ontario and western Canada. Realizing
the difficulty of congested traffic in the sum-
mer months, he built additional highways,
additional cloverleafs, additional bridge struc-
tures and has done a marvelous job on the 20-
some miles of trans-Canada highway in my
riding.
It has given a great deal of work to a great
many men, and as soon as the frost is out of
the ground this spring, that mileage will be
paved, and he has announced in recent days
that the new highway from Crown Hill to
Coldwater will be started within the next
few weeks.
My people in Simcoe East are very proud
of the consideration we have received from
The Department of Highways in regard to our
problems, and those of the other parts of the
province. It is not only a great help to us,
but we feel that when these projects are com-
pleted they will be of lasting benefit to all the
people of the province.
I am sorry also that my hon. friend, the
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger) is
not in his seat— he is the man in my riding
who builds large public work structures for
the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Phillips),
who is in his seat. I would like to thank
those two hon. Ministers for the splendid job
they are doing by way of public works and
welfare in the riding of Simcoe East.
In the town of Orillia— I was there last
Saturday and witnessed the opening of two
large new structures which have just been
built by The Department of Public Works—
to my mind, Mr. Speaker, we have now one
of the finest public institutions of its kind in
this province. My friend the hon. member for
St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman) so often speaks of
retarded children. This institution houses
some 2,700 mentally retarded children, who
are getting loving and kindly treatment by
some 1,000 employees. The payroll of that
large institution amounts to well over $1
million a year.
We are very grateful for the excellent
manner in which that fine institution is being
run. It is in the capable hands of Dr. F. C.
Hamilton, one of the most outstanding medi-
cal superintendents of that particular branch
of health. I am also very happy about the
situation at Penetanguishene. At the criminally
insane building there, they are completing a
150-bed addition which is costing something
like $2 million. It is about 80 per cent,
completed, and I was greatly honoured last
November to have the opportunity of laying
that cornerstone very ably assisted by my
good friends the hon. Minister of Health and
the hon. Minister of Public Works and the
senior heads of their respective departments.
That to me was a very impressive occasion,
and I would like to pay tribute to our good
friend Dr. W. A. Cardlow, the medical
superintendent of that institution. He had a
great part to play in making the arrangements
for that ceremony, and was chairman on that
occasion. In his gracious way he entertained
all who were present afterwards.
Now, also, I would like to pay tribute to
the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Mapledoram). During the past few weeks,
he has had employed in my riding some 150
or 200 additional men to build fire access
roads and to work on our national park.
Seldom, if ever, is the hon. member for
Beaches (Mr. Collings) out of his seat, but I
would like to reiterate, as the hon. Prime
Minister said yesterday, that he, in a few
weeks will be building us a liquor store in
Midland. That all adds up to the grand total
of the public works projects which are going
on in the riding of Simcoe East.
I am not one to be pessimistic or to
preach blue ruin, but I think this province,
and this country, are going forward to one of
our greatest periods of prosperity. The hon.
Prime Minister, while speaking in this House
the other day, drew attention to the public
works and the public buildings which were
going forward on a two- or three-mile stretch
up here on Eglinton avenue. Well, as I trot
back and forth to the Royal York hotel, on
foot, I notice that there are great skyscrapers
going on at the lower end of the street, and
in every section of this city great public
works are going forward, not only in this
city, but in every other place in this province.
I think that if we are all honest with our-
selves, we will agree that we are heading into
a period of great development, great pros-
perity, and into the period of the greatest
part and time of our nation.
I am going to take the cue of the good
member for Wellington South. When he fin-
ished his address the other day, he said that he
was going to be guided by the hon. Prime
Minister.
When speaking in this House last year, the
hon. Prime Minister said that he thought it
1276
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was a good thing for the hon. members to
take part in as many debates and oppor-
tunities as they could, but to confine their
remarks to about 20 minutes. I agreed with
him then and I agree with him now. I think
that outside of the hon. Prime Minister, the
hon. members of the Opposition, the hon.
leader of the Opposition, and probably the
cabinet and other key members, most of us
can confine our remarks to about 20 minutes.
In my case, I can listen with rapt attention
to any speaker for 20 minutes even though
he has nothing to say, and a little bit longer
if he has something to say, but when he
gets a little beyond that I start to get a bit
restless.
Now, like most good hon. members in this
House, I like to attend my church regularly,
and I can sit with rapt attention with every
evidence of guilt in my face and listen to
my minister for 20 minutes. But when he
preaches on the great faith of our fathers,
or expounds the great doctrine of the Pres-
byterian Church or belabours the evils of
old Beelzebub much beyond that, I start
to squirm and that feeling of guilt starts
to leave me, and I start to think of worldly
things, and I even look out the window.
It does not do me much good to look
out the window because they are frosted
and painted, and I sometimes wonder if
that is the reason why our church windows
are frosted and coloured so that when the
members get tired listening to the preacher
they cannot look out the window. No offence
to you sir, Mr. Speaker, you would not be
guilty.
I am going to conclude my few remarks
with a story that was told by the late Mark
Twain some years ago.
Mark Twain was down in Hartford, Con-
necticut, on a week end, and he decided to
attend church on this particular Sunday
morning.
A missionary was occupying the pulpit.
This missionary had a marvelous voice, and
was preaching with such great simplicity
about the trouble of his natives back home
that Mark Twain said: "I mentally doubled
the 50 cents that I intended to put on the
collection plate. He went on and told about
the terrible state of those natives, and I
felt that the $1 bill was no good, I better
put on a $5 bill when the collection plate
came around.
"He went on and told about the terrible
state of those savages, till I felt that all
the money I had on me was not sufficient to
give, and I decided to write a large cheque.
"The missionary went on and on about
those natives, until his voice finally came
down to a drawl.
"I perished the thought of giving this
large cheque, and I came down to the $5,
and he still went on and on, so I got down
from $5 to $4, then $3, $2, and the $1.
You know, when that collection plate came
around I reached in and took 10 cents off it."
Now, Mr. Speaker, just in case any hon.
member should want to take anything from
what few remarks I have made, I think that
I will conclude by saying that it has been a
great pleasure, a great privilege, and an
honour to me to be associated with the fine
fellowship of all hon. members of this House,
regardless of their party affiliation, and with
the fine staff that we have had to serve us
over these months.
It is my sincere wish that each and every
one of us will be blessed to return and con-
tinue that fellowship another year.
Mr. A. Jolley (Niagara Falls): Well, Mr.
Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks with
respect to the budget debate, I can assure
you that I will not take up too much of your
time, but I have a few remarks I would like
to make.
At the outset, sir, I feel that I would be
remiss in my duty if I did not congratulate
you on the very splendid manner in which
you have handled the affairs of this House.
Also I would like to pay a tribute to the
late Fletcher Thomas and the late Tom Pryde
for the service they rendered to this House
during their term of office. Also, I would like
to congratulate the two new hon. Ministers,
the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond), and
the member for Cochrane South (Mr.
Spooner), for the way they have handled
their duties this year.
I want to pay a tribute to the hon. Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Griesinger) for the
manner in which he has looked after so many
of my problems in the Niagara Falls riding,
for the new provincial police building at
Niagara Falls, and also for the new building
under consideration at Fort Erie to house the
provincial police and The Department of
Travel and Publicity.
I want to thank the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Phillips) for the co-operation that he
has given the hospital board and myself on
the splendid new hospital that is being built
at Niagara Falls, which will be completed
about April 1.
Particularly do I want to pay tribute to my
hon. friend and my neighbour, should I say,
MARCH 25, 1958
1277
the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Daley), who
is now not only the hon. Minister of Labour,
but the chairman of the Niagara parks com-
mission, for the way that, over the years, this
park has been cleared of debt. I appreciate
the manner in which the Niagara parks com-
mission have paid their way as they have con-
structed new buildings, added to the build-
ings that were there, renovating and taking
care of the problems each and every year as
they have come along.
Today the park is debt free, and they
are paying their way every year without
any debt being added to the park problems.
They have put new lights to shine on the
Falls and built an addition to the park
restaurant; they have renovated Queenston
Heights and generally developed the roads
running for 35 miles out from Niagara-on-
the-Lake to Fort Erie.
Also, since this is a budget debate, I wish
to pay a tribute to the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Frost) for what I consider the splendid
budget which he brought down, and in the
manner in which it was delivered.
I do not choose to be belligerent, I think
that every hon. member in this government
knows that, but there are two things tonight
that I want to mention.
I was glad to hear my good hon. friend from
Essex North (Mr. Reaume) suggest to
the hon. government Ministers that next
year, when they bring down the budget,
they should make sure they use their own
judgment. I am glad to hear the hon. mem-
ber say that, because that is just assuring
us that we are going to be here. Also—
Mr. Reaume: Will there be an election?
Mr. Jolley: I do not know, sir.
Mr. MacDonald: June or November?
Mr. Jolley: I did not say.
Also, sir, I want to say this, I know that
the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) is
a very fine gentleman, I honour his term
of office. I admire him as a gentleman, and
I appreciate his wisdom.
But in the past weeks that we have been
sitting here, all I have heard from the Oppo-
sition is: "Why does the government not
pay more money towards the cost of educa-
tion; why do they not take on the housing
problem; why do they not give money to
ease the unemployed; why do they not do
this and why do they not do that?" Then,
in finalizing his speech tonight or this after-
noon, if you want to call it this afternoon,
he finalizes by saying, and I think that I
quote him almost verbatim, "either the gov-
ernment cuts out this spending or the people
will do as they did in 1934, put in a Liberal
government."
Now I say to hon. members, it is as simple
as this, I am not a brilliant mind but I say
that the hon. members of the Opposition
cannot suck and blow at the same time.
They should make up their minds if they
want this government to spend the money for
schools, housing, roads, unemployed, or cut
out the spending. Now, they cannot have it
both ways.
Now I do not feel offended toward the
hon. member for Brant. I repeat that I admire
him as a gentleman. I know his length of
office here. I have no intention of taking
him on in battle because I would probably
be unarmed. But I say that it is as simple as
that to the Opposition, they cannot have it
both ways. Now with that, sir, I close. Thank
you.
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move that the committee
do rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report progress and begs leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole.
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 139, An
Act to amend The Succession Duty Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 139 reported.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 142, An
Act to amend The Assessment Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
I wonder if you would allow me for one
1278
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
moment to go back to section 2? Would
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) tell me—
the amendment provides that property used as
a caretaker's residence, and so on, in a ceme-
tery is not exempt from taxation. Would this
apply to municipal cemeteries?
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Yes, I believe it would, Mr.
Chairman, yes.
Mr. Thomas: And private cemeteries, too?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Private cemeteries
too, yes.
Sections 4 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Mr. Chairman, may
I revert to section 2 of the bill, please? I
must confess there has been some objection
to assessing residences of caretakers in
cemeteries where they would have been
municipal otherwise. As there is going to
be some objection to it here, I would not mind
if it were deleted from the bill.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, the reason
I raised that point was this: that there are
municipal cemeteries where the caretaker
lives on the property and I see no reason
why he should not be exempt from taxation,
too.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, there are 25
municipalities that asked for this very thing.
As I say, I have had some objections from
other quarters, and if the hon. member
wishes to delete it, I would be quite willing
to have him do so— have section 2 deleted
from the bill.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Minister is not
going to move that. I have not the infor-
mation that the hon. Minister has, I just
wanted to look into that.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I move that sec-
tion 2 be deleted, Mr. Chairman, and the
remaining sections be renumbered.
Vote agreed to.
Section 14 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 142, reported, as amended.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 143, An
Act to amend The Municipal Act.
Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 143, reported.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO ACT,
1947
House in committee on Bill No. 145, An
Act to amend The University of Toronto Act,
1947.
Hon. W. J. Dunlop (Minister of Educa-
tion): Mr. Chairman, I move that section
1 of this bill be struck out and the following
substituted therefor:
Section 17 of The University of Toronto
Act, 1947, as amended by section If of
The University of Toronto Amendment
Act, 1953, is repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
The board shall consist of the chancellor
and the president of the university who
shall be ex officio members and 32 persons
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Minister ex-
plain the exact nature of that change?
Hon. Mr. Dunlop: Yes, it is to get rid
of what was 17(2) in the printed bill, be-
cause the alumni federation of the Univer-
sity of Toronto no longer exists. The different
faculties have their own alumni now, and
this particular provision that was there, I
am informed, has not been used, so there is
no need to continue it.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill No. 145, as amended, reported.
THE VETERINARIANS ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 146, The
Veterinarians Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 146 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the committee do
rise and report certain bills without amend-
ments and certain bills with amendments.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the com-
mittee of the whole begs to report certain
bills with amendments and certain bills with-
out amendments and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
MARCH 25, 1958
1279
TOWN OF EASTVIEW
Mr. G. F. Lavergne moves second reading
of Bill No. 42, "An Act respecting the town
of Eastview."
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I
would ask Mr. Speaker to direct the Clerk of
the House to read the report from the chair-
man of the municipal board and also a letter
addressed to the members of the committee
by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Clerk of the House: In the matter of rule
75 of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and
in the matter of Private Bill 42, "An Act re-
specting the town of Eastview," in accordance
with the provisions of rule 75 of the Legisla-
tive Assembly of Ontario, a copy of the above
bill and the petition on which it is founded has
been transmitted by the Clerk of the House
and the board has accordingly, within the
limited time available, caused an inquiry to
be made into the allegations set out in the
bill, and the financial affairs of the muni-
cipality insofar as they can be ascertained at
the present time. For such purpose the board
has availed itself of the following sources of
information :
(1) The annual reports of municipal
statistics as issued by The Department of
Municipal Affairs for the years 1952 to 1956
inclusive;
(2) The audit report of the town of East-
view and its local boards for the year ending
December 31, 1956, as certified by the muni-
cipality's auditors, Messrs. Hector Menard
and Lucien Masse, and dated June 4, 1957;
(3) A preliminary statement of the town's
revenue fund balance sheet as at December
31, 1957, and a preliminary statement of the
revenues and expenditures of the municipality
for the year 1957;
(4) A financial analysis of the affairs of
the town for the years 1952 to 1956, inclusive,
prepared by the audit branch of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs, showing the vari-
ances between actual and budgeted revenues
and expenditures for the years 1952 to 1956,
inclusive, and listing the major items con-
tributing to an excess of expenditures over
the annual budgets;
(5) A statement of municipal road ex-
penditures incurred and subsidies paid for
the years 1951 to 1956, inclusive, as prepared
by Mr. J. V. Ludgate, municipal engineer of
The Department of Highways, and dated
March 1, 1958, with an accompanying letter
bearing the same date, estimating that the
maximum amount due from the department
to the town in respect of 1957 expenditures is
approximately $11,000, being a reduction of
some $78,000 from the amount shown in the
preliminary revenue fund balance sheet
referred to in paragraph (3) above;
(6) Detailed information and explanations
supplied to the chairman of the board at a
conference in his office on March 3, 1958,
attended by the mayor, the town clerk, the
assessor, a representative of the auditors and
the town's solicitor. At that time a detailed
statement of accumulated current deficits of
the municipality for the years 1955, 1956,
and 1957, was supplied by the town solicitor,
in the amount of $481,075.04, including
accumulated discount on debentures sold
during the 3-year period amounting to
$32,439.78.
Findings of fact:
1. As the town's auditors have not com-
pleted their financial audit for the year end-
ing December 31, 1957, and in particular,
have not verified all of the items shown as
current assets on the preliminary revenue
fund balance sheet; the board's findings of
fact are necessarily subject to correction after
the final audit has been completed to the
satisfaction of The Department of Municipal
Affairs.
2. Subject to the above, the board finds
that the actual accumulated deficit of the
municipality as of December 31, 1957,
amounted to $565,497.16. Included in this
amount is the accumulated deficit of the
high school board as of December 31, 1957,
amounting to $26,736.45.
3. The board finds that the current position
of the municipality as of December 31, 1957,
was as follows:
CURRENT LIABILITIES OVERDUE AND UNPAID
Bank Overdrafts $ 36,951.71
Bank Loans-Current 410,000.00
Construction 47,818.71
Coupons Due and Unpaid 2,530.48
Due to Schools 13,444.36
Due to County of Carleton
for 1957 County Rate 156,234.31
Sundry Amounts Payable 2,799.53
$669,779.10
1280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
CURRENT REALIZABLE ASSETS
Cash on Hand
Taxes Receivable (including interest and penalties
less reserve for uncollectable taxes)
Water Rates Receivable
Due from Province of Ontario:
Highways $11,000.00
Sundry 3,167.32
Sundry Accounts Receivable
$ 2,175.25
70,333.25
13,623.64
14,167.32
3,982.48
$104,281.94
$565,497.16
4. The board finds that the accumulated
current deficit has not been caused by the
"inability, neglect, or refusals of owners of
land in the municipality to pay the taxes due
thereon" as set forth in the petition, and this
was frankly admitted by the representatives
of the municipality. The use of these words in
the petition was apparently due to an error on
the part of the solicitor for the municipality.
5. In the opinion of the board the accumu-
lation of the above current deficit of the
town of Eastview has been due to a combina-
tion of the following causes:
(a) a failure on the part of the council in
each of the past 5 years to prepare and
adopt realistic estimates of revenues and
expenditures, including any operating deficit
for the previous year as required by section
311 of The Municipal Act;
(b) a failure on the part of the council
during the same 5 years to levy taxes sufficient
to raise the net estimated expenditures and
the principal and interest payments payable
on the debts of the corporation falling due
during the year as required by section 308 of
The Municipal Act;
(c) failure on the part of the council and
the municipal officials to limit current expen-
ditures to the amounts authorized in the
annual budgets, or to provide for such
excess expenditures by special levies;
(d) failure on the part of the council to
levy for substantial deficits sustained on the
sale of debentures as required by section
339(3) of The Municipal Act;
(e) failure on the part of the council to levy
amounts sufficient for the payment of the
county rates including the county's share of
the additional levies made under section 51
of The Assessment Act.
6. The board finds on the available evi-
dence and information that substantial current
deficits have been accumulating within the
past 4 years as follows:
December 31, 1954 $ 72,800.00
December 31, 1955 92,355.00
December 31, 1956 253,650.00
December 31, 1957 (est.) .... 565,497.00
7. The board finds also that no part of the
accumulated current deficit can be attributed
to the undertaking of capital expenditures
not approved by the board, and that all the
debentures issued with such approval have
been duly sold and the proceeds received
prior to December 31, 1957.
Recommendations of the board:
(1) In view of the facts disclosed by the
board's inquiry the amount proposed to be
raised by the sale of the proposed debentures
is clearly insufficient to cover the true amount
of the floating debt incurred by the munici-
pality, unless the corporation is prepared to
increase the amount to be provided in the
1958 tax levy, or is able to sell the debentures
amounting to approximately $485,000 at a
reasonable rate, instead of the amounts set
forth in the bill. The board, therefore, cannot
recommend that the bill should be passed.
(2) If, not withstanding the above recom-
mendation, the Legislature deems it desirable
that the bill be passed in an altered form,
the board submits the following recommenda-
tions:
(a) the preamble of the bill should be
amended so as to show accurately the cor-
rect amount of the floating indebtedness and
its causes;
( b ) section 1 of the bill should be amended
to show accurately the true amount of the
floating debt to be consolidated with a cor-
responding increase in either the amount of
the debentures to be issued or the amount
to be provided in 1958 tax levy or both;
( c ) section 6 of the bill should be amended
to provide that the provisions of sections 61,
67 and 68 of The Ontario Municipal Board
Act shall not apply in respect of the deben-
tures to be issued under the authority of
the special Act and to provide further that
no by-law providing for the issue of de-
bentures under the authority of the special
Act shall be passed without the approval
of The Department of Municipal Affairs;
( d ) the board further recommends that the
Act be amended to provide that, so long as
MARCH 25, 1958
1281
any debentures authorized by the Act are
outstanding and unpaid, The Department of
Municipal Affairs shall have control and
charge over the exercise by the municipality
and every local board thereof, except the
separate school board, of the matter set
forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), and (1) of section 33
of The Department of Municipal Affairs
Act, and that subsection 1 of section 42 of
the said Act, during the same period, shall
be deemed to apply to the municipality.
Precedent for the issue of debentures to
consolidate floating debt is to be found in
the following Acts.
The town of Eastview Act, 1927 (17
George V, C. 107), $120,000, 20 years.
The town of Eastview Act, 1931, (21
George V, C. 91), $75,000, 20 years-special
restrictions imposed.
All of which is respectfully submitted to
the hon. members of the Legislative Assem-
bly.
Dated at Toronto this 17th day of March,
1958.
Addressed by myself as Clerk of the House,
signed the Ontario municipal board per Mr.
Cummings, chairman.
We also have the following, dated Toronto
2, March 18, 1958, and is addressed to the
chairman and members of the private bills
committee.
It reads:
Gentlemen: I have now had an op-
portunity to study the report and recom-
mendations of the Ontario municipal board
in the matter of rule 75 of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario and in the matter
of private bill No. 42, "An Act Respecting
the Town of Eastview."
The recommendation of the board that
the bill be amended to provide that so long
as any debentures authorized by the Act
are outstanding and unpaid, The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs should have
control and charge over the exercise by
the municipality and every local board
thereof, except the separate school board,
of certain matters as set forth in the noted
portions of section 33 of The Department
of Municipal Affairs Act and that sub-
section 1 of section 42 of the said Act
should be deemed to apply was made in
consideration of the legislation in effect
at this time.
However, it is proposed that at the
appropriate time during the present ses-
sion to recommend to the House an amend-
ment to The Department of Municipal
Affairs Act which will enable the depart-
ment to render advice and assistance to
the municipalities that can benefit there-
from, both with respect to their financial
and other affairs. In this way, I believe,
the department can render the same assist-
ance as though a municipality was placed
under formal supervision, if the municipal
authorities are desirous of having and ac-
cepting such advice. It will still remain
the right of the department in the event
that a municipality fails to co-operate to
apply to the municipal board that they
bring the municipality under the provi-
sions of part 3 of The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs Act.
I would recommend to the committee
therefore that no action be taken on the
final recommendation of the board in this
matter in view of the further amendment
which it is supposed to submit with respect
to The Department of Municipal Affairs Act.
This communication is signed by William
K. Warrender, Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Well,
Mr. Speaker, some at least of the comments
that I would like to make on this Act, I
would have made in committee if there had
been an opportunity. I hasten to add that, not
having had that opportunity was partly my
own fault. I was attending a meeting of the
standing committee on agriculture, and at the
hour of 10, when this committee on municipal
law was due to meet, we were at that very
point dealing with an amendment to the Act,
changing voting procedures, which the House
will recognize as something in which I am
very much interested.
I got away from the committee about 3 or
4 minutes after 10, got down to the muni-
cipal law committee at 5 minutes after 10, to
find that one minute later their business was
dispatched. I must say that was a record for
this year.
Furthermore, that committee had met, we
assumed, under the suggestion or instruction
of the hon. Prime Minister, given the previous
day in this House, that the report which we
have just now heard from the municipal
board would be read. My information is from
those who were attending that committee
that it was not read, that just a few high-
lights were dealt with.
Having made these few preliminary words
of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I want to say
this— that to my knowledge this bill, and the
report of the municipal board, which one
1282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
must take in conjunction with the bill, repre-
sents one of the most shocking pieces of legis-
lation that has ever been brought before this
House.
In the first place, the first draft of this bill
completely misrepresented the situation. I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was an
insult to both the intelligence and the
integrity of this House that it should ever
have been presented.
The first draft of this bill stated that the
reason as stated in the petition for it being
brought forward, and I am quoting, was:
the inability, neglect, and refusal of owners
of land in Eastview to pay the taxes
thereon.
Now the comment of the municipal board
in that connection is, and I am quoting
again:
The use of these words in the petition
was apparently due to an error on the
part of the solicitor for the municipality.
Now all I will say with regard to that,
Mr. Speaker, is that it taxes the credulity
of the average person, that this basic reason
for a petition should have been due to an
error on the part of the solicitor. I find it not
only difficult, but impossible, to believe.
Secondly, this House was given false in-
formation, either wittingly or unwittingly,
that the reason for the bill was that there
was a floating debt of $402,000.
The report of the municipal board indicates
that when they investigated — and they
emphasize that their investigation is just a
tentative one— the floating debt was not
$402,000 but it was $565,000.
The report of the municipal board goes on
and it states that the real reasons for the
conditions that provoked the presentation of
the bill to this House were trivial:
One, a failure on the part of the council
in each of the past 5 years to prepare and
adopt realistic estimates of revenue and
expenditure, including an operating deficit
for the previous year.
Secondly, a failure on the part of the
council, during the same 5 years, to levy
taxes sufficient to raise the net estimated
expenditure and the principal and interest
payments payable on the debt of the corpora-
tion falling due during the year.
Thirdly, a failure on the part of the council
and municipal officials to limit current expen-
ditures to the amounts authorized in the
annual budget, or to provide for such
expenditures by special levies.
Fourthly, a failure on the part of the
council to levy for substantial deficits sus-
tained on the sales debentures.
Fifthly, a failure on the part of the council
to levy amounts sufficient to the payments
of the county rates including the county's
share of the additional levies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to
you that that multiple failure adds up— and
incidentally, in 4 of the 5 instances being in
direct contravention of a specific section of
The Municipal Act— that 5-fold failure adds
up to nothing more or less than gross mis-
management.
Now I think, Mr. Speaker, the facts pose
us in this Legislature with a question. Have
we the right as legislators to exonerate such
gross mismanagement in direct violation of
the laws whose administration it is our
solemn duty to oversee? Or to put the ques-
tion another way: are the citizens of the
municipality in question, who are the real
victims of this gross mismanagement, not
entitled to greater protection than the mere
passage of an Act which just wipes the slate
clean?
If we take a look at the recommendations
of the municipal board, we will find that the
first recommendation concludes with this sen-
ence, which is a definitive sentence, it is this:
The board therefore cannot recommend
that the bill should be passed.
Then they go on to the second recom-
mendation, and they state that "notwithstand-
ing the above recommendation"; in other
words, implicit in those words is that our first
recommendation is the one we want to stand,
this bill should not pass, but then they go
on:
If notwithstanding the above recom-
mendation, the Legislature deems it desir-
able the bill should be passed, then 4
amendments should be made.
The interesting thing was that, in com-
mittee the other day, 3 of those amendments
were made, the fourth one was not made, for
reasons that, I must confess when I read this,
mystified me. Their explanation is to be
found in the letter which the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs had written to the com-
mittee and which was, I understand, not read
to the committee.
The thing that still puzzles me about that
letter, Mr. Speaker, is this the chairman of
the municipal board is a very knowledgeable
man on municipal affairs. The chairman of
the municipal board knows now what the law
MARCH 25, 1958
1283
and the regulation is, with regard to powers
of any government department to take a
municipality, that is in this position, under
its supervision, presumably.
I find it difficult to believe that this would
not be the case. The chairman of the munici-
pal board was fully cognizant of the fact
that the government had a bill before the
Legislature to alter the picture, and yet, in
spite of all that, the chairman of the municipal
board says: "If you cannot accept my first
recommendation, which is that the bill should
not pass, then if you must proceed with it,
notwithstanding that recommendation, then
the affairs of the municipality in question
should come under the control and charge
of The Department of Municipal Affairs."
The thing that disturbs me most about this,
and I speak extremely seriously about this,
because without getting into anything that
might arouse undue provocation on matters
that are irrelevant, we had a very stormy
session in this Legislature a year ago which,
it is my firm conviction, arose originally out
of a deliberate contravention of the powers
of the municipal board. I am referring to
the Scarborough bill, and here we have
another situation which in the first instance
did not come through the municipal board
because it was not capital works, either done
before or after the municipal board had a
chance to express their view on it.
But here we have another instance in
which the municipal board states, after an
examination of the situation, after providing
us with information which proves that the
first bill presented to us was false informa-
tion, here we have the municipal board say-
ing that this should not pass, but that "if
you would pass it, if you, in your wisdom
in the committee, decide that it should pass,
then we recommend that it should be passed
only on the understanding that the affairs
of the municipality, with the exceptions in-
dicated, shall come under the control and
the— what is the correct word— the control
and charge of The Department of Municipal
Affairs."
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to this
House that to pass this bill is in open defiance
of the municipal board, and while there are
some things that today come under the juris-
diction of the municipal board, which I seri-
ously doubt the wisdom of having them
there, such as zoning by-laws and lots of
the things we discussed the other day, the
one thing that was the original purpose of
the municipal board and I think is its main
function, is that the municipal board shall
be the watchdog over finances in the muni-
cipalities in this province.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you very seri-
ously, that I do not think we as legislators
can proceed in open defiance of a solemn
recommendation of the municipal board, in
the situation in which they obviously are
very disturbed, and therefore my suggestion
to the hon. Prime Minister, or whoever is
the relevant person, is that this bill should
be withdrawn.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Speaker, I want to say with
reference to the last point made by the
hon. member for York South, it seems to me
in listening to the report of the municipal
board that they said, as my hon. friend
suggests, two things: the first one was that
in their judgment the bill should not pass;
secondly, if in the wisdom of this Legislature,
the bill should go through, then it should not
go through unless it be amended in the ways
that are outlined in the municipal board's
report.
It is my understanding that 4 out of the
5, or 3 out of the 4, recommendations are
contained in the bill by way of an amendment.
The fourth one is— and I think pretty well
covers it— contained in the amendment to
The Municipal Act.
My thinking on this runs along this line,
Mr. Speaker. I cannot see, personally, why
the municipal board said that we should not
pass this particular bill. I mean, what
position are we in, what position is the
town of Eastview in, if we refuse to pass
this particular bill?
I am not going to condone for a moment,
and I doubt very much if we are the ones
to either condemn or to condone, or to pass
on, the particular affairs of the town of
Eastview.
But the point, it seems to me, is that the
condition has been created. The condition,
deplorable as it is, is there. The situation has
to be met.
Now, it seems to me that it cannot be met
if we do not pass a bill of this kind. How
are we going to meet it? Therefore, I suggest
that the municipal board in that connection, in
my way of thinking at least, was in error.
The other point I want to outline stems
from the report of the municipal board.
It is inconceivable to me, Mr. Speaker, how
a municipality could have successive deficits
over a period of 5 years, as has been the case
in the instance of the town of Eastview,
without that condition coming to the notice,
first of The Deparment of Municipal Affairs
1284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and then, by the route that is well travelled,
to the municipal board. Reports must, I
think, go in from each municipality to The
Department of Municipal Affairs.
Now that department must have been
cognizant of the growing danger of the situa-
tion in the town of Eastview. I suppose that
that is what this amendment, which the hon.
Minister refers to, deals with. Well, if it is,
I think we should have had it long ago. We
should have had it at least 5 years ago, as far
as Eastview is concerned.
In a final word, Mr. Speaker, the situation
is as it is in Eastview. WTiether it was
mismanagement or whether it was not, it
seems to me that our task here is to enable
the people of the town of Eastview to meet
the condition that presently exists.
In the furtherance of that belief I am pre-
pared, for one, to vote for the bill, even at
the same time deploring the conditions that
exist. But it seems to me that at this stage
we have got to make the best out of what is
a bad job.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I will start at the
beginning, and that is always a good place to
start.
May I point out that our Department of
Municipal Affairs auditors did recognize there
was a danger about two years ago, and were
not apparently too concerned about a couple
of deficits, thinking they could catch up with
it by an increase in the mill rate.
But when it became apparent, about a year
and a half ago, that this was becoming a
dangerous financial situation, I spoke to the
council, the mayor, the hon. member for
Russell (Mr. Lavergne) and his council,
warned them of the danger and asked them
to take some measures to correct the situa-
tion.
Unfortunately, that was not done and the
condition grew worse. I was forced to call
them in again, and warn them that now there
was no way to correct it, they must take out
a private bill.
The private bill was prepared, and I want
to make this clear, not by our department, of
course, lest there be any mistake about that,
but by the solicitor acting for the council at
Eastview. Why there were discrepancies in
the bill I am not prepared to say, the fact
remains that there were discrepancies.
The deficit actually was $565,000 plus.
Now this, of course, is a very alarming situa-
tion to us, and no doubt concerned the board,
as is obvious by the recommendation made
by the chairman of the municipal board.
I say to you, sir, that there is nothing
illogical in what the chairman has said under
his recommendations numbered 1 to 2 of the
sub-clauses, and the only thing that the mem-
bers of the board could say, after view-
ing this rather alarming situation, was that
under the chairman's recommendations the
board therefore cannot recommend that the
bill should be passed, but nowhere does it
say that the board refuses to turn it down.
They point out, however, that this is a serious
situation.
Now there is only one alternative logically,
as the hon. leader of the Opposition said. If
we do not pass this bill, where do the citizens
of Eastview stand? They cannot do any of
their financing and they are in almost an
intolerable position.
Furthermore, bad as this may seem, it is
not actually so bad when one knows other
conditions which exist, and I have gone into
this rather thoroughly, and I want to point
out some of those conditions to the hon. mem-
bers of the Legislature.
The fact is that a firm of brokers in Ottawa,
whose name I shall not mention, but I have
seen the letter, made a firm offer to buy the
debentures of this corporation in the amount
of $400,000 at a good rate of interest and at
a good yield. I am satisfied that if our depart-
ment gets into the picture, and it is placed
under our control and charge, that their credit
will be re-established, and I am convinced
they can sell this amount of debentures as
indicated in the bill, namely, $485,000, if
they look after current debt in the amount of
$80,497.
In addition to that, I learned from the
council of Eastview that it is their intention
and certainly would be our duty to see that
this was done. It is their intention to have a
reassessment of the whole of the municipality.
If one notices the schedule that I handed
around concerning these equalization factors
for all the municipalities, the hon. member
for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) although he is not
here tonight, I know he will confirm this, was
going over the list and immediately spotted
the one of Eastview, which was I think 45 per
cent, or 46 per cent, away below the manual
of assessment.
Now it is obvious to us in The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs that, if they have
a reassessment and bring it within the
manual, their assessment is going to be about
double. On checking the result of that, I
find that their debenture debt in relation to
their assessment is only going to be about 17
per cent.
MARCH 25, 1958
1285
There are many municipalities across this
province which have that relationship of de-
benture debt to their assessment, which is
not alarming to us in the least. As a matter
of fact the municipal board has on occasion
—not as a rule of thumb, but sort of as a
guide— said that if the debenture debt in
relation to the assessment is about 15 per
cent., 17 per cent, or 20 per cent., it is
acceptable to them, and it is not too much
trouble so far as the financial situation in
a given municipality is concerned.
So to conclude, unfortunate as the situation
is, it is far from being as bad as some persons
paint the picture, and I am satisfied that if
we do, as requested by the chairman of the
municipal board, put our men, who are ex-
perts in this field, into this municipality,
and assist them to get their finances in order,
in a short time, within a year or two, we
will be able to bring them out of this situa-
tion and back to some order.
Now I am satisfied, as I say, that the
debentures can be sold. I am satisfied that
with reassessment they are going to be in
a good financial position. But it will be the
duty of the council to face up to the situa-
tion, and levy the necessary amount to make
up whatever is needed for current expenses,
plus the principal and interest of this par-
ticular amount of money which is going to
be needed for debentures.
That is all I have to say for the moment.
But it could be a hopeless situation if this
House were to refuse to pass this bill— well,
I say to hon. members, what is going to
happen to the municipality of Eastview?
I say that given the opportunity I am con-
vinced that our department can bring them
out of this financial crisis and back to a
good financial state.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is allowed
to speak only once.
Mr. MacDonald: I realize that, I just want
to comment, if I might, Mr. Speaker, I will
be very brief.
Mr. Speaker: Just a question only. This is
on the principle of the bill. If the hon. mem-
ber wants to put a question, it should come
in the course of the committee.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, we will watch
that the same latitude is maintained in other
cases.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, when the Clerk
of the Legislature read out the report from
the municipal board, he said "in view of the
limited time available." Was there any restric-
tion in respect to time? Did the board have
to present this report to the Legislature at a
certain time? Was there any specification of
time laid down?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I think what the
chairman of the board had in mind there
was that he was trying to meet one of the
times laid down for the private bills com-
mittee. There was no other limit so far as I
know. I certainly made no limit.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I do think it
is about time the hon. members of the Legis-
lature look at this circumvention that is taking
place in getting around the municipal board.
I believe the board is doing a very fine job,
and I think we are openly encouraging muni-
cipalities to present a private bill in this
House for the issue of debentures that have
not already been approved by the municipal
board.
Now, in this particular case the report of
the board gives 5 failures on the part of the
council. Over a period of 3 or 4 years they
failed on this, failed on something else, there
are 5 failures there altogether.
Now, if the Legislature is to approve this
amount of money, of $565,497, how are
we to know that if approval is given to the
local council to issue debentures for that
amount, that it will not hand it back to a
council that will mismanage the spending of
that money, the same as has been mis-
managed this last 4 or 5 years, unless we
have the supervision of the department? And
I say this, Mr. Speaker, that if we do approve
this bill, then we should insist on one thing,
and that is this, that the department should
go in there and supervise the affairs of that
council.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question I would like to put to the hon.
Minister. The hon. Minister is very much
aware of the fact that the municipal board is
a highly responsible body, very much aware
of the problems of municipal finance. They
knew that this would be a hopeless situation
as he describes it—
Hon. Mr. Warrender: What is the ques-
tion?
Mr. MacDonald: My question is this:
Knowing all this, why then did they recom-
mend that the bill should not be passed?
1286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The answer to the
question is this: The board did not say it
should not be passed, the board therefore
cannot recommend that the bill be passed.
Mr. MacDonald: Their recommendation.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: The hon. member
asked me a question, and I will try to answer
it if he will give me an opportunity.
The board therefore cannot recommend
that the bill should be passed. They knew
logically that if they said this bill shall not
pass, then the whole community would be in
a hopeless financial situation. They, therefore—
the way I interpret this thing— took a very
dim view of the whole situation, as well they
should; but at the same time they say: "In
spite of this situation, we will let it go on
under certain conditions."
Mr. MacDonald: That is the interpreta-
tion of the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Well, that is my
interpretation, and if this bill is passed, and
I hope it will be, we are going in, on the
recommendation of the board, to control and
take charge of that municipality.
In answer to the hon. member for Oshawa
may I add this explanation: If the situa-
tion is not cured within a reasonable time,
the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, who-
ever he may be, has the power to put that
municipality under what is known as formal
supervision. But I do not think it necessary
at this time, and I hope in a short time to
prove that to the House.
Hon. Mr. Frost: As has been said, the
taxable assessment of this community is
$6,217 million. The factor is 45 per cent.,
therefore the assessment of the municipality
would run about $14 million.
At the present time, this is where the
problem has arisen: The per capita taxation
in this town is only $36.25, and that is the
crux of the thing, the taxes have been too
low.
The Department of Municipal Affairs has
certain supervisory powers which are now
in the Act, which were not as a matter of
fact introduced to have anything to do with
Eastview, but was in connection with some of
the other municipalities that I have men-
tioned.
If the department can, in the course of
3, 4 or 5 years, bring this municipality out
of difficulty— and I think they can— it seems
to be plain on the face of it that their per
capita taxation and their per capita debt is
low in view of their assessment— without
putting the community, as it were, into a
bankrupt position of supervision, I think so
much the better.
On the other hand, the difficulty with the
board's recommendation is this, as I see it:
that if the municipality is put under super-
vision by statute, then of course you have
to take it out of supervision by statute, and
would have to do it by means of another bill,
while all of the powers are in the Act itself.
There are powers first of investigation and
advice, and secondly, there is the power of
supervision upon the application of the hon.
Minister and an order of the municipal board.
Now why put those things in the Act when
they are already there, and when they can
be used? This matter is here before this
Legislature because of the advice of the hon.
Minister on the outline as he has already
given to us. It does seem to me that this
would be the normal thing to do.
The hon. leader of the Opposition made
some comments which I agree with. After
all, the matter of the mayor and the council
and their actions are accountable to the
people of Eastview. I notice a copy of the
Citizen here. Perhaps some of the hon. mem-
bers have seen this, it is worthwhile seeing.
Apparently the citizens have their own ways
of judging matters, they seem to have ap-
proved of the action of the council.
I do not know that it is our business to do
any more than this, to see that the proper
steps are taken to assure that the solvency of
this council and the municipality of East-
view be maintained according to the rules,
and that is what is being done.
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East): I just want
to say a word about the bill when it was
before the committee on private bills. The
committee met as usual at 10 o'clock and
the chairman said we were going to deal
with Bill No. 42, dealing with the town of
Eastview.
I had made some notes on the matter,
and explained to the committee in detail the
significance of the report of the Ontario
municipal board and rule 75 of the House
and then the chairman said to the committee:
"Do you want the whole report of the board
read?" The committee said: "No, let us
have the recommendations of the municipal
board." So we went into the recommenda-
tions and dealt with each one separately.
The hon. member for York South was
present when we dealt with each section of
the bill as amended.
MARCH 25, 1958
1287
The chairman very carefully said: "Is there
any opposition or any objection?" and I
moved the amendments which were seconded
by the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Wren)
and each time the chairman was careful to
say, "Are there any objections?"
The hon. member for York South had an
opportunity, and we did carefully explain
why the bill was being amended. At the end,
not only did we go through it once, we went
through it 3 times, so the hon. members
would understand what the committee was
doing. So I do not think the hon. member for
York South can say he did not have an oppor-
tunity when the bill was presented before the
committee.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege for one moment. The
hon. member for York East has misrepres-
ented the situation, even in the light of what
I explained earlier.
I was not there at the time the various
portions of the bill were gone through. When
I came in, I assumed that this report had been
read as the hon. Prime Minister had
instructed, advised or asked. It had not been
read.
It strikes me as passing strange that a bill
should have gone through in 6 minutes,
whether or not the suggestion of the chair-
man we dispense with reading it after the
hon. Prime Minister dispensed with it once
here, that it be dispensed with once again.
That is, if the hon. member for York East
is correct, I think he quoted the chairman
saying: "Do you want it read?"
The net effect of the whole thing was that
it was not read in the House, and it was not
read in the committee, and it did not become
public information until the hon. members of
the fourth estate dug it out.
An hon. member: The hon. member gave it
to them.
Mr. Speaker: May I say that on the
principle of the bill, on second reading, every
hon. member of the House has a right to
speak, but the right to speak only once. When
the House is in committee, you may have all
the questions you see fit, but in second
reading only once.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, may
I ask the hon. Minister whether or not the
government will use the facilities of the
Ontario municipal improvement loan to assure
that this issue will be floated effectively
whether or not it is purchased privately?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I doubt if there are
any items in here which might come under
the jurisdiction of the Ontario municipal im-
provement corporation. That is mainly for
schools, sewers, water and that type of thing.
I cannot say this for sure, but I think that
would have been done before had that been
possible. But I am convinced that there are
brokers around who are prepared to buy the
debentures at a reasonable rate.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Hon. G. H. Dunbar moves second reading
of Bill No. 129, "An Act to amend The Public
Service Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Dunbar moves second reading of
Bill No. 158, "An Act to amend The Public
Service Act."
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak briefly on this, and I think perhaps
in the end I can save the House some time
rather than take its time.
Some time ago I placed on the order
paper a resolution calling for the government
to consider granting its employment pool
vesting rights in its superannuation plan after
5 years. I must say if every time I put a
resolution on the order paper, I can get action
as quickly as I did in this instance, I wish the
rules would permit more than one resolution
being put on per year, because within about
two or three weeks' time, or even less than
that, the hon. Minister came forward with a
bill which for the most part puts into effect
what my resolution was calling for.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in addressing my
remarks to the principle of this bill, I would
request that my resolution on the order paper
be withdrawn because there is no point in
debating it twice.
The Act now, Mr. Speaker, permits 3 ways
in which a civil servant can get money which
he has contributed to a superannuation fund.
If he resigns he can withdraw his contribu-
tion at 3 per cent. He is also entitled under
a certain clause of the Act to claim what is
known as a disability allowance which, if for
any reason he has to retire prior to the appro-
priate age, or has spent the appropriate
number of years in the service.
1288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Finally, there is what is called a compensa-
tion allowance, and this is something that I
am very glad to have seen the government act
on, because I think that this has been a very
unfortunate clause in the Act, because it com-
mitted the possibility of people getting this
allowance not as of right, but because of some
particular influence within the government, as
knowing the right person or something of that
nature.
I put a question on the order paper a year
or two ago, and I found out that since this
clause has been put, only 14 people had
been given this allowance. Now, many
more people than 14 had retired under the
Act, and theoretically were eligible.
The question that I raise is: Why did these
14 get it, and the others did not?
I think it is very clear that there is sort of
an open door there for either political influ-
ence—or at least a justfiable suspicion that
there is political influence— in the decision as
to whether the people get it. In other words,
if a civil servant gets something from this
fund, he gets it as of right and he knows it,
and it is clear in the Act.
Now what the government does in this is,
in effect, to give him an equity of investing
interest in the fund so that he knows clearly
what his rights are.
Mr. Speaker, another reason why I think
that it is extremely fortunate that we at this
late stage have moved to do this, is that it
removes a couple of very anomalous situa-
tions.
One, for example, is government for years
under another party has made it necessary
for municipalities in their superannuation fund
to give their employees vesting rights in it. In
other words, they have been in effect instruct-
ing municipalities that they must grant their
employees vesting rights in their superanuation
and, while they were not granting the same
right to their own employees here. Now that
clearly is not the kind of situation that is
very defensible.
Also I do not happen to have the appropri-
ate issue of the Trillium of the civil servants
association, but they point out, in one issue
that came out just before the convention last
fall, that for years the superannuation pay-
ments of civil servants in Ontario have been
deducted in the calculation of income tax, and
the authorities have been winking at this
deduction, although it is, in fact, a violation
of the law, because the law requires that there
must be a vesting right as of a certain number
of years, which has not been the case until
this bill has been brought in.
In other words this government is removing
the rather unfortunate situation of civil serv-
ants, in effect, violating the law, and the
authorities in Ottawa winking at it by deduct-
ing their contribution to the superannuation
fund in violation of the income law require-
ments.
In making my final point, Mr. Speaker, may
I say that I do wish I could sometime look
forward to the day when this government will
move in the direction of doing the whole
thing, and not doing it by halves. So often we
have heard the government say that we can-
not move, or we will not move, with regard
to salaries or other things in connection with
our civil servants until they move at Ottawa.
It is almost automatic "we'll meet you": they
do it at Ottawa— we do it here.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention
that Ottawa for years has not only given the
federal civil servants a vesting right in their
pension fund, but they have given it after
5 years, not after 10 years, and therefore what
I cannot understand is why, when the govern-
ment did move on this, they would not at
least, some years after Ottawa, bring in a 5-
year rather than the 10-year provision?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Yes, that is quite true, 5
years in Ottawa. We are not anxious to get
rid of civil servants. If they are here to make
a career of the service, why, we want them
to stay on. We thought it would be better
on the superannuation that the civil servant
has been paying into over a great number of
years, we do not want to put too great a
strain on that by people changing their minds
after they have been in the government for
a few years, say 5 years, and get huffy or
something, and go out and all the superannua-
tions made ineffective by that. The rate
will have to be raised as it was last year in
order to make this superannuation sound.
Therefore, we felt that 10 years would be a
fair rate. But the hon. member compares us—
Mr. MacDonald: They want to reduce the
mobility of labour, so to speak.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: No, it is not that at all.
He wants to compare us with Ottawa. Our
superannuation is the best in Canada, it is
figured on the last 3 years or the highest 3
years' salary. Ottawa is figured on the last
10 years.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the widows'
pensions?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Now, that is all right;
now do not jump out through China because
they have nothing at all.
MARCH 25, 1958
1289
Mr. MacDonald: What about the widows'
pensions that we do not grant as compared
to Ottawa? We want to get a fair comparison.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Well, I am telling the
hon. member that he was talking about
Ottawa, about the 5 years, and I am telling
him that they have nothing in Ottawa in the
superannuation line to compare with us. Noth-
ing at all. This is a good Act, and they are
pleased with it. The hon. member has been
reading the Citizen and reading the Journal,
also a bill that we have here, sir, that super-
annuated civil servants have been, or can be,
re-engaged for a certain length of time, expert
service as the case might be, but they do not
have that in Ottawa.
What does the head of the federation say
in the Citizen? He says that they have been
trying in Ottawa for 25 years, and now
Ontario is leading the way. That is the kind
of a government that we have here. Why
does the hon. member not give a pat on the
back once in a while?
Mr. MacDonald: In some things the hon.
Provincial Secretary is ahead, and in some he
is behind, so I guess I will.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX ACT,
1956
Hon. J. N. Allan moves second reading of
Bill No. 185, "An Act to amend the Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, 1956."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker: Notice of motion No. 4 stand-
ing the name of Mr. MacDonald. Resolved,
THAT this House is of the opinion that
the government should consider granting
its employees full vesting rights in their
superanuation plan after 5 years.
The motion is withdrawn.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, in moving the
adjournment of the House, may I say that
tomorrow at 2 o'clock we will proceed with
the budget debate in anticipation of a vote
some place around about 4.30 p.m. Follow-
ing that, sir, we will go into matters on the
order paper, I think this calls for debate, the
public bills and orders and notices.
Mr. Oliver: Would my hon. friend indicate
how many more intend to speak on the
budget debate?
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member for Port
Arthur (Mr. Wardrope), yourself and the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Dymond). As I have it, there are just 3.
Sir, before moving the adjournment, may I
make this motion:
I move that order No. 15 for third reading
of Bill No. 135, "An Act to amend The
Registry Act" be discharged and that the bill
be referred again to the committee of the
whole House for the purpose of considering a
certain amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move the adjournment
of the House.
The House adjourned at 11.45 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 48
ONTARIO
^legislature of (Ontario
euates
: -. -
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 26, 1958
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 26, 195$
Final report, standing committee on municipal law, Mr. Rankin 1293
Final report, standing committee on legal bills, Mr. Myers 1293
Presenting report, Mr. Dunbar 1293
Motion to re-appoint select committee on labour, Mr. Frost, agreed to 1293
Conclusion of the debate on the budget, Mr. Wardrope, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Dymond 1295
Debate re compulsory automobile insurance, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Allan, Mr. MacDonald,
Mr. Cowling, Mr. Fishleigh, Mr. L. M. Frost, Mr. Whicher, Mr. Yaremko,
Mr. Child 1313
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Roberts, agreed to 1331
Recess, 6 o'clock 1331
1293
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, March 26, 1958
2 o'clock p.m.
And the House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Clerk of the House: Mr. D. J. Rankin,
from the standing committee on municipal
law, presents the committee's final report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with a certain amendment.
Bill No. 174, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Mr. R. M. Myers,
from the standing committee on legal bills,
presents the committee's final report and
moves its adoption.
Your committee would recommend that the
following bill be not reported.
Bill No. 140, An Act to amend The Racing
Commission Act.
Mr. R. M. Myers (Waterloo South): Mr.
Speaker, may I say by way of explanation
that, during consideration of this bill by
the committee, it appeared that a difference
of opinion existed amongst interested per-
sons with respect to certain of the sec-
tions, and the committee deemed it proper
to provide for a further discussion of the
terms of the bill. With that in view, the
resolution was passed that the bill be not
reported— not with a view of throwing the
bill out, but merely as a first step towards its
further consideration and study.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the following:
Annual report of The Department of
Highways for the province of Ontario for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1957.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): I move,
seconded by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Daley), that the select committee of the House
appointed on March 27, 1957, to examine into
and report regarding the operation of the
administration of The Labour Relations Act in
all of its aspects, be reappointed with the
same powers, duties and privileges as con-
ferred by the former motion; the said com-
mittee to consist of 11 members as follows:
Mr. Maloney, chairman; Messrs. Jackson,
Macaulay, MacDonald, Morningstar, Myers,
Reaume, Rowntree, Wardrope, Wren, and
Yaremko.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr.
Wardrope) is taking the place of the now
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Spooner).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to welcome a very large group
of students representing the following schools:
Central school, Burlington; Alexander Muir
school, Champlain Boulevard public school,
Downsview collegiate, Beverly, Whitney and
Deer Park public schools, Metropolitan To-
ronto. These students are here to view the
proceedings of the House, and we extend to
them a very warm welcome.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
table answers to questions 1, 11, 14, 21, 23,
25, 33 and 36.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A per-
fect record this year.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Prime Minister
must have been up all night.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I worked all night on those
answers.
Mr. MacDonald: Before the orders of the
day are called, there are two questions that
I would like to put. The first one is to the hon.
Prime Minister: In a letter of recent date,
signed by the civil service commission, and
sent to all heads of government departments,
it is stated that government employees may
leave work at 3.30 next Monday in order to
vote in the federal election.
1294
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. Prime Minister, of course, is aware
that The Canada Election Act stipulates that
every employee shall have 3 consecutive hours
for the purpose of casting his or her vote; and
further, that the Act states that any employer
who refuses in any way to grant 3 consecutive
hours "is guilty of an illegal practice" and
an "offence against this Act punishable on
summary conviction."
Will the hon. Prime Minister give the assur^-
ance to the House that the government of
Ontario, as an employer, will not violate The
Canada Election Act next Monday, and will
issue another directive through the civil serv-
ice commission granting 3 full consecutive
hours as a good example to other employers?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I have much hesitation in
answering that question due to the castigation
which I received at the hands of the hon.
member for Essex North (Mr. Reaume) last
night in my absence, in which he alleged that
I answered all the questions over here.
However, with due humility, may I say, sir,
that I have asked the Clerk of the House to
close the buildings at 2.30 p.m. in order to
give the civil servants 3.5 hours to go and
vote.
Mr. MacDonald: I would hate to see this
government up for summary conviction on
Tuesday morning.
Mr. Speaker, my second question is
addressed to the hon. Minister of Mines.
Does The Mining Act supersede The Labour
Relations Act— as assumed by the Canadian
Johns-Manville Company who have used
section 156, subsection 3, of The Mining
Act in the recent demotion of a hoistman
on the claim, by a company-designated
doctor, that the man was colour-blind when
an eye specialist in Timmins disagreed with
that diagnosis? The hoistman is covered, I
draw to the attention of the hon. Minister, by
an agreement between the United Steel
Workers of America and the Canadian Johns-
Manville Company.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, without having The Mining Act
in front of me, and I did not get the second
quotation, would the hon. member mind
repeating it please, 153?
Mr. MacDonald: Section 156, subsection
3.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: It is rather difficult for
me to give as complete an explanation as I
would like to, but I must say that The Mining
Act does, could, and should supersede an
agreement between a labour organization
and management.
The section that the hon. member quotes
is one dealing with the safety regulations,
conditions and requirements for a hoisting
operator or hoistman. So, realizing the great
responsibility that is placed on the employer
to provide hoistmen of top physical qualifica-
tions and so on, because of the fact that
practically all of the other workmen in the
mine are dependent upon that man's ability
to perform the duties of his office as a hoist-
man, it is most important that a very careful
examination be required for applications for
such a position as hoistman.
I have personal knowledge of the particu-
lar case which the hon. member for York
South has mentioned, concerning the Canadian
Johns-Manville Company at Matheson Monroe
Mines.
A certain individual, who was examined by
Dr. Wade in Matheson, was told that he was
colour-blind. Then, very rightly so, the work-
man decided to present himself for an eye
examination by an eye specialist in Timmins.
That is quite right.
But to say that the eye specialist in Tim-
mins maintained that the man was not colour-
blind is incorrect, from the information which
I have been able to obtain. The man is colour-
blind to some degree.
Not being a technical man, I am not able
to say what degree of colour-blindness a
person should have or could have and still
properly operate a hoist. A hoist is a piece
of machinery which has an instrument board
where lights of different colours are used to
indicate certain signals. Therefore it would
be very tragic to consider that a person
whose eyesight was not perfect in every re-
spect should be permitted to operate a hoist
where so many other people are dependent
for their very lives on the qualifications of
the hoistman.
I am sure if hon. members, those who have
knowledge of the mining industry, would
consider that point, they would realize that
the employer in this particular case was ap-
parently quite within his rights to use The
Mining Act as his authority for deciding
that the applicant for the position of hoist-
man, because of the fact that he was colour-
blind in some degree, could not be accepted
for this position.
I have spoken to the company represen-
tative, and he says: "I would be very happy
to engage this man providing he can meet
the requirements of this position. But I have
to consider the hundreds of other men who
are dependent upon him, and the manner
in which he operates this hoist for their
safety. I think that the case has been very
MARCH 26, 1958
1295
well considered by the management at the
mines, and that they had no alternative but
to come up with the decision that they did."
I am happy to say that the man in ques-
tion has a position with this same company,
by whom he has been employed since, I
think, 1951, at which time his examination
prior to being employed did disclose the
fact that he was colour blind at that time.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. G. C. Wardrope (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to speak at great
length, because I think in this House during
this session we have listened with a great
deal of interest, sometimes with as not a
great interest, to some long speeches that
bear no relation to the events of the day
that are so important.
On our budget, Mr. Speaker, I believe
our hon. Provincial Treasurer and hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Frost), brought out a docu-
ment that will go down in the history of
this province as one of the greatest aids
to the general public this province has ever
seen. It was of great benefit to the muni-
cipalities. It is of great benefit to everyone
in this province in the way of reducing taxes,
and although the hon. members of the Oppo-
sition have accused us of cyclical deficit
financing— I think this term was used, which
I did not understand— it was a humanitarian
document which will help everyone.
As I listened to the Opposition hon. mem-
bers talk in billions and millions and so on,
I could not help but think of that old story,
which probably applies to me, about the
two tramps playing poker at the side of the
road with an old deck of cards. They were
using rocks for money.
One tramp looked at his cards and said: "I
will bet you a million." The other looked at
his cards and said: "There is your million, and
I will raise you a trillion." The first one
looked at his cards, and said: "There is your
trillion, and I will raise you a quadrillion."
The other tramp threw his cards into the dust
and said: "You win, you educated egghead."
So some of these men, who talk in billions
and of cyclical deficit financing and so on, are
in that category, and probably know less about
financing than I do myself, and my knowledge
is not very great.
I also listened to a dissertation yesterday
about this government being a one-man show.
I think that we all agree, and I think honestly
the Opposition agrees, that we have an hon.
Prime Minister who is a courteous man,
anxious at all times to help every hon. mem-
ber of this House regardless of whether or not
he is on the Opposition side.
I think the hon. members fully realize that
when the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) is talking, he is a one-man show.
He is the leader of the CCF party, and I
really feel that he should not be a leader at
all, he should be an ordinary common run of
the mill member like myself. But our hon.
Prime Minister gives him a great deal of
leeway, and shows him a great deal of respect
to which I do not think he is really entitled.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Oliver) generally speaks on the Throne debate,
the financial critic of a party generally speaks
on the budge debate, and on other things
other hon. members of the party speak. And if
you notice, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
York South speaks on the Throne speech,
speaks on the budget debate, speaks on every-
thing, and his two other hon. members are
allowed to ask questions, that is about all.
Now, if that is not a one-man show, I would
like to know what is. If we look over Hansard,
we will find that a great deal of the time is
taken up with his balderdash in these different
things.
He has also reached the point where he
talks about roads in my riding, of which he
knows nothing. He is now going to split the
riding in two, and I may assure him that if
it is split in two, and they have a new mem-
ber up there it will not be him. I will see that
it is not, and I am sure the people up there
will as well.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Like Rt.
hon. Mr. Howe, eh?
Mr. Wardrope: Well, he was a good one in
his day, but his day has passed.
There are two or three things, Mr. Speaker,
that I would like to bring to the attention of
the government and I do know they are
important for my area.
I should like to make what I feel are a
few constructive suggestions respecting north-
ern affairs. In recent years, the present gov-
ernment has constructed about 400 miles of
access roads at a cost of around $5 million.
1296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This great project is now being helped by
the government in Ottawa for the first time
in the history of this country, and the govern-
ment in Ottawa which will give us greater
help after March 31
These roads are planned on an inter-
departmental basis involving The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, The Department
of Public Works, The Department of High-
ways, The Department of Planning and
Development, and The Department of Mines.
They are of the greatest value in expanding
the growth of the mining industry. They also
have the effect of opening substantial tracts
of forest lands to harvesting.
Again, they serve as avenues of approach
for combating forest fires. In some cases they
give access to valuable agricultural lands.
I venture to suggest that, in dealing with
this matter, and indeed with northern affairs
generally, it would be very desirable to have
a senior official with a rank approaching that
of a Deputy Minister to be located at the
Lakehead. He would be directly responsible
to a committee formed of the Ministers head-
ing the various departments.
Desirable qualifications might include a
background of experience related to highways,
a good record as an administrator and, of
course, he should be a senior civil servant.
The managing committee might well set
up standards of construction based, not only
on immediate needs, but on prospects related
to the future. The roads constructed should,
I think, be kept open all year round, and
they should also serve as fire breaks even to
the point of providing additional clearing on
either side.
With all due respect to the present access
roads committee, I think it would be well
to have it reconstituted as a northern On-
tario mining and development roads branch.
It would, of course, have a close connection
with The Department of Highways.
In setting up an administrative office in
the north, I would suggest that the head
be given a reasonably large jurisdiction in
which to operate. This, of course, is true
if we are to have the efficient functioning of
any civil service. As I see it, every official
from the office boy up to the Deputy Minis-
ter should have an established jurisdiction
in which he can function freely and safely.
Give these people authority, large or small,
and see that they exercise it properly, and
we shall have better results in this or in
any other civil service or indeed in any
organization.
Another point I would like to bring out,
Mr. Speaker, is the importance of iron ore
to the future of this province and to north-
western Ontario especially. It is an enor-
mous future asset that is just coming into
its own. It is a subject which needs a lot
of thought and care in its future handling.
It is argued, and I think with much reason,
that Canada is not making the best use of
her great resources of iron ore. There are
a lot of things in connection with it, as one
can understand, which caused that situation.
The subject was discussed at some length
by Mr. P. E. Cavanagh, director of the
department of engineering and metallurgy
of the Ontario research foundation. He was
addressing a recent meeting of the Royal
Canadian Institute in Toronto and his re-
marks are fully reported in the Northern
Miner for February 27.
Mr. Cavanagh points out that new smelt-
ing processes using natural gas are being
developed. These might make it possible,
so he claims, for Canadian mining companies
to use some of the better grade Canadian
ores to make specialty steels.
Mr. Cavanagh says that the influx of natu-
ral gas plus the opening of the seaway will
change our economic picture, and he adds
that we are no longer tied to the costly pro-
cess of making steel that has been in vogue
for the past 50 years. He predicts that by
1980 Canada will be producing 80 million
tons of iron ore annually, and he adds that
the Canadian steel industry will probably
be turning out 20 million tons annually by
that date. He predicts that by 1980 Canada
will probably be the largest exporter of iron
ore in the world.
I suggest this, along the line of thought
of Mr. Cavanagh. We should not allow
foreign powers to take the cream of our
iron ores while developing their own lower
grade ores and then leaving us with the less
valuable residue.
We have a warning in front of us. The
Mesabi iron range not so long ago was esti-
mated to be good for 500 years. It is now
nearing exhaustion after only 50 years. The
cream of the United States iron ore is gone.
Iron and steel are the very foundation
stones of the United States economy, and it is
very plain that, for the future, the enormous
United States steel industry must depend for
its ores on Canada and on South America. I
suggest, therefore, that we should give thought
in two or three directions to the problems
which arise.
First, I think we should support our own
industry with our own money, and at least in
degree attempt to halt the acquirement of so
MARCH 26, 1958
1297
many of our basic resources and industries
by American capital.
Second, I think we should look, for ex-
ample, to the pulp and paper industry. The
manufacturing clauses of The Crown Timber
Act were, in effect, torn out of our statute
books by the former government. The result
was that there commenced a huge export pro-
gramme of pulpwood cut from Crown lands.
It was left to this government some years ago
to halt this practice, and the result is we
have new forest industries and new towns in
northern Ontario: Red Rock, Terrace Bay and
Marathon to mention 3 of them.
Shall we not, therefore, give some careful
consideration to the thought of requiring very
much more home manufacture, as related to
our iron industry? I know there are many
factors entering into this question but I
should like to see us, for example, exporting
a much greater quantity of fabricated steel in
its many forms to the United States rather than
to see a prolonged programme of exporting
our raw material.
In the early days of the nickel mining
industry, the Neonde Nickel Company shipped
its ores in the form of matte to Wales for
refining, while the International Nickel Com-
pany shipped the same product to New
Jersey. Today this is changed and the ores
are refined in part at the great nickel plants
near Sudbury, and in part at the Port Col-
borne refinery.
Perhaps the whole problem here will
ultimately have to be approached on a
national basis. The "Labrador trough" con-
tains the greatest iron ore reserves in the
world, and there are other huge deposits in
Ungava.
The developments at Steep Rock are spec-
tacular indeed, and are a tremendous boon to
our part of the country. Nonetheless, if we
could see a large part of this valuable ore
being fabricated in Ontario, it would mean
a tremendous increase in our payrolls, and
would indeed be a boon to our whole
economy.
It is too soon to consider statutory enact-
ment related to home manufacture of our
native minerals. Nevertheless, maximum
home manufacture should be our target, and
it is something we shall ultimately have to
contemplate. We cannot afford to have our
Canadian economy placed at the mercy of
United States industry.
Let us not forget that we have some
formidable weapons in our possession. The
United States is increasingly dependent on
us for iron ores, for wood pulp, for nickel,
for uranium, for asbestos, for zinc and for
copper. The time is coming when our great
and powerful southern neighbour will have
to deal with us on terms dictated from this
side of the border.
Tonight I am leaving to go up to the town
of Nakina to officiate at the opening of the
hydro-electric power line for the first time
in the history of that town.
It was a great construction job done by an
organization which employs very many
highly skilled men in their organzation. I
want to pay a great tribute to Hydro. That
line is some 40 miles long and, hon. mem-
bers can imagine what joy there will be
among these 700 customers when it is
officially opened tonight.
I wish briefly to commend the Hydro Elec-
tric Power Commission of Ontario for the far-
sighted expansion of its establishments in
northern Ontario. The important develop-
ments at Aguasabon, Pine Portage, Ear
Falls, Manitou, White Dog, and Silver Falls
are consistent with the general development
of the north. The construction being launched
of a steam-electric plant at Lakehead is an-
other most commendable enterprise.
Hydro expansion does much more than
parallel industrial advances. It brings hydro
to our farms and to our summer resorts areas
and is bound to have a stimulating effect on
our growing tourist trade.
I listened with great interest to the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan). In dealing
with his estimates a few days ago, he gave
one of the most painstaking and clear ex-
planations of departmental plans to which I
have ever listened in this House.
The completion of our share of the trans-
Canada highway No. 17 is on schedule, even
though a formidable gap remains to be closed.
Let me say this, in case people do not
realize what a tremendous construction job
that is, I think the hon. Minister will bear
me out. I think there is one mile of that
road, that at Agawa Bay, that goes through
a clear rock mountain, and I think the cost
of that mile of road is in the neighbourhood
of $1.25 million. One can imagine the terrific
problems there.
One bridge in my area over the White Lake
narrows is, I think, 980 feet long, and it has
to have a centre span about 31 feet high to
allow the Abitibi tugs to pull 200,000 cords
of pulp wood a year underneath.
Those are projects that cannot be done in
a day, and they cannot be done without
money, and when I hear the Opposition hon.
members speak of deficit financing and that
we should be saving, I say that they do not
1298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
know the score in the different parts of the
province, and how it is going to be built up.
It must take money, it must be built up for
the future of this great growing area as a
garden of Canada.
The completion of this magnificent route
binds Ontario closer to all our sister provinces.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was a part of
the Confederation bargain. The trans-Canada
highway is, may I suggest, of similar impor-
tance.
No longer will Sault Ste. Marie be at the
end of the line. The twin cities, Fort Frances,
and indeed many centres, will be drawn closer
together with better understanding, with a
greater flow of commerce, of a multitude of
products.
The extension from Atikokan to Fort
Frances, including the Rainy Lake causeway,
and perhaps a new international bridge, is a
long-awaited development.
I am sure also that the hon. member for
Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Lyons) rejoices with
me in the assurance that our government is
joining with the government of the state of
Michigan in building an international bridge
across the St. Mary's river. The history of
the "Soo" goes back to our earliest colonial
days, the days of LaSalle and Champlain, of
the fur traders, of the Indian wars.
As my hon. Indian friend, Chief Trees of
a Certain Height, will agree, those are things
which are most important. It is left to the
government of this day to provide this great
international facility so long overdue. They
call us a one-man government. If any one
man could start and complete the amazing
advanced projects that are going on in this
province, I would say that he is one man
whom this province should keep in office for
a great many years, because they will never
get another one like him.
The straits of Mackinac have recently
been bridged by the state of Michigan. One
of the greatest engineering structures in the
world now spans the entrance to Lake
Michigan. I suggest that this project, coupled
with the projected international bridge at
the Soo, coupled with the completion of the
southern trans-Canada route, and again
coupled with improved bridge facilities at
Fort Frances— all these factors, I suggest,
indicate a huge, new, entirely different traf-
fic pattern.
This new pattern will affect northern On-
tario, in degree Manitoba, and certainly
Michigan and Wisconsin. I doubt if any
of us can accurately foretell the ultimate
effect of this vast programme of highways
and bridge development.
The revision of our traffic laws will com-
mend itself to all those who operate motor
vehicles. We will be governed by the basic
rule of "care, courtesy and common sense."
We have here, I think, a marked advance
in the cause of traffic safety. The man to
get at is the driver, not necessarily the
owner. The point system provides a method
of separating the sheep from the goats, and
the sooner we get the latter off the road,
the better for all of us.
While on the subject of highways, I should
like to commend the hon. Minister of High-
ways in his adoption of realistic measures
to insure that contractors complete their jobs
on time. That has been a sore point with
me for many years. Some contractors who
are probably not very well financed, prob-
ably not very efficient in their work, get
a contract and it takes them two or three
years to do a job that should take one.
Let us not forget it is not the contractor
who gets the blame for that delay— it is this
government— and we know that this gov-
ernment has done everything within its power
to make it possible to finish that road in a
year, and when a contractor takes 3 years,
he is just not doing his part of the job.
The rating of contractors coupled with
this measure should be a real help in pre-
venting the disruption of traffic over long
periods just because the contractor fails to
do what he has undertaken to perform.
May I comment on one other thing, and
then I am through. I speak of this great
new parks system of ours, of Quetico and these
other parks. There is one park in my area
which I think deems special mention and
special consideration, and that is the great
gem, the tourist gem of Ontario, Nipigon.
Hon. members have heard of Nipigon for
years, and we still have not reached the point
of making that into a great provincial park.
Lake Nipigon is 90 miles long. It is teeming
with Lake Nipigon trout, pickerel, pike and
every other delicious fish that the north has,
and it does not have a sea lamprey in it. I
think the hon. Minister will agree. Am I
right? It is free of sea lampreys. It is a great
tourist paradise.
Let me read an editorial in the Fort William
Times- Journal of January 19, 1957:
Lake Nipigon Future Mecca
Douglas Oliver, the travel editor of the
Toronto Telegram, was a speaker here 15
years ago. He had something interesting
to say. He told his audience that the day
would come when that inland sea known
to the maps as Lake Nipigon would be
MARCH 26, 1958
1299
regarded as Ontario's greatest single travel
empire.
Reminiscing the other day, Mr. Oliver
recalled that he had predicted an adequate
highway encircling its 3,000 square miles
of water, and pleasure cruisers plying them
daily and at week ends.
"Well," writes Mr. Oliver, "We got a
laugh for our pains. And little wonder,
because there was no time for dreamers
in those pioneer promotion days. And, so,
there are no steamers on Nipigon as yet.
"And if you compare your latest Ontario
map with that of 1941 vintage you will find
that, save for a short stretch of road con-
necting Nipigon townsite with Cameron
Falls, the highway servicing situation there-
abouts remains unaltered.
"However, we still think we are right.
We still believe that Lake Nipigon is the
prize tourist package it always was. Just
crying for some competent authority with
vision, know-how, and above all courage,
to unwrap it for public inspection and
approval.
"Hon. Bryan Cathcart, Minister of Travel
and Publicity, could do many less impor-
tant things than to give this idea the
immediate consideration to which we
believe it to be entitled.
"For, whether Ontarians like the
thought or not, the impression is now fairly
general that this predominant province's
tourist trade may soon have to find new
and specific appeal on which to base its
future publicity campaigns.
"Lake Nipigon (the core of the provincial
forest of similar name) could well prove to
be the answer to this situation. However,
from the purely vacational standpoint few
people appear to know much about it.
"The transcontinental line of the Cana-
dian National Railways taps its most north-
erly extremity at Willet Station. Highway
11 coursing north from Nipigon town,
touches it briefly at Orient Bay, before
angling easterly to Beardmore, Longlac and
Hearst.
"Meanwhile, the maps still carry it, in all
its great sweep of travel kingdom potential.
I hope this government may suddenly sense
its importance, travelwise, and do some-
thing about it.
"Therefore, we propose that representa-
tives of Queen's Park departments of travel
and publicity, lands and forests, highways,
and planning and development jointly focus
their exploratory lamps on the Nipigon.
"Cost money? Of course, such a Nipigon
tourist development would cost money. And
oodles of it! It couldn't be brought into
full fruition at once. It would, admittedly,
have to be an orderly process. Possibly a
5-year plan at the speediest.
" 'Wonder what the Lakehead people of
today would think of this dream.' Wonder
if it would win the immediate second-
reading, or 'in principle' support of the
Legislature. At least most of these travel
conscious representatives know what can be
done when they put their minds to it.
"For, as we hear it, but for their stubborn
insistence the present highway to Atikokan
and the fabulous Steep Rock enterprise
might never have been constructed. And
what a tourist draw this road already is
destined to become."
It can be observed that Mr. Oliver's pic-
ture of the future of the Nipigon must be
fairly accurate. As a direct highway is
opened from International Falls and Fort
Frances, with improvements to be made to
the entrance at Pigeon River, and especially
with the completion of the trans-Canada
from Fort William to Sault Ste. Marie,
Lake Nipigon is due to become a major
tourist attraction in Canada.
That is something I would like to get
on the record and see something done about,
I know that the hon. Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Mapledoram), and the other
hon. Ministers, realize its importance as a
tourist gem, and I am sure that they will do
something about it.
In conclusion, I want to say what a great
honour I consider it is, to be a member of
this House. It is a good House, even the
Opposition have men whom we all respect
and like.
The other day the CCF hon. member for
Oshawa (Mr. Thomas), for whom I have
a very high regard, was talking, and he
mentioned that 75 per cent, of the city
council in Oshawa were, he considered, Con-
servative. Through all the years when there
was this great Conservative swing, this one
genuine little man from Oshawa was success-
ful at the polls. I want to congratulate him
on that great feat.
I want to thank the hon. Prime Minister
for his very courteous treatment of myself,
and for the great budget he brought down
for this province. I do not have to tell hon.
members it is a great budget. The people
who control things in this province by their
votes show that they trust him implicitly
for his honesty, and for his ability to get
1300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
things done. He has, in my opinion, a great
group of hon. Ministers who are handling
their portfolios well, as some hon. Opposi-
tion members said the other day.
I want to congratulate the hon. leader
of the Opposition, for whom I have a great
regard. He is gentlemanly in all his actions
politically, and a man whom I like to see
over there with his great sonorous voice and
tremendous speaking ability. He is a great
asset to this House.
We will be closing tomorrow, but unfor-
tunately I am leaving tonight, and to the
hon. Prime Minister, all the hon. Ministers,
and every hon. member of this House, regard-
less of his political affiliation, I want to wish
good health and good luck during the recess.
May I suggest to them that on Tuesday
morning they can all send me telegrams of
congratulations on the tremendous victory
at the polls that has been shown by the
people of Canada for the government that I
support.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I had intended criticizing the
hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Wardrope)
on some of the remarks he made in the course
of his speech. But the latter part of his
remarks, of course, disarmed me, and I can
say little against either him, or his arguments.
But I did wonder, as he waxed so enthusiastic-
ally about this government and its accomplish-
ments, if his enthusiasm was based on fact
or on hope, or a combination of the two.
I am sure that what he has said about the
administration he almost believes himself. I
hopes he does not expect that we on this
side of the House can go all the way with
him in his enthusiasm.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur has
said, this is the last of the full-dress debates
in this particular Legislature, or at least in
this particular session, and I think perhaps
that my former statement was accurate, if one
can judge from what one is told— that the
government intends to go to the people before
another session of the Legislature. However,
the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Dymond) will be able to enlighten us on that
particular point, when he speaks to us later
this afternoon.
The budget debate, which is about to end,
has drawn from the hon. members of the
House some very excellent speeches, and I
think that would be accepted by all parties
in the Legislature. The new hon. members
who have entered the House for the first time
have, in the main, acquitted themselves well
—I am not so sure of their facts. I am not
too enamoured with the type of argument that
they use.
But the way they presented their case
indicates that they are gaining at least a grasp
of provincial affairs, and will be an asset
to this House as time goes on.
I want to discuss a number of matters this
afternoon for a little while but I do not
wish to detain the House at any great length.
I want to try, if I can, to set out a number
of things in which I feel the government has
failed to act adequately or properly, and I
want to set them out and catalogue them so
that we will be able to see at a glance the
things, in my judgment, which have not been
carried out properly by the administration.
To do that, the first point I want to make,
and I do not want to argue it at length
because I have already done so in the House,
takes us back to the federal-provincial con-
ference and the tax agreement. I only need
remind the House that the present hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) has always been
quite adamant in his declaration that the
province of Ontario needs, and must have,
an extra $100 million.
In the last federal election campaign that
was the battle cry; that we had to have
another $100 million; the old government had
not seen fit to give us the $100 million, and
there was a bright morning star which
seemed to serve some indication that the
new government would give this $100 mil-
lion. The hon. Prime Minister, as was his
right, of course, entered into the last federal
campaign with an enthusiasm that he had
not heretofore displayed in federal election
campaigns, and it was so clear that he who
runs could read that there was an agreement
—whether it was written or just understood—
an agreement, nevertheless, binding I would
assume, that the election of the Diefenbaker
government would automatically secure, for
the people of Ontario, some $100 million.
Now, without making a long story, we
know what happened. We got $22 million or
22 cents on the dollar and I say again to the
House—
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): A down
payment.
Mr. Oliver: "A down payment," my hon.
friend says. I am going to deal with that
in a moment. I say again to the House, as
I said previously, that this was a political
payment in every sense of the word. I do
not believe for one moment that we would
have ever received even $22 million had
there not been the federal election which
culminates in voting on March 31. I would
MARCH 26, 1958
1301
say this further to hon. members that after
the election is over, and if by the mere
chance— there is always that mere chance in
an election campaign— Rt. hon. Mr. Diefen-
baker is returned to power after March 31—
An hon. member: He will be, too.
Mr. Oliver: Well, of course, hon. members
have their opinion. I have mine. I grant them
the right to have their opinion. They must
grant me the right to have mine. I would say
this, that if the Diefenbaker government is
returned, this government will not get
any more payments on their $100 million
deal. I would say further that it was, in my
judgment, the greatest sell-out of the people
of Ontario that has happened in their time
or mine. They were led to believe, by two
honest men, that the election of the Diefen-
baker government would give them their
$100 million. Now they needed and asked
for this election campaign, and they made
it, my hon. friends, as a down payment.
They made the first and last payment, and
that is all the hon. Prime Minister will
get on his $100 million.
Now that happened, Mr. Speaker, in the
interval that we are considering in the
fiscal year that ends on March 31, and I
suggest to the House that it does, as I say,
constitute a great sell-out for the people
of Ontario, and one of the black marks,
really black marks, against this administra-
tion in the year which ends on March 31.
When my friend, the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions speaks, I want him to
inform the House just where we find this $22
million in the budget.
I want to be sure that we did get the $22
million. I mean, it is little enough as it is,
but we want to be sure that we got even
that amount, because we find, on page Al of
the budget, under tax rental agreement, this
figure of $74,379 million, and on page A12 of
the budget account we find in the estimate
for the year ending March 31, 1959, the
figure of $87 million.
The difference between $74 million odd
and $87 million is between $12 million and
$13 million, not $22 million. But it may
be that there is an explanation for that, and
if there is, I hope the hon. Minister of Re-
form Institutions gives it to the House this
afternoon.
It is bad enough to have received only
$22 million, but if, as the records would
indicate, we received only between $12 mil-
lion and $13 million, then the sell-out has
even been more complete than I have out-
lined thus far.
The other thing that happened, and to
which I want to draw attention for a moment,
in the fiscal year that ends on March 31,
has to do with hospital insurance.
I was very glad in a way to hear the
hon. Prime Minister the other day admit
quite frankly, as he sometimes does but not
very often— he usually goes a long way
around to make an admission— but in this
instance he was peculiarly frank with the
House when he said that the agreement for
hospital insurance which he had signed with
the new administration at Ottawa was sub-
stantially the same agreement that was offered
to him by the former Liberal government.
Now that means, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would not say negotiated
with me, they offered me nothing and they
gave me nothing.
Mr. Oliver: I want to say this, Mr. Speaker,
that brings to mind another failure on the
part of this government that has happened
during this past year. In the House last year
the hon. Prime Minister was so sure that
no hospital insurance scheme would be
entered into unless it included as shareable
items the cost of tubercular and mental
institutions.
Now it was hoped, I imagine, by the hon.
Prime Minister, it was expected by these loyal
hon. members across here, that if the govern-
ment changed at Ottawa they would move
to rectify what the government here saw as
a mistake, and include as shareable items of
cost the tubercular and mental institutions.
But that has not happened. We are still
paying the cost of those institutions even as
we were before the coming into power of the
Diefenbaker government.
That, in my catalogue, is the second reason
why we should have some misgivings about
praising this administration too highly this
afternoon. In fact, if I praise it all, it will
be a mistake. I mean, I do not intend to. If
by a slip of the tongue or by some other way
I add a note of praise, I want you, Mr.
Speaker, to forgive me and strike it from the
records.
I want to come for a moment, to what I
consider is another matter for which this
government should be condemned vigor-
ously, and that is on some aspects of the
budget itself. The hon. Prime Minister, in
his capacity as Provincial Treasurer, made a
good job of reading a budget presentation
to the House. I want to get outlined and talk
about 3 or 4 matters which arise out of that
budget presentation.
1302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The first one, of course, is that the budget
reveals that in this year the government
receives a record-breaking revenue from
provincial taxation, almost $125 million more
than they had ever received in history before
from the taxes that are provincially levied in
this province. In spite of that it was revealed
that we are to add by March 31 another
$100 million to the debt.
I want to be a witness for this for a little
while, because I think that it is very im-
portant. It seems to me that the hon. Prime
Minister is very much in the position of a
former Provincial Treasurer of this province,
Mr. Monteith. I remember quite well the
time when he was sitting in one of those
seats over there, and when we criticized on
some expenditure that he had made over
and beyond the estimates that he had pre-
sented to the House, he made this famous
statement: "We had the money and we spent
it, and it was the natural thing to do." Now,
that is what my hon. friend is doing. He had
the money and he spent it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend that we live within our estimates. As
a matter of fact, we lived under our estimate.
Mr. Oliver: The only difference between
my hon. friend and Mr. Monteith was this,
that he could say with surety that he had the
money and he spent it. We are not in that
fortunate position. Our hon. Prime Minister
did not have the money, and yet he went on
and spent it just the same and that, I would
suggest, makes his sin all the greater.
So far as the $100 million is concerned,
that brings the debt, as at March 31, up
between $800 million and $900 million. Very
soon, within a year or so, we will hit the $1
billion mark, and when we do we will be
paying upwards of $50 million a year interest
on the provincial debt.
My hon. friend said the other day that we
could have easily added less to the debt if
we had cut out certain works, if we had cut
out paying for certain things. To a degree he
is right, but only to a degree. I mean, how
far can one carry this thing? How far can he
carry this argument of his with safety? How
far can the hon. Prime Minister say we can
go in piling up debt before the wheel starts
to turn back? There is a point beyond which
one cannot go, I suggest with safety, insofar
as the finances of the province are concerned.
I am one of those who believe that this gov-
ernment is just about to that point at the
present time.
And yet this government goes merrily on
its way each year, adding $100 million to
the debt and next year it is supposed to
be more than that.
I suggest in all seriousness, and with the
interest of the province at heart, that it is
time that we took stock of this situation.
It is time that we paid attention to this ever-
rising debt.
I remember hon. Mr. Porter, last year,
rising in his place as Provincial Treasurer,
and saying that it was his hope that the
government could pay about 65 per cent,
of the capital expenses out of ordinary rev-
enue. That was hon. Mr. Porter's hope.
Now I imagine that on his part it was
more than a hope. It seems to me that hon.
Mr. Porter had just about got to the place
where he said to himself and his colleagues
at that time: "In fairness, we must get to
the place where we pay at least 65 per
cent, of capital accounts out of ordinary
revenue."
Certainly I would say if I were in his
position, that we cannot go on merrily along
this road of plunging the province further
and further into debt without taking a
definite position as to what percentage of
that capital account should be paid out of
ordinary revenue.
Now my friend, hon. Mr. Porter, said
that in his judgment the amount should be
at least 65 per cent. This year it is going
to be 44 per cent.— in there somewhere—
and next year it is going to go down to about
33 per cent.
I say to the House this afternoon in all
seriousness that I could forgive, in a measure,
this administration and its record on debt
if they showed any signs of mending their
ways, if they gave to the people of this
province any indication that they realize
the seriousness of this situation into which
they are plunging this province.
But instead of recognizing the danger
signals that are flying high, they go exactly
in the opposite direction and, instead of pay-
ing 66 per cent., they pay 44 per cent, this
year and will go down to 33 per cent, next
year.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where are we
heading in respect to debt in this province?
I am not one to be easily scared by increas-
ing debt, but I am one who believes that
we must pay attention to this ever-rising
debt, particularly when it reaches the tremen-
dous proportions that we know to be the
proportions of the debt in this province of
Ontario.
I want to touch on another matter briefly,
having to do with the budget itself, and
MARCH 26, 1958
1303
that is this business of purposely under-
estimating the revenue.
I looked at the figures this morning and
they are quite revealing. They indicate this,
Mr. Speaker, that in the last 8 years under
this government, they have purposely— and
by design to serve a political pattern— under-
estimated the revenue every year for the last
8 years. And if we look at the records,
we will find that, on an average over the
last 8 years, we have underestimated our
revenue by an average of $50 million a year.
Well now, nobody worthy of the name
of an accountant or a treasurer of this prov-
ince need be $50 million out for 8 years
in a row. That was done with malice afore-
thought. It was done by design and for,
as I say, political effects.
I think the time has come in this province
for us to be realists in respect to our revenue.
Let us estimate what we think that we will
receive, not what we want to receive at the
end of the year in excess of revenue over
estimates.
For instance, take the liquor control
board this year. The estimate for revenue
for this year from the liquor control board
is just the same as it was last year.
Now I ask the House, in all fairness, how
this government will justify putting in the
estimates a figure for the liquor control board
that corresponds exactly with the revenue
from the liquor control board last year?
With more people in this province and with
a record, as we look at the figures of an
increasing revenue every year from the re-
ceipts of the liquor control board, my hon.
friend puts in his estimates precisely the
same figure for next year as he had in for
this. That is true not only of the liquor
control board, it is true of gas tax and
all the rest. The time has come in this
province—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Does the hon. leader of
the Opposition think that we will get more
liquor profits or less?
Mr. Oliver: I would think that we would
get more, does the hon. Prime Minister not
agree?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, I do not.
Mr. Oliver: Well then, we will see. We
will just mark that down somewhere. But
certainly the record has been that this gov-
ernment has been getting more every year.
Why the hon. Prime Minister would say that
he would not get any more next year, I do
not know.
Hon. Mr. Frost: How about the recession
that the Opposition talk about at the present
time?
Mr. Oliver: Well, the hon. Prime Minister
must agree that there is one, if he is one who
thinks that we will not get any—
An hon. member: That is a Tory effect.
That is Rt. hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, and he is
expecting a Diefenbaker government.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am asking about the one
he talks about, not the one I am talking
about.
Mr. Oliver: I want to make this point and
I leave it there. I think it is a mistake from
a businesslike point of view at least to pur-
posely underestimate our revenue. The
reason it is done, of course, is obvious. It is
as plain as the nose on one's face, as the
saying is, when we end the year we have a
surplus in ordinary accounts of some $50
million and so we make big fellows out of
ourselves, at least the government does, by
giving more education grants, more hospital
grants at the end of the year. That could have
been done just as well in the budget estimate
itself. It need not have been left until the
end of the year save to serve the purpose
that the government had in mind.
Then, just one more point in connection
with this: I have said that over the last 8
years the revenues from the government
departments exceeded the forecast by $50
million. Those members will find if they look
at the record that in most of those 8 years,
the increase in the provincial debt, the net
debt of the province, was less than $50
million.
In other words, if the government had
been so minded they could have kept the
debt from increasing, rather than pay out
the money in supplementary amounts at the
end of the year. That was true in a number
of these cases during the last 8 years, but I
do say again that I think it is faulty book-
keeping, it is done for a political purpose,
and it should not any longer be continued in
this House.
That is another reason, and I think a sound
one, why I cannot be enthusiastic about the
budget presented by the hon. Prime Minister
here some weeks ago.
Another thing in the budget, or arising out
of the budget, to which I have particular
objection are these kites that the hon. Prime
Minister flies in respect to certain matters.
Now this one has to do with the works pro-
gramme, and I got a clipping this morn-
ing, and I want to read it to the House. This
1304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
comes from the good old Toronto Globe and
Mail and the headline says:
235,000 Jobs Set as Goal in Record
Ontario Budget
Interjection by hon. Mr. Frost.
Mr. Oliver: That is about as feeble an effort
as the hon. Prime Minister ever engaged in.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I am very modest.
Mr. Oliver: We have reached a sorry pass
when I have to call for help in that matter.
But the first paragraph in the article says:
A works programme which will provide
235,000 jobs, and on which public authori-
ties will spend nearly $1 billion was set in
motion with the introduction of the Ontario
budget in the Legislature yesterday.
I just want to say to the House that that
is calculated misrepresentation if ever there
was any. That went over the radio, and
on the television sets of this province, and
it was set up so the people would believe
that this new budget was the vehicle by
which and through which 235,000 new jobs
were being created.
Of course, nothing could be further from
the truth than that. What the hon. Prime
Minister was doing was budgeting to carry
on precisely the same amount of work that
was carried on in the year before, and I do
not know how many new jobs he created,
but it would be a very, very small fraction
of the 235,000 which he sought to give the
impression that he was creating.
The same thing holds true in regard to
this $5 million for unemployment relief, and
I just want to say a word on that because
I made my position rather clear in connection
with it. But that legislation is, in my judg-
ment, what one might call regional legis-
lation. It helps in the main, and almost
exclusively, the metropolitan city of Toronto.
The unemployment situation in other cities
of the province is just as acute as it is in
Metropolitan Toronto, yet this whole thing
was set up to serve the purposes of Metro-
politan Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I did not have that in
mind.
Mr. Oliver: I know, the hon. Prime Min-
ister perhaps did not have that in mind,
but that is the way it is working out. This
sort of thing gives false advertising in the
very real sense of that word. The hon. Prime
Minister can surely advertise himself in other
ways, rather than by misrepresentation. That
is what he has done, definitely, in connection
with those two matters.
The other thing about which I just want
to say a word has to do with the educational
grants. Now the government has increased
grants for education this year by some $33
million. I think that is the figure. If we
want to be fair, we should remember two
things about that. One is that about a third
of that $33 million would have had to be
spent in any event to keep pace with the
rising costs of education, so that only two-
thirds or possibly less of the increase would
go toward a reduction in the cost of educa-
tion in the municipalities of the province.
WTien we apply the grants that the govern-
ment made this year to the problem of edu-
cation, we still find that it is only paying
some 40 per cent, of the cost. The cost of
education is rising, and as it rises the muni-
cipal taxpayers have to share more and more
of the load. I do not think the government
is entitled to any great credit for what it
did in educational grants. I think it should
have done much more, and the time is
close at hand when it will have to do much
more.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to
speak at any greater length this afternoon,
but simply to say that if the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions will follow at least
along the line I have indicated, I hope he
will set me right if I am wrong, and that
he will present the government's position
in a better light, because if there is a better
light he should try hard to present the picture
in that light. Thank you very much.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Mr. Speaker, in attempting
to contribute something to this budget debate,
I am not unmindful of the honour that is
mine today. The part played by so many
of the hon. members of this House has been
noteworthy, and almost without exception
praiseworthy. I, with many hon. members
have often been impressed by the quality
of debate heard in this assembly. Frequently
it is of high calibre indeed, and bespeaks
the sincere and conscientious representation
given the good people of our province by
the hon. members in this Legislature.
I want to thank the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Oliver) for even suggest-
ing that I might be able to enlighten him.
I do want to assure him, Mr. Speaker, that
I have every intention of trying to do that,
although I have to admit to a very great
degree of pessimism because, despite the
MARCH 26, 1958
1305
fact that I have always considered myself
something of an incurable optimist, I have
very little optimism as far as hoping to
enlighten my hon. friends on the opposite
benches.
However, I am going to attempt to do
that. I am going to try to enlighten the hon.
leader of the Opposition very clearly, although
I would not want to have his hopes unduly
raised because I have absolutely no inten-
tion whatsoever of even attempting to en-
lighten him on that one specific subject which
he mentioned first.
I find it very difficult to criticize the hon.
leader of the Opposition. When the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)
speaks in this House, I get a great delight
out of crossing swords with him, but I find
it very difficult to do that with the hon.
leader of the Opposition, because his argu-
ments are good, albeit a bit twisted, but
they are good. I have a tremendous admira-
tion for his ability, and I say this, in all
sincerity, I have a tremendous admiration
for his speaking ability. I am very, very
envious of it, because if I could rise as I
have seen him on occasion rise in this House,
and speak for two hours almost without
a note, I would consider myself a very fine
debater indeed.
Therefore, I hope he understands when
I say I find it very difficult to cross swords
with him.
However, I am going to take issue with
some of the things he said. First of all, he
wanted to know what the government did
with that $22 million down payment and I
would like to say here that I think that was
one of the finest down payments I ever
heard of.
I am going to tell the hon. leader of the
Opposition what we did with the $22 mil-
lion; ask the school boards of this province
of Ontario. Let him put his hand in his
own pocket after he has paid his taxes this
spring, and he will feel his share of that
$22 million, as every man and woman in
this province of Ontario will do. That is
where the $22 million is, and I assure the
hon. leader of the Opposition that is where
the rest of it will go when the remainder of
the $100 million comes to this province.
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North):
Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Minister permit
a question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will try to answer it.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Well now, does the hon.
Minister contend that he has already received
$22 million?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I just said we paid it
to the school boards of this province.
Mr. Wintermeyer: I suggest to the hon.
Minister that he does not have it, and will
not have it until the end of 1959.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This province can find
it.
I am somewhat saddened by the attitude
of the hon. members opposite. We on this
side of the House find it all but impossible
to satisfy them no matter how hard we try,
and we do try. We try very hard to satisfy
them, and I can understand the despondency
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) must
feel on occasions, after trying so hard and so
strenuously to present a budget, to present a
programme for this province that will satisfy
every hon. member of the Opposition and
then he finds that we are criticized on every
hand.
If we raise taxes we are wrong, if we lower
them we are fooling the people, if we ask
Ottawa for what is rightly ours it is phony, if
we provide money for unemployment it is a
phony plan, there is no foundation in fact.
If we give the people increased grants we are
fooling them, we are buying them with their
own money. If we do not spend more, then
we are not faithful to the trust that has been
imposed on us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, can you
wonder, when we on the government side of
the House say that we get a little bit sad-
dened because it is so difficult, and all but
impossible, to satisfy them?
I would like at the outset to make some
general comments on the budget speeches of
some of the hon. members on the Opposition
benches. My hon. friend, the member for
Waterloo North, the Opposition's financial
critic, as he has done on two previous
occasions, made an excellent speech. I have
a very high regard for his ability and his
fair-mindedness. As is his wonted custom, his
speech was well thought out and prepared,
and well delivered. I do congratulate him
sincerely on his delivery— as I have already
told him I cannot agree with his thinking— I
may have more to say about this later on.
In the spirit of reciprocity, I would also
congratulate my friend, the hon. member for
York South. I have to say I believed his con-
tribution to the budget debate this session
was more moderate in tone than on previous
occasions, but in the subject matter I am
certain my hon. friend will understand I can-
not agree with him. Concerning certain
specific matters dealt with by him, I will
probably deal at greater length.
1306
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As is customary, now the government side
of the House has this opportunity to review,
to sum up, and to rebut where need be.
To review, I might say, in very few words,
that the budget presented to this House was
a most remarkable document. So often we
talk in somewhat off-hand manner of the
greatness of our province, and I wonder if
we think very deeply about it. I believe we
need to be reminded more forcefully from
time to time of the many factors contributing
to this greatness.
How often do we remember that in area
alone we stretch 1,000 miles from east to
west, and 1,000 miles from north to south;
that a great part of our province stretching
across our southern border is a veritable
Garden of Eden; that our fields and forests,
our crops, our orchards and our vineyards,
our flocks and herds, are the envy of many
a nation greater in population and even in
wealth than we are?
And yet, strange to tell, it appears to some
as if all these are handicaps, as if they are
cause for misgiving and foreboding and des-
pair. We need, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, to be
reminded often of the greatness of our prov-
ince, and that, I say, is well done in the
budget statement of the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer (Mr. Frost).
It is a document of hope, pointing to the
aspirations of our people. It points with
justifiable pride to our past, but adjures us to
look to the future, for no people can remain
great if they continue to bask too long in the
glory of a past, no matter how glittering it
may be.
It radiates confidence; confidence even in
spite of the fact that some of our hon. friends
are fearful at the sight of some difficulties, for
example, some unemployment. To them I
say, sir, in all reverence, quoting Holy Writ,
"O ye of little faith, wherefore did ye
doubt?"
But let me hasten to point out, Mr. Speaker,
this confidence is not founded on a flimsy
hope, or a shadowy dream. It is not the
happy inconsequence of a Browning's Pippa,
which says that because "God's in his heaven,
all's right with the world." No, sir, it is a
confidence built on realism, on a business-
like recognition of our past, a sure knowledge
of our present, and a realistic assessment of
our future.
This government does not blind itself to the
fact of unemployment. We have adopted
no ostrich-like attitude to this problem. The
important fact is, this government has done
something about it.
Ah, yes, my hon. friends may scoff and
joke or even sneer about raking leaves and
gathering peanut shells, but they should re-
member these were only two of the many
projects suggested by those charged with the
responsibilities of municipal government.
They, at the grass roots, realized that great
highways and bridges, mighty public build-
ings, and other such projects, could not be
undertaken at a moment's notice, or just by
the signing of an agreement.
An emergency dare not wait for confer-
ences, discussions, and agreements. It calls for
prompt, decisive action, and that, this govern-
ment provided. This was a "crash" pro-
gramme, and although some of my hon.
friends made light of the amount provided—
$5 million— I make bold to suggest, sir, that
if more were needed, this government would
not hesitate to come to this House and ask
that further monies be made available.
This, I believe, differentiates our idea of
confidence from that of our hon. friends, who
cannot see eye to eye with us. In the face of
setback or difficulty, they run to the wailing
wall, expending all of their energy in futile,
non-productive groanings. We have, for in-
stance, the hon. member for Brant (Mr.
Nixon) wondering "if the hon. Provincial
Treasurer is not a little uneasy about where
we are going." We hear him speak about "an
alarming situation with debts piling up."
And I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, and I ask
this with all due respect to my hon. friend, for
I have always had a tremendous regard for
him; having in mind his background and his
traditions, I do wonder, does he really believe
what he says? He has seen our province come
through great times; he has seen her through
dark and difficult days; he knows, better
than many others, something of Ontario's
potential. With this sure knowledge, can
he really believe Ontario is in a serious or
precarious financial position?
Then we have my hon. friend for Waterloo
North complaining that this government is
more interested in spending money than in
managing it. He complains, "We have over-
spent ourselves by $100 million in the past
year."
Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. friend, what
would he have us do? Would he go to these
same men working in the factories of his
own Waterloo and Kitchener and say to
them: "You have not enough money in the
bank, you cannot buy a house, you cannot
put a mortgage on a house, it is not good
business, it is not good government. It is
mismanagement"?
MARCH 26, 1958
1307
Would he prefer that we in the province
give, say, $43 million to education this year?
Even that would be some $35 million more
than his party gave when last in power.
Would he have us spend only $24 million
on our vast network of highways? Would
he have us cut out all our expenditures on
health and welfare, and municipal affairs?
That would about balance our spending.
Would he have us do these things?
Of course he would not. No, Mr. Speaker,
my hon. friend knows full well that this is
the only business-like way of dealing with
the matter— and I quote his own words—
"of recognizing the fundamental economic
and fiscal problems that face this nation as
it passes rapidly and dynamically from an
agricultural to an industrial economy."
But to this government, difficulty presents
but another challenge; it calls for cool think-
ing and decisive action; it serves only to
strengthen purpose and determination; to
make more steady the hand on the helm-
to the end that our people may be brought
through their trials with as little suffering
and inconvenience as possible.
Of course we have some unemployment;
of course we will have difficulties and dis-
asters from time to time. That is the history
and the lot of all mankind. We cannot hope
to live constantly in the sunshine of the
mountain tops. We must come down occa-
sionally into the mists and shadows of the
valleys.
But so long as we retain our faith in the
visions that were ours on the mountain tops,
then we shall always be able to go forward
with courage, with vigour, and determination.
When the hon. Prime Minister presented
his budget, he closed his speech with a
quotation from the Pentateuch of Moses.
This remarkable passage I have quoted many
times, because it applies so admirably to
this land of ours, and one may say, too, to
this province.
For the Lord bringeth thee into a good
land, a land of brooks of water, of foun-
tains and depths that spring out of the
valleys and hills; a land of wheat and
barley and vines; of oil and honey; a land
whose stones are iron and out of whose
mountains thou mayest dig brass.
How well this describes our great province,
and this perhaps is better understood by
those of us who are citizens of this glorious
land by choice, rather than by chance.
The passage quoted referred to a "Land
of Promise for those who fled the slavery
of the Pharaohs." This province of Ontario
might well have been that land, for it fits
the description, yes, Mr. Speaker, it out-
strips it many, many times.
A reading of the budget statement em-
phasizes this so often and in so many ways,
presenting the facts backed by undeniable
evidence. Not one facet of the life and in-
terests of our people is overlooked. It tells
of great advances over the past year. When
we look at the total figure of the budget
—almost $600 million— and think that only 25
years ago, the entire budget of the federal
government was less than this amount, we
catch a glimpse of the strides we have made.
To what should we point as the outstand-
ing feature? To no one thing, I submit, for
the entire document is but a composite of
many outstanding features. In spite of
economic adjustment, or recession, or, as one
hon. member put it, "period of digestion,"
we note in the record, advances in nearly
every phase of endeavour; capital investment,
personal income, power consumption— all
showing substantial increases— the pulp indus-
try holding firm, despite the gloomy forebod-
ing of my hon. friend from Waterloo North.
Even agriculture, still one of our greatest
basic industries, held near to the level of
the year before. I would not leave the impres-
sion that I believe the state of our agricul-
tural economy is glowingly healthy, but I say
with equal vigour, it is not so desperate as
to call for its funeral.
Almost every economic indicator pointed
upward during the past year, and if one is to
be guided by those whose business it is to
know and predict those things, I believe we
can look with confidence to this state of
affairs being repeated in this present fiscal
year.
Over against all this, I know some of my
hon. friends opposite will point with some
glee to the increased and increasing debt.
Mr. Speaker, I have never considered
myself a financier or a financial wizard, but
a little common sense tells me very emphatic-
ally that our debt position must be related to
our income, for this is the criterion of our
ability to pay. If I want to borrow from my
bank, one of the first requirements would be
that the banker should know my income.
So, surely, it must be with the province,
and one glance shows that our total net debt
is equal to less than 1.5 year's revenue; in
other words, the mortgage on the house is
equal to less than 1.5 year's total salary. I
know a great many people who would rightly
feel they were in an excellent financial con-
dition if they could make such a claim.
1308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now my hon. friend from Brant presented
to this House yesterday some facts which he
thought were a little startling. He com-
pared the figures of 1943 with those of today.
Let us look at these again and in more detail.
In 1942-1943, the net debt of this province
was 462 per cent, of the net ordinary revenue
of that year, or, again to take our homely
simile, the mortgage on the house was equal
to more than 4.5 years' total salary. Further
the net cost of servicing that debt, that is for
interest only, was 21.2 cents out of every
dollar of provincial revenue.
Over against this we have today's picture—
the net debt, 147 per cent, of net ordinary
revenue and the cost of servicing that debt,
that is, again for interest only, is but 5 cents
out of each dollar of provincial revenue.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to interrupt my hon. friend too often,
because he is very spirited in his address.
But am I to understand that there is never
a time during which one repays his obliga-
tions? He is suggesting, I understand, that
the more revenue one has the larger his debt.
Now when does one make an effort to repay
the obligation of the debt?
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): In
expansion.
Mr. Wintermeyer: What period has this
government had in the last 12 years—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, we are expanding so
rapidly.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not pretend to be
a financier; I am only a country doctor. My
hon. friend from Waterloo North is the finan-
cial brain.
However, I would say that common sense
would tell me that the greater the demand
for expansion the greater the need for spend-
ing money, and naturally our debt will
increase. But so long as we keep it in relative
proportion as it is today, I do not think that
this province needs to worry. I do not think
we need to hang out the crepe, or run from
the bailiff, he is not coming after us.
This is evidence of dynamic leadership. It
is impossible to have growth, rapid as this
province has experienced it, without adding
to our debt.
In my own department, I believe we have
orders for over two million sets of motor
vehicle markers. Can we accommodate those
vehicles on roads of the quality of the back
concessions? Will our people be content if
we give them highways of the class and qual-
ity of our sister province of, say, Saskatche-
wan? I say not, sir— our people ask for, and
have a right to expect, the best we can pro-
vide, having in mind sound business and
keeping the provincial credit in healthy state.
And the same may be said of our north
and northwest, those great stretches of our
province, where yet, I believe, He hidden
mighty natural resources of untold value, "a
land whose rocks are iron and out of whose
mountains you may dig brass." Who can
possibly fail to thrill to the romance of the
saga of mining and mineral production in this
province?
Last year our mines produced nearly $800
million worth, and they look toward the
future with sights set even higher. Can we
hope to tap these mighty resources if this
government fails to appreciate what all this
means to our people? Can we hope to take
this bounty which has been granted us and
not expect to have to spend something in
return?
Access roads, bridges, new townsites and
development areas, all these are needed. All
these are, in some measure, the responsibility
of the government. And this budget state-
ment proves beyond shadow of doubt that
this government is aware of, and keenly alive
to, its responsibility.
In this regard, though, Mr. Speaker, we
find the hon. member for York South dis-
agreeing with us. He contends that here in
this field are great potentialities for gaining
more new revenue. Of the mining industry
and of corporations, he says, in effect: these
are fine birds ready to be plucked. He recites
in detail the gross revenue of 4 large cor-
porations. He draws some interesting com-
parisons between their gross income and the
income of all the provinces of Canada.
But he leaves the matter there. He fails to
mention their investment in property and
equipment. He says nothing of how much
they paid out for materials and wages and
taxes. He does not even tell us how much
they had left over or net profit.
I say to him that I, as a Canadian, am
proud to know we have 4 such large indus-
tries in this country. It proves to me that
others have faith in our land and in her
future, and that so many still remain in our
midst who have an unbounded faith in the
system of free enterprise.
I want to say to my hon. friend that I
hold no brief for the big corporations, the
big man, whoever he may be. I have always
believed they can look after themselves; and
I say, too, that I believe in corporation taxes.
But common sense teaches me, too, that
taxation of any corporation or commodity can
MARCH 26, 1958
1309
reach the point of diminishing returns, and
that sort of policy would do irreparable
damage to this province. I only ask my hon.
friend to look at the fate of that much-quoted
sister province, Saskatchewan, with her stag-
nant population, industry and commerce.
Would he want to see that sort of thing
happen here in Ontario?
I do not know if mining and corporation
taxes have yet reached their highest level
compatible with good business practice. But
I do say this, without equivocation, that this
government can be trusted to impose what-
ever taxes are fair and just and equitable,
without fear or favour.
Looking for a moment at these matters
gathered together under the heading of
human betterment, we see, Mr. Speaker, a
record of real concern for, and performance
in behalf of, the ordinary folk, the rank and
file of our province.
My hon. friend from York South said in
the closing paragraphs of his speech that
"this government is getting insensitive to the
needs of the little people." Somewhere he
likened us to Scrooge — I forget the exact
reference. Let me take him back in memory
to the story of Scrooge. Let him recall that
occasion when Scrooge met with the ghost
of his former partner, Marley, and when
reference was made to business, the ghost
said something like this: "Business, Scrooge,
mankind was my business, the common wel-
fare was my business, justice, mercy, for-
bearance, charity— these were my business."
And I say to my hon. friend, these too are
our business— the business of this govern-
ment.
Let my hon. friend look at the record, and
if he still believes this government to be
insensitive to the needs of the little people,
then I for one will need a new dictionary, for
mine will not thus define insensitivity.
What government in this province has
shown its concern for all of our people in
as tangible a manner as has this one? The
cost of welfare, which used to be such a
staggering load upon the home-owner, has
been so absorbed by this government, that
today the municipal share for the whole
province averages 9.3 per cent. Sometimes
figures are cold and dry. Sometimes they
are fascinating, vibrant with human interest,
and I believe this is a case in point. Let
us look at this for a moment.
The total payroll for welfare in this prov-
ince for the past year was $37.5 million.
Out of that, the province paid 62 per cent.,
the federal government 28.4 per cent., and
the municipalities averaged, as I have al-
ready noted, 9.3 per cent.
May I be permitted, for a moment, to
relate this to my own riding of Ontario, a
fairly typical county of this province, half
urban, half rural? Our total welfare payroll
was $626,842. This government paid 64.6
per cent, of this total, Ottawa paid 29.5 per
cent., and the municipalities paid 5.9 per
cent. And a glance at the report tabled yes-
terday by the hon. Minister of Public Wel-
fare (Mr. Cecile) will show every hon.
member that in some cases the municipal
share was even less than this.
The financial assistance to municipalities,
school boards and other municipal spending
bodies this year, will be in excess of half
the total municipal tax levy of the entire
province. What does this mean to the little
people? It means tax reductions of fairly
substantial amounts in some municipalities
as already announced, albeit this will not
be fully appreciated until all have struck
their tax rate.
The additional grants to local education
of $33 million is no mean sum, and grants
of $61 million for municipal roads are bound
to be reflected in the tax structure of our
municipalities.
I have no doubt some of my hon. friends
opposite will say: "But why should not this
government help in these problems which
so sorely harass our municipalities?" In this
I can agree with them, Mr. Speaker, and
I am sure the entire government agrees with
them. I mention them here only to refute
the charge that we have done nothing for
the municipalities— to show that the interest
and welfare of the ordinary folk of our
province is very much our concern.
In a little more than 9 months hence,
this province will embark on a great experi-
ment, which we all hope will redound still
further to the welfare of our people. Hospital
care insurance, which through the efforts of
this government— nay, sir, I may correctly
say through the efforts, determination, and
tenacity of the hon. Prime Minister of this
province, will be available to all the people
of Ontario who care to avail themselves of
it— coming into force on January 1, 1959.
This is forward-looking legislation — this
is a programme of human betterment of the
highest order. This, alone, had he done no
other good thing, would assure for the leader
of this government an eternal place in the
history of our province, and in the hearts
of its people.
Here again faults have been found, flaws
have been sought out, but as is so carefully
1310
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and meticulously striven for in all our legis-
lation, enough scope and flexibility have been
provided that the plan can be altered,
amended or expanded as time and experience
may dictate.
The interests of higher education have
been well attended to. A few days ago,
someone suggested to me that this was due
to the effect of the sputnik age, and sput-
nik thinking, having startled the leaders of
democratic nations, ours included.
Mr. Speaker, I do not subscribe to this
view. I have due regard for the men and
women of science— I join with many, many
people in praise of the efforts of these scien-
tists of the Soviet who first succeeded in
launching a satellite and placing it in orbit.
But I am also mindful of the declaration,
"Man cannot live by bread alone." And I
would urge that we remember to cherish our
love and respect for the humanities and to
keep the whole field of higher education in
proper perspective. I like to believe that this
government had this whole broad field of edu-
cation in mind, and I am confident it will
ever be so.
So I might well go on, Mr. Speaker, through
every department of government, and touch-
ing upon every facet of the life of our people,
pointing to what has been done and what is
being and will yet be undertaken in their
behalf. But this would be redundancy— the
record is there for all to read.
However, I would be careless indeed if I
failed to point out that this government does
not take all the credit for the accomplishment
of this province. Some of our hon. friends
opposite, particularly my hon. friend for
Bruce (Mr. Whicher), frequently remind us
that the credit belongs to our people. And
there, sir, this government rightly places it.
What hon. member who sat in this House
•on February 6 this year, can ever forget the
picture of one of our elder statesmen, the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Kennedy), as he moved
the address in reply to the speech from the
Throne? Who can forget these words he
littered, and I quote: "The fibre of a family
makes a nation." I like to think of all the
people of this great province as a family, re-
serving to ourselves the inalienable right to
disagree with, or to hold opinions differing
from, our brothers and sisters, but basically
standing together as a family unit, where the
greater welfare is concerned.
We are deeply conscious of the tremendous
effort and potential of our people. Indeed,
I believe it can truthfully be said that at no
time and nowhere in history can it be found
where any 5 million people, have done more,
produced more, earned more, subdued more,
or built more, than have our people of
Ontario.
We may have untold wealth; we may have
productive capacity beyond our wildest imag-
inings; we may be possessed of limitless natural
resources, but all of these things are as noth-
ing, if the fibre of the family, our people, is
unsound and unhealthy.
So I remind my hon. friends, we do not
lose sight of the place of our people, but we
do realize that they have placed upon us
the responsibility of leadership. This we are
giving and will continue to give them. This
fact, I believe, is proven by this accounting
we have given of our stewardship.
Mr. Speaker, the government case has been
before this House for some time, the evidence
has been well presented, the arguments have
been made and heard. Only the decision re-
mains.
To me, there can be only one sound, one
logical decision. I, therefore, urge my hon.
friends opposite to see this which is so pat-
ently clear. I ask them to recall words first
uttered by one of their own great leaders, Sir
Wilfrid Laurier. He said: "The twentieth
century belongs to Canada." How prophetic-
ally he spoke, we who now live on appreci-
ate.
But if this were true of the first half of the
century, how much more true it will be of this
second half. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge
my hon. friends opposite to join with us in
support of this motion, to the end that they
might soar with us as on the wings of the
eagle, rather than be left behind, like the
barnyard rooster, flapping furiously but in-
effectively, unable to get off the ground.
They appealed for imaginative and dynamic
leadership. I hope that I have been able to
answer or set my hon. friend, the leader of
the Opposition, straight on some of those
points on which he got led astray. This gov-
ernment is giving them that very thing. We
intend to continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we look back on our past
with pride We are justifiably proud of our
heritage, of our history, of our accomplish-
ments. We look upon our present with a
feeling that now at long last we are reaching
our maturity, that we are becoming the great
and mighty nation, by prophets long foretold.
We look forward to the future with the
sense of destiny strong upon us; a little hesi-
tant at times it may be, for the potentialities
of this land stagger even the imagination— but
ready to press forward, rising with courage
upon the wings of faith and hope, to "higher
visions, wider vistas, nobler dreams."
MARCH 26, 1958
1311
Mr. Wintermeyer: Mr. Speaker, so that YEAS— Continued
we may be more enlightened in the vote that
will immediately follow, may I direct one or
two questions to the hon. Minister, who has
so energetically and eloquently read this
address this afternoon?
I am much intrigued by the hon. Minister's
reference to the $22 million that he made at
the outset. Now can he enlighten this House,
whether or not that money is already in
hand?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have
already told them that the record is there for
all to read. Surely, on black and white is
sufficient.
Mr. Wintermeyer: Yes or no, Mr. Speaker.
I simply ask a yes or no answer.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Minister has
already given the answer. He said the record
is there.
Now, regarding the amendment:
Mr. J. J. Wintermeyer (Waterloo North)
moves, seconded by Mr. F. R. Oliver ( Leader
of the Opposition), that the motion that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the chair and the
House resolve itself into committee of supply
be amended by adding thereto the following
words :
But this House regrets that the budget
does not in any way recognize or solve the
fundamental fiscal problems of the province
of Ontario in its rapid evolution from an
agricultural to an industrial economy, and
in particular, lacks imaginative leadership
in the solution of—
1. Municipal-provincial fiscal relations;
2. A long-range programme for highway
construction and financing;
3. A failure to devise a plan for manag-
ing the ever-rising debt.
Now the vote is on the amendment to
the motion, moved by Mr. Wintermeyer and
seconded by Mr. Oliver.
Will all hon. members who are in favour
of the amendment please say "aye."
As many as are opposed, please say "nay."
The amendment to the motion was nega-
tived on the following division:
NAYS— Continued
YEAS
NAYS
Gisborn
Allan ( Haldimand
Gordon
Norfolk)
Innes
Allen (Middlesex-
MacDonald
South )
Manley
Auld
Nixon
Beckett
Oliver
Belisle
Thomas
Boyer
Whicher
Cass
Wintermeyer
Cathcart
Worton
Cecile
Wren
Chaput
-12.
Child
Collings
Connell
Cowling
Daley
Dunbar
Dunlop
Dymond
Edwards
Elliott
Fishleigh
Foote
Frost (Bracondale)
Frost (Victoria)
Goodfellow
Graham
Griesinger
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hanna
Herbert
Jackson
Janes
Johnston (Parry
Sound)
Johnston (Simcoe
Centre )
Johnston (Carleton)
Jolley
Kerr
Lavergne
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
Maloney
Mapledoram
Monaghan
Morningstar
Morrow
Murdoch
Myers
McCue
McNeil
Noden
Parry
Phillips
Price
Rankin
Robarts
Roberts
Robson
1312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
NAYS— Continued
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Scott
Spooner
Stewart (Middlesex-
North )
Stewart (Parkdale)
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-73.
Mr. Speaker: I decalre the amendment lost.
The vote will now be on the main motion.
The motion was agreed to on division as
follows:
YEAS
NAYS
Allan (Haldimand-
Gisborn
Norfolk)
Gordon
Allen (Middlesex-
Innes
South)
MacDonald
Auld
Manley
Beckett
Nixon
Belisle
Oliver
Boyer
Thomas
Cass
Whicher
Cathcart
Wintermeyer
Cecile
Worton
Chaput
Wren
Child
-12.
Collings
Connell
Cowling
Daley
Dunbar
Dunlop
Dymond
Edwards
Elliott
Fishleigh
Foote
Frost (Bracondale)
Frost (Victoria)
Goodfellow
Graham
Griesinger
Grossman
Guindon
Hall
Hanna
Herbert
Jackson
Janes
Johnston (Parry
Sound )
Johnston (Simcoe
Centre )
YEAS— Continued
Johnston (Carleton)
Jolley
Kerr
Lavergne
Letherby
Lewis
Macaulay
Mackenzie
Maloney
Mapledoram
Monaghan
Morningstar
Morrow
Murdoch
Myers
McCue
McNeil
Noden
Parry
Phillips
Price
Rankin
Robarts
Roberts
Robson
Root
Rowntree
Sandercock
Scott
Spooner
Stewart (Middlesex
North)
Stewart (Parkdale)
Sutton
Wardrope
Warrender
Whitney
Yaremko
-73.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, may I make one or two announce-
ments to the House?
One of them is this, sir— relating to the
chairs which were formerly in the assembly.
Those chairs are really of no value here in
the building, beyond the ones that are
retained here in the chamber. I think that
your Honour has proposed that one chair be
sent to each county, if they so desire it, or
that one chair might go to a suitable place
in the districts, which take the place of the
counties.
All of the 98 chairs are not in shape to
send out, but in any event, there are enough
to do that, and I just wanted to explain that
to the assembly. The chairs here probably
date back to the time that the assembly was
on Front street.
MARCH 26, 1958
1313
I would point out to your Honour, or to
the hon. members of the House, in connec-
tion with the furniture in the assembly,
there are a few of the desks here that date
back to very early days of this assembly, as
does the table and does the calender and
there are some of the benches under the
Speaker's gallery, which I think go back to
very early times. How early, I am unable to
say, but certainly well back into the days
when the Parliament buildings were on Front
street and probably dating back into pre-
Confederation days.
The older desks in this assembly are the
narrow ones— now they may have been re-
moved in the meantime and some of them
kept elsewhere, but in any event, these desks
or some of them would go back to very early
times, as far as the province is concerned.
Mr. Speaker: I say, in this connection,
that you know there are 98 constituencies, and
if all the hon. members wanted a chair for
their constituency, the whole 98 would be
gone, and the chairs are not all in good con-
dition.
We have suggested that one go to each
county and district, as the hon. Prime Minister
has said.
Now if each hon. member will give me the
name of the place to which this chair is to be
forwarded to in his county or district, I will
see that a chair is dispatched just as soon as
we can possibly dispatch it at the close of the
session.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, also at this
time, I might say to the hon. members that
I propose to move, later in the day, that the
House reassemble at 10.30 tomorrow morning,
which I think would permit prorogation by
some time between 12 and 1 o'clock, which
I think would suit the convenience of the
hon. members a good deal better than letting
the session convene at the normal time of 2
o'clock.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Would it be out of line if I asked a question
regarding the chairs? There are so few coun-
ties compared with the chairs, and take the
city of Toronto, for instance, or the city of
Hamilton. There are so many hon. members
from there. They would not each require
chairs, but would there be sufficient chairs
to give each city hall a chair— the same as you
would give to the county?
Mr. Speaker: I would like to say to the hon.
Provincial Secretary that this is only a prelim-
inary move. We will give one to each county
and then after that, we will take all these
other factors into consideration, and if it is
possible to give one or more, perhaps, to the
larger cities, we will be very glad to do it.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington - Dufferin): Mr.
Speaker, in Wellington county we have two
ridings, and at one time there were 3. Would
you suggest the museum or the county council
or what? I am sorry I was not here when
you started this discussion.
Mr. Speaker: Well, we have had quite a
number of requests already from local
museums, and we are trying to limit the chairs
to one to a county as a preliminary move. If
the hon. member has a museum in his area, or
a library or some public building that wants
a chair, we would be very glad to have the
name of it, and we will certainly look after it.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Mr. Speaker, before you
start would you let the House know which
hospital the hon. member for Essex North
(Mr. Reaume) is in? He has not been well
after getting that speech off his chest last
night. We would be glad to send some flowers
to him, so if you would just let us know.
He generally takes two weeks' rest after he
makes a speech.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I do not pro-
pose at this time to have you put through
the final item of the estimates, that being
reserved for tomorrow. I would point out to
the House, that the motion having carried,
the formality is proceeded with the Speaker
leaving the chair. Tomorrow we will com-
plete the estimates.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves the committee of
supply do rise and report progress, and begs
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report progress and begs leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
2, standing in the name of Mr. T. D. Thomas.
Resolution—
That, in view of the statement of the
hon. Prime Minister expressing personal
approval of compulsory automobile insur-
ance, this House is of the opinion that the
government should consider the proposal
of any such compulsory coverage being
provided at cost, through a government-
sponsored automobile insurance plan.
1314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. D. Thomas (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
in presenting this resolution for debate, I
want the hon. members to realize that I am
only asking the government to consider
coverage at cost of compulsory automobile
insurance through a government sponsored
insurance plan.
If the majority of the people in the prov-
ince of Ontario, and I think they do, approve
of compulsory automobile insurance, and I
think the hon. Prime Minister has gone on
record as stating his approval, too, then I
think they have the right to ask for, and we
have the duty to provide, that service at cost.
If we compel drivers of vehicles to carry
insurance, then obviously, we are diverting
business to the insurance company. If we do
this, I feel sure the first thing the insurance
companies will do is to increase the premium.
Faced with this possibility, I think the case
for a government sponsored automobile insur-
ance plan becomes quite conclusive.
I may add that the present method of
providing protection against automobile acci-
dents is highly uneconomic and unsatisfactory.
The reports in the Financial Post on private
automobile coverage during the past few years
are very revealing. Only 52 cents to 57 cents
out of each premium dollar was paid out in
claims. The remaining 43 cents to 48 cents
is used up in administration and collection
charges.
In contrast, I want to bring to the attention
of hon. members that, out of every $1 col-
lected in premiums by the province of
Saskatchewan, 84 cents is paid out in claims.
Only 16 cents is required, or retained, to cover
administration and promotion costs.
Now, in Saskatchewan, they have adopted
the principle that any resident injured in a
highway accident requires compensation, ir-
respective of whether he is a driver, passenger
or pedestrian, and regardless of whose fault
the accident was. They have made the pay-
ment of this compensation a collective liability
on all drivers and vehicle owners by imposing
a compulsory premium which must be paid
when the car and driver's licences are bought.
The compensation is paid out according to
a scale of benefits, and no court judgment is
necessary to determine damages or liabilities,
since the fund is responsible for all payments.
Mr. Speaker, I may say the Saskatchewan
plan was begun in 1946. For $1 extra on his
driver's licence, and $5 on the car licence,
the Saskatchewan motorist receives public lia-
bility protection and personal injury protection
for himself and for his passengers, even if
he were responsible for the accident. With
these fantastically low rates, I may say, Mr.
Speaker, the scheme still ended, the first year,
in 1946, with a surplus of over $700,000.
Today, the Saskatchewan motorist receives
what is known as 6-point coverage. This
plan achieves a number of things which
private insurance, either voluntary or public
does not.
It provides minimum coverage to all motor-
ists injured in motor vehicle accidents, and
not only just for those who fit in under a
standard insurance policy. The plan covers
hit-and-run victims, lengthy and costly litiga-
tion has been eliminated, and needless ex-
penses are avoided.
The hon. Prime Minister, when speaking
in the debate on the proposed hospital plan
for Ontario, stated that the hospital plan
which had operated in Saskatchewan since
1947 is the finest of its kind in Canada.
I know the hon. Prime Minister is not
dogmatic. I would now ask him to examine
the compulsory automobile insurance plan
now in effect in Saskatchewan. He stated, at
one time in this assembly, that he had been
subjected to tremendous pressure from the
insurance companies in trying to stop the
introduction of the hospital plan.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, he had the intest-
inal fortitude at that time to rise and say:
"This plan goes into effect. This is it."
I hope on this occasion, when we are ask-
ing the government to consider a compulsory
automobile insurance plan sponsored by the
government, that he will have the courage
to rise to the same insurance people and say
"This plan is for the benefit of the people of
Ontario," the same as he did about the
hospital plan.
As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, this
resolution is asking the government to consider
the setting up of a compulsory automobile
insurance plan sponsored by the government.
I am quite sure that all hon. members will
support it. It is only asking the government
to consider this.
I remember when speaking in a similar
debate 12 months ago, I stated at that time
I attended a banquet in the city of Oshawa
and there was a very wealthy individual, I
suppose he would be regarded as a millionaire,
and when I mentioned to him my intentions
regarding a resolution respecting compulsory
automobile insurance, I said: "What do you
think about it?" He said: "I am all for it, but
it must be administered by the govern-
ment."
I think that is the only way, Mr. Speaker,
that we are likely to get a rate that will fit
MARCH 26, 1958
1315
into the pocket of our people. If we are going
to compel the people in Ontario, who are
driving cars, to take out automobile insur-
ance, then I am quite sure the question they
will ask is: "Will you provide it at cost?"
Mr. Speaker, in presenting this resolution
for debate before the hon. members, I hope
that they will concur with it and support it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Oshawa will have to have a seconder.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York
South): will second that.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. T. D. Thomas moves,
seconded by Mr. D. C. MacDonald:
That in view of the statement of the
hon. Prime Minister, expressing personal
approval of compulsory automobile insur-
ance, this House is of the opinion that the
government should consider the proposal
of any such compulsory coverage being
provided at cost, through a government-
sponsored automobile insurance plan.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. mem-
bers of this House understand that this gov-
ernment is naturally interested in motor
vehicles being insured, and it was with that
thought in mind that our present plan was
adopted, whereby those owners of vehicles
who were not carrying insurance were
required to pay $5 into the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund.
I am pleased to be able to report to the
House that that has been responsible for a
greatly increased number of owners of motor
vehicles being insured.
It has often been stated by hon. members
of the government that our hope and ambi-
tion is that all owners of motor vehicles will
be insured. It has been mentioned as well
that the plan that should be followed, in
accomplishing this fact, is one that requires
a great deal of consideration and study.
This plan, which has come into effect
this year, will enable us to have that study.
At the end of the current year we will know
how many persons are insured, or how many
owners are insured, as well as the number
who are not insured.
I think it might be interesting to the hon.
members of the House if I brought to their
attention our position as a province, so far
as automobile insurance rates are concerned,
in comparison with other comparable juris-
dictions.
Now, it is generally recognized that com-
pulsory insurance requires that every driver
and every motor vehicle should be insured,
and then the problem arises as to who will
be given that insurance.
Under our present system, a great many
drivers, whose record has not been good,
have been removed from the road for the
reason that it has not been possible for them
to obtain insurance and because of the re-
quirements of The Highway Traffic Act,
whereby these drivers who have unsatis-
factory records are not permitted to drive
unless they do have insurance.
As a result of this regulation, it is reason-
able to assume that the experience of the
insurance companies must have been com-
paratively satisfactory in comparison to other
jurisdictions.
I have some rates which I obtained, and
which apply to a preferred risk, with limits
for personal injury to one person $10,000
and personal injury to two or more persons
$20,000 and property damage of $5,000.
In rural Ontario, the standard rate for such
a policy is $23, while in the Toronto area, it
is $32.
Now let us compare that with other juris-
dictions; some that have had compulsory
insurance for some time, some who have
had it for only one year, and some who do
not have it at all.
In Boston, Massachusetts, the comparable
rate with Toronto at $32 is $167.10; in the
Buffalo, New York, area, $76.40. New York
city, I would not suggest as comparable,
but you might be interested in the rate there
which is $124.45. In Montreal, $58. In
rural Massachusetts their rate of $54.70 com-
pared with $23 in rural Ontario, with $48.80
in rural New York state, and $46 in rural
Quebec.
These rates indicate to me that our acci-
dent experience in this province, under our
present system, must be considered to be
satisfactory. I endeavoured to compare our
experience here with the province of Saskat-
chewan, but such a comparison is very diffi-
cult for the reason that the compensation paid
in the province of Saskatchewan is so dif-
ferent from that of any other jurisdiction.
Many of us read, and there was a great
deal of publicity given to, an instance where
a young man was awarded $125,000 damages
for the loss of his eyes, in our courts. The
compensation paid in Saskatchewan for a
similar loss is $4,000, so that when we com-
pare rates— and to have a comparison for a
study that is worthwhile— a very intensive
and detailed study is required.
1316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Saskatchewan system, likewise, has a
limit of $2,000 for property damage and a
deductible amount of $200 on each policy,
and the information I have indicates that
5 out of 6 of the property damage claims
are under $200. We have, as well, the con-
ditions that exist in Saskatchewan. It is
largely a rural province with a smaller popu-
lation, and a lesser density of traffic. As a
result, the accident record should be better.
I feel that in this province at the present
time, with our increased minimum limits of
payments for public liability, and for prop-
erty damage, the limits of payment are
exactly the same under the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund, as is the minimum that is re-
quired for an insurance policy, and are
similar to the requirements in the state of
New York. The state of New York as we
know, has just completed one year's experi-
ence with compulsory insurance. However,
they do not have an unsatisfied judgment
fund, so that in reality there will be certain
persons in New York state who will not
have the protection that our motorists and
others in this province have.
The collection of the $5 additional fee to
be paid into the unsatisfied judgment fund
made possible the increased damage payments.
The amounts were raised from $5,000 to
$10,000 for one person, and from $10,000 to
$20,000 for two persons or more, and prop-
erty damage was increased from $1,000 to
$2,000.
Also this session, we have removed many of
those items which we felt tended not to facili-
tate the payment of the money out of the
fund, to make it possible to have the person
who had a claim which had been justified, to
receive the money more promptly than had
been possible before.
The Saskatchewan fund is similar to our
unsatisfied judgment fund in one respect. The
amounts that are paid by way of compensation
in Saskatchewan are paid without a court
action, while the damages, which an innocent
person who has been effected may receive, are
only paid as a result of court costs almost en-
tirely similar to our unsatisfied judgment fund.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. Minister is wrong there.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is the information I
have. We have looked at it very carefully.
The compensation is paid without a court
action, but the damages in addition to the
compensation are only paid as a result of the
court action.
Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling, and I am
sure that such is shared by the great majority
of the hon. members of this House, that the
study we are conducting this year is a matter
of sound practice which is possible because
of the change brought about by the collection
of the necessary fee, which will provide us
with the first sound information concerning
those owners of motor vehicles who are in-
sured, and those who are not. After gaining
this experience, we will then be in a much
better position to decide our next step.
The matter of our examination centres— that
is, the establishment of examination centres
which are conducted by civil servants— is a
part of our overall plan. We would like to
reach the stage whereby insurance companies
would accept the result of our examinations
as a basis for their issuing, or not issuing,
insurance to the drivers of motor cars.
We think that will be possible, and I think
I express the feeling of certainly a very great
majority of this House when I say that the
plan we now have is a satisfactory one. It
is going to be most helpful. In fact I would
not— and I ask that the hon. members of the
House do not— lose sight of the fact that our
experience in this province, as indicated by
our insurance rates, suggests that we have had
a satisfactory plan.
But we feel that it is desirable that all
owners of motor cars, and drivers of motor
cars should be insured on a sound basis that
will be satisfactory to the people of our
province, and that is the plan we now have
underway.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to support what the
hon. Minister of Highways has said, and at
the same time, I would like to tell the hon.
Minister of Highways and his Deputy Minister
how the insurance industry and the insurance
people generally in the province of Ontario
appreciate the splendid co-operation that they
have had.
Interjections by some hon. members.
Mr. Cowling: What are all those cracks
over there?
Mr. Thomas: I would think they would
appreciate—
Mr. Cowling: Oh, thank you very much. I
am just simply telling the hon. member that
they do.
I am not going to say anything about
Saskatchewan. I had quite a bit to say at the
time we spoke on the Throne debate, Mr.
Speaker. Saskatchewan is a nice little rural
province, and they do not have the same
problems that we have in Ontario.
MARCH 26, 1958
1317
Hon. Mr. Frost: A shrinking population.
Mr. Cowling: That is right. A shrinking
population, so it is all right for them to run
their little show out there, but it is a dif-
ferent problem than we have in Toronto.
I wanted to say again that the new plan
of the $5 fee to those owners who are not
insured is a good one, and certainly by the
end of this year, the hon. Minister will be
in a position to come up with some pretty
definite figures and statistics which we have
never had before in the province.
It is estimated with this new plan, that
by the end of the year, we will have probably
80 per cent, or 90 per cent, of the car
owners in our province insured, which is
going a long way in the right direction.
Now, a lot of study has been given to
the problem, and I believe that we need
to give it a lot more. Whether the study
should be carried on by a Royal commission,
or by a select committee of the House, is
something that can be considered as we
go along. As hon. members know, in the
province of Nova Scotia, they had a very
excellent Royal commission report, and I
made some mention of that in the debate
before. One of their final recommendations
was to the effect that they recommended to
the Legislature of that province, that a com-
pulsory automobile plan be set up, operated
through private insurers, and of course that
is the one that I would support.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I some-
times think that governments generally are
getting into a lot of businesses, and I often
wonder why our hon. friends on the opposite
side chose insurance as one of the things
that the government could very well take
over. I think it is a very good indication
that it is a wonderfully sound and prosperous
type of business, or else our hon. friends in
the CCF would not want the government
to be going into it.
Mr. Thomas: Would the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. Cowling: Yes, I am going to permit
a question, but I should remind my hon.
friend that here, a little while ago, I rose
and asked him if he would permit a ques-
tion and he gave me the old brush-off.
But to show him that I am a very democratic
fellow, I would be happy to answer his ques-
tion, if possible.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to ask the hon. member if he was sur-
prised when the government of Ontario got
into the hospital field, or will get into the
field, on January 1, 1959?
Mr. Cowling: No, I was not surprised, Mr.
Speaker, but I do not hesitate to say that I
spoke in opposition to it for a great many
years, and I will admit that.
Mr. Thomas: And he was proved wrong.
Mr. Cowling: I admit that, and I was
wrong. The government is now in the busi-
ness, and we are going ahead with this great
plan. I can be wrong. I think we all can.
I think it is a great thing, Mr. Speaker, when
one can admit it.
But at the present time I am saying this,
that if we get into a compulsory scheme, that
it should be done through the private insur-
ers, and I am saying that again now, because
they are the people with the experience, and
they are the people who can handle it prob-
ably better than the government.
I just want to support what the hon. Minis-
ter of Highways has said, let us go slow on
this thing. Let us back it up with facts and
figure which we are getting together, and we
will be in a great position by the end of
1958 to proceed on a sound business-like
basis.
The hon. members of the House should
remember, Mr. Speaker, that we are launch-
ing this tremendous hospital plan on January
1, 1959, and that is quite a bite to be chew-
ing off all at the one time, and I hesitate to
see us considering too seriously a programme
of compulsory insurance at the same time.
Mr. H. F. Fishleigh (Woodbine): I sin-
cerely hope that this government never goes
into the car insurance business. How would
one like to be an hon. member, and have
one of his constituents involved in an acci-
dent? The phone will ring, and he will have
to rush down to the government, or some
government agency to help the constituent
out, because it would be his duty to look
after a constituent, whether he was in the
right or whether he was in the wrong.
It will be a sad day for us, as members,
to get into that business.
Moreover, the costs were brought up, in-
volving 42 per cent. I do not know where
they get those costs because I am on the
board of a mutual company, and the insured
gets his insurance at cost.
All we have is our overhead of the office,
and the office is not very much. The hon.
Minister pointed out the various rates com-
pared with Boston and compared with
Ontario.
1318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now those rates, $32 he mentioned, will
not continue forever, because every company,
I believe, in the province of Ontario, is losing
money today on car insurance. No doubt
the rates will have to be adjusted upwards
somewhat, but not to the extent of Quebec
or Boston. It will be a sorry day for us as
hon. members if we go into the insurance
business and I would certainly be against it.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Before
my hon. friends speak, might I just say
a word on this subject. As a matter of fact,
I said to the hon. member for Oshawa, that
I was anxious that he should bring up this
resolution, and I am quite interested. What
I will say has a bearing, of course, on the
resolution introduced by my hon. friend from
Bruce (Mr. Whicher). I am glad those
resolutions are there, and I would like the
hon. members of the House to have the
fullest of opportunity of discussing them.
I may say, with the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. Allan), that I did suggest
to him that he should endeavour to have a
discussion on this matter in the committee
on highway safety, and I hope that there
was a good discussion there. I am very
anxious that such should be the case.
Now, sir, I have been very much interested
in the problem of providing compensation
by way of insurance for persons who are
injured, or who suffer property damage, or
whose families suffer through accidents on
the highway.
I think that is a highly important subject.
I want to put certain questions before the
House and, through this medium, put cer-
tain questions to the people of Ontario, to
clear certain matters.
First of all, I am not enamoured of my
hon. friend's proposal in connection with gov-
ernment-sponsored car insurance. I may say
that as one who has had a good deal to
do with sponsoring hospital insurance.
The premises are entirely different, and
I must admit that I would hesitate to put
the government or a government agency
into the car insurance business. I will not
elaborate on my reasons for that. They are
many and varied.
I would say this, that in a province such
as this, I would be very fearful that if we
got into that type of insurance, it would
mean that it would have to be all-embracing
and that the premium would increase. Now
it must be remembered that in hospital
insurance, there is a very definite limitation
to the stay of people, and there is every
effort being made to control that situation.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): The hon. Prime
Minister does not let them stay.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, but I point out this—
the person remains in hospital —I am talking
about hospital insurance— for the period of
time that he or she needs to be there.
Now the great problem with a government-
sponsored system of insurance is this. This
is one of the problems that I see. The minute
that the government, or a government agency
or insurers get into compulsory insurance,
making persons compulsorily insure, then, of
course, we change altogether the attitude that
courts and juries take in connection with
cases. Now that is a very important point,
and we run into this.
In the administration of justice, we have in
the supreme court, perhaps 20 judges who
determine these cases. We have a great host
and a great array of county judges that assess
the cases. About the only way it could be
handled would be by an adjustment, something
after the fact of the workmen's compensation
board. Now, the minute we do that, of course,
we very much interfere with the rights of
citizens. I would say this, that I think the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Oliver)
would again elaborate on our descending into
boards and commissions to deal with matters
of that sort.
At the present time, a jury decides a damage
case on the basis of the damages that are in-
curred by an individual. It is forbidden for
any counsel to mention to a jury that a person
is insured, for very obvious reasons. That is
a very strict rule, and it is such that it can be
the. ground for a retrial.
Now remember, the minute compulsory
insurance enters the picture, that vanishes.
There is no need to tell a person that
there is insurance in the case, for the
very reason that everybody knows that
insurance is compulsory. I think that we
would certainly have to get down to some
type of a board adjudication on the amount
of damages for this reason, that we would be
faced with this— a judge in one county might
might take a totally different view than a
judge in another, so might a jury, and there
would have to be some method of levelling—
I see my hon. friend for York South agrees.
Now I would say-
Mr. MacDonald: One cannot avoid the legal
costs.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That, of course, is a differ-
ent question because, remember, one would
not insure unless there was liability, and I
would say that matter is a very serious one
MARCH 26, 1958
1319
I
and could very much— remember, somebody
has to pay for this, and the way it would be
paid would be through the premium
Here are some other questions. I would
like the hon. members, in discussing this very
important question, to remember these things:
First, in talking of compulsory insurance,
the average person believes that there is, or
that there could be, a total coverage. That
is incorrect. We would still have to have
the unsatisfied judgment fund for this reason.
There are some 6 million cars presently com-
ing into this province, probably more than
that.
Now, those cars come from various states
and jurisdictions and they come into the prov-
ince of Ontario. They may not have a cover-
age which provides protection for a person
who is injured, or the familv of a person who
is killed, in this province. Therefore, to have
complete coverage, there must be an unsat-
isfied judgment fund.
That, I think, follows. The matter of
having compulsory insurance does not mean
abolishing that fund.
The second thing is this. The unsatisfied
judgment fund protects against the hit-and-
run driver, and I would point out that there
is only one way to protect against that, and
that is by something in the form of an un-
satisfied judgment fund.
May I point out this, that there is also this
feeling— and I noticed it in some of the
editorials in the papers. A short time ago,
last fall or last summer, there was a judg-
ment recovered in one of the Hamilton
courts, or one of the Wentworth courts, for
$125,000 and costs, and stacked up against
the judgment of $125,000 was the amount of
the unsatisfied judgment payment, which at
that time was $5,000 and $10,000. Now it is
$10,000 and $20,000.
People would thoughtlessly say that, if
there was compulsory insurance, that person
would receive the $125,000. May I point out
that that is completelv incorrect, for this
reason. No fund could afford to carry a
coverage of $125,000 or an unlimited cover-
age such as some people possess today in
private insurance.
As a matter of fact, if you had compulsory
insurance in the province of Ontario today,
the compulsory limits would hardly exceed
the limits of today which are what— they
would be undoubtedly the same, that is—
what is the collision? 10-20 and 2. What is
the 2 for?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The "2" is the amount
paid out of the unsatisfied judgment fund,
the "5" is the minimum for which an insur-
ance policy may be obtained for property
damage.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All ri^ht then, it is
$10,000 for one person or $20,000 for one
accident. If one were to exceed that, the cost
of the compulsory insurance would simply be
prohibitive. There must be a limit, and I
doubt that thev can exceed the limits that we
have, preferably today.
It is false thinking to think that if vou
have compulsory insurance, that a case like
the Hamilton case is going to be taken care
of, because it simply could not be taken
care of.
Mr. Whicher: Could I ask the hon. Prime
Minister if he knows what the coverage is in
Massachusetts or New York?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I could not give the
details of that, no, but I would say this.
At the present time, and I am talking about
this matter, pointing out some of the prob-
lems without attempting to prejudice the
ultimate solution at all, and I will listen
with great interest to what the hon. members
of this House have to say in connection
with it.
I think that all of the evidence would point
to this at the moment. Unless there is some-
thing that could be done, or can be shown
to remedv this, that the premiums undoubt-
edly would be driven up. Let hon. members
remember this, that we have a great deal of
competition between private concerns at the
present time. When we get into this very
doubtful field of automobile insurance, if
we have it, either by a single company, by
a government-owned company or by other
companies, we are going to drive up the
premiums, and the policyholders are going
to pay the costs of all of these things that
I have mentioned in their premiums.
Mav I point out this, today every hon.
member of this House, every person in On-
tario, every man, woman and child in Ontario,
is todav covered by insurance under the
unsatisfied judgment fund for 10 and 20
as we have mentioned. Now that insurance
is purchased at this price— at $1 for every
driver and $5 for car owners who have no
insurance or insurance certificate.
Now, it has some very definite advantages,
it has this control, that it does not drive
up the cost of the person who insures, and
the other point is that it has this very great
effect, that if a person is not insured and
drives on the road and causes an accident,
1320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and is the subject of a judgment, then that
person is put off the road.
That is a very great control, and I would
say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we want to
look very carefully before we abandon that.
I would point out this, that with compulsory
insurance I think it is the duty of the state
to see that a person is able to get insurance
if he is able to navigate around at all, and
this would drive up the premium.
Now the alternative to this is to cut every-
body off at say 68 years of age or 70 years
of age — regardless, and to cut off certain
people who are driving with disabilities
today. There are many people who are very
good drivers today, who are given permits
and who drive with certain forms of
disability. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if
we have compulsory insurance, we have to
say this, that everybody with a disability is
entitled to drive a car or, in the alternative,
if they have certain disabilities, they are
automatically barred, and when they get to a
certain age, they are automatically barred.
Mr. MacDonald: Why would we have to
say that?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Of course we would, and
this includes a person with a certain defect
in vision. Now, with myself, I think my
vision is fairly normal when I have my
glasses on, but no doubt they would have to
make certain conditions and rules in connec-
tion with vision that would be unalterable.
Now I would say this—
Mr. Whicher: Do they not do that now
with the hon. Prime Minister's insurance?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Now, just a moment, just
a moment. I am telling the hon. member
when we get into the matter of compulsory
insurance it is not an easy matter. I have
done a lot to sponsor hospital insurance in
this province, which can be on a compulsory
or a mandatory basis, and I think that I am
speaking with some knowledge.
I look at the problem in connection with
compulsory insurance with a great deal of
misgiving, and I would like some of the other
hon. members-
Mr. MacDonald: He is confusing the issue.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I was talking to the hon.
member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) who
has some very good ideas in connection with
this matter. It may be, and I am not laying
this down as the solution, but it may be this,
that the solution is to leave our insurance
arrangements that we have at the present time
with private insurers, leave those things alone,
and encourage the competition that there is at
the present time, which is giving to us here
in Ontario, generally speaking, among the
lowest rates of any comparable jurisdiction.
There is no use comparing us with jurisdic-
tions that are not like us, but any comparable
jurisdiction in America.
I would think that every hon. person in
this assembly today is insured. If he meets
with an accident, he is protected with the
present limits of 5 and 10, but if there is
compulsory insurance, I warn hon. members
that they could never count on any more than
that, because it would be too expensive for
the ordinary man to pay, and he would never
do it.
It may be that the remedy is in this.
First of all, perhaps by raising the limits in
some way of the unsatisfied judgment fund,
which has certain very great restrictions in
it— that is, it can put a person off the road.
I do not think there is a greater deterrent in
this province than that.
It might be possible, in some ways, to
increase the limits of that unsatisfied judg-
ment fund in this way— by increasing the
amount of the present $1 contribution, per-
haps upping the $5 that we are presently
paying. I would not pass on that because
that is a pretty difficult problem. As a
matter of fact, it may be that the $10 and
$20 limit that we have at the present time
is all that any scheme of that sort could bear.
The second one would be to make a provi-
sion—now I admit there are difficulties in
this— for an easier payment from the fund
without having to go through some of the
details and formalities that we have at the
present time.
I recognize that there are difficulties when
it comes to making payment by way of a
settlement, and then causing the liable per-
son, with all these sanctions against him,
to be put off the road if he does not pay.
After all, a person is entitled in these things
to the verdict of a court, and that is going
to be the situation, and remember we have
that at the present time.
Those are just some of the things that I
suggest the hon. members consider.
We are doing something in this province
at the present time, that has not been at-
tempted elsewhere, and the hon. Minister
of Highways has explained that. That is,
the bringing in of the $5 payment for the
person who has no insurance certificate. We
will have data to go on at the end of this
year which no other jurisdiction has had,
MARCH 26, 1958
1321
insofar as I am aware, in dealing with this
problem.
Of course, we are watching the experiment
being carried on in the state of New York
at the present time. And if there are things
to be learned from the New York experi-
ment, let us make use of them.
On the other hand, I would compare them
very carefully with what we are doing here
at the present time, because again I think
if we have compulsory insurance in the
province we are not going to increase the
protection of the people of the province of
Ontario by one penny's worth unless we are
prepared to raise the limits and raise the
premiums accordingly.
That is about the situation as I see it, and
I do not put those things before the House
dogmatically. I put them before the House
for the purpose of getting viewpoints which,
I can assure hon. members, we will listen to
with interest, and they will be taken into
consideration in dealing with this problem
in the coming year or two.
Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Speaker,
in addressing a few remarks about the matter
of compulsory insurance, a great deal of what
I perhaps might have said has already been
said by the hon. Prime Minister, and I agree
with him.
We purchase automobile accident insurance
for 3 main purposes: to protect our own assets;
to preserve our driving rights; and thirdly,
to afford protection to others who might suffer
as a result of our negligence. Those 3 things
we can take care of by ourselves, as indivi-
duals, by buying an insurance policy.
There is very little that we can do to obtain
the protection that we are affording others
as individuals. That is the place where we
have to direct our attention. How can we
best provide for citizens' protection from the
negligence of others?
At one time, I must confess, I was whole-
heartedly against compulsory automobile
insurance. The "compulsory" is something
that I rebelled at in the beginning.
But then, after a period of time, there
occurred cases such as the judgment which has
been referred to as the Hamilton incident
wherein the young lad was awarded a judg-
ment of $125,000. Instances such as that, of
course, must have set a great many others and
myself to thinking. What would my wife,
what would my family, do, if I were to have
suffered $125,000 worth of damages and not
be able to recover anything except a small
part of it?
Then the Toronto Globe and Mail, following
that Hamilton incident, did have an editorial
in which it referred to the flimsy fund and,
reviewing the situation, it came to a conclu-
sion which I, perhaps at that time, would
also have come to. It states that 25 per cent,
of Ontario's drivers have no public liability
insurance. That surely is a strong argument
for compulsory auto insurance. It is so easy
to believe that if there were compulsory auto
insurance that this young lad would have
recovered.
As the hon. Prime Minister has very correct-
ly pointed out, he would have not been any
better off if we had had, in this province at
the time of his accident, compulsory auto-
mobile insurance with the limits that we have
now of $10,000 and $20,000. Unfortunately
for him, the new limits were not in effect at
the time. They did not come into effect
until January 1, 1958.
I requested The Department of Highways
to produce for me some figures in going into
this matter, and they prepared for me a list
of the judgments which were rendered from
a period of April 1, 1956, to December 31,
1957— an 18-month period— and it is a list of
some 80 cases in which judgments were
awarded above the maximum of the fund.
Please bear in mind that these are the
judgments which were rendered prior to
December 31, 1957. It was on January 1,
1958, that the new limits came into effect,
from 5 and 10 and 1 to 10 and 20 and 2.
The office of the hon. Minister of Highways
made a comparison. They listed the judg-
ment and the amount that was paid out of the
fund under the limits of 5, 10 and 1 and then
drew up a schedule what the amount would
have been if those particular accidents had
occurred after January 1, 1958, in which the
limits were 10, 20 and 2. The total of the 80
cases falling within this category, that is, over
the limits. There may have been many more
under the limits which would have been paid
into.
The total judgment of these 80 cases was
$1,259 million. The amount paid out of the
fund in respect to those judgments was
$479,000, which indeed was a difference of
some $700,000 which is the basis upon which
anyone, perhaps, prior to January 1, 1958,
might have called the fund a flimsy one.
Having seen, I am sure, the proportion of
the judgments that were being rendered and
the amount being paid, this Legislature
brought into effect the increase as of January
1, 1958. Under that increase, had they been
in effect for this period of 18 months, the
total payments out of the unsatisfied judgment
1322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fund would have been $934,000 leaving some
$355,000 still unpaid. But one can see that,
for the payment of a dollar extra from $1
to $2 enabling us to raise the limits from 5 and
10 and 1 to 10 and 20 and 2, we would have
gone a long way in satisfying completely the
judgments which were rendered had this been
in effect for that 18-month period.
Now, it is true that we would not be able
to take care of, perhaps for a long time, all
the judgments which might have been in-
curred. I doubt whether, perhaps for many
years to come, we will be able to devise a
scheme of any kind which would take care
of judgments with no limit up to $125,000
but perhaps the solution lies in this.
For example, if an accident happened prior
to January 1, 1958, and the judgment was for
$17,000 the payment out was only $5,000.
But if that accident had occurred after Janu-
ary 1, 1958, the payment out would have
been the total amount of the judgment
$17,046. The $1 extra was paid by all the
motorists, and that is the significant differ-
ence. There is a judgment here, for $30,000
—only $5,000 was paid out of the unsatisfied
judgment fund, but if that accident had
occurred after January 1, 1958, the payment
out would have been $20,000.
Mr. Whicher: Your first limits were 5 and
10 and 1 and they are now 10 and 20 and 2
so surely the payment would have been
$10,000 in the second instance?
Mr. Yaremko: Well, we will take this one.
There was a $25,000 judgment; $8,000 was
paid out of the fund, so there was one
accident involving more than one person;
$8,000 was paid out of the fund. There would
have been $22,000 paid out of the fund after
January 1, 1958.
Mr. Whicher: Why was there only $8,000
when the limits to start with are 5 and 10?
Mr. Yaremko: The individual damages
suffered by the individuals— one person may
have suffered more than $7,000 or may have
suffered $9,000 worth of damages, and the
other individual may have suffered only
$1,000, because it is $5,000 per person maxi-
mum, $10,000 maximum for the whole acci-
dent regardless of how many persons were
involved— there may be 3, 4 or 5 persons
involved.
Hon; Mr. Frost: The hon. member's argu-
ment would be safer if he multiplied it by
two.
Mr. Yaremko: No, there is not a straight
multiplication.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, no. If a person got
$7,000 under the old 5 and 10 arrangement,
when it becomes 10 and 20 they get $14,000,
would that not be it?
Mr. Yaremko: No, it all depends on the
individual.
«
Mr. Whicher: Five and 10 under the old
arrangement and individuals would get $5,000.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What I am coming at is
this. If it was 5 and 10 under the old
arrangement, and the amount of the judgment
was $7,000, then if the rates were increased
to 10 and 20, it would seem to me that
probably on the same assessment it works
out at $14,000.
Mr. Yaremko: Not so, because each indivi-
dual case depends upon the circumstances of
the particular accident, and the way the
damages were divided. But I suggest to the
hon. Minister of Highways that, in view of
the fact that a simple increase of $1— that is
increasing from $1 to $2 the levy upon the
motorist— would have provided for an increase
in payment out of the fund of some $355,000.
Mr. Whicher: Remember it did not go from
$1 to $2; it went from $1 to $2 and from
there to $5.
Mr. Yaremko: No, sir, $5 for the uninsured.
Mr. Whicher: But you have to have the $5
figure, too, to be fair.
Mr. Yaremko: We will assume that if the
minor increase from $1 to $2 and $5 in the
case of those who are uninsured would have
provided these benefits, I think that all the
attention should be directed towards an
analysis of the figures along these lines,
within the next year or the next 18 months
or the next two years, to discover what in-
crease from $2 to $3 and perhaps from $5
to $10 or from $5 to $20 for uninsured
drivers, to find what increase is actually
necessary in order to come as close to per-
fection in the payment of the judgments
rendered. Because if we stop and think that
for $2 as the hon. Prime Minister has pointed
out, we are insuring ourselves against the
non-payment of a judgment rendered in our
favour for $10,000, I am sure the hon. mem-
ber for Bruce would agree with me that
nowhere could one get $10,000 of personal
protection for $2.
Mr. Whicher: It has already cost me $75,
and it does not seem right that I should or,
anybody else should, have to pay an extra $2.
MARCH 26, 1958
1323
The other fellow who does not pay the $75
gets the same coverage.
Mr. Yaremko: The only difference is that
if compulsory automobile insurance were in
effect, the premium of $75 which he is now
paying would be far beyond the $75.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member has no
assurance that it would be up there.
An hon. member: Let us study it and find
out.
Mr. MacDonald: Great! We really need it.
Mr. Yaremko: So I suggest to the hon.
Minister of Highways that he go through the
study of these figures which we projected
back, and that now he examine figures in the
next 18-month period to see whether increas-
ing the limits of the unsatisfied judgment
fund again is the answer to this very serious
problem.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, speak-
ing in support of this resolution, I must say
that the most interesting feature of this
debate so far is the uncanny parallel between
the arguments that are being used against car
insurance now with those that were used
against hospital insurance about 3 or 4 years
ago.
I can remember listening to the hon. Prime
Minister saying that we must study it longer.
This is the stage we have now reached with
car insurance—
Hon. Mr. Frost: We did a good job. Was
that not all right?
Mr. MacDonald: —of saying, for example,
that it is going to cost us a great deal more,
just as the hon. Prime Minister two or three
years ago, used to exaggerate the likely cost
to the province of hospital insurance, and
therefore we must move cautiously. That
was the kind of an argument used against
hospital insurance for years and now it is
being used against car insurance in what
might be called a "last ditch stand" approach
to delay as long as possible.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I point out my hon. friend
is adding nothing by saying that. If my hon.
friend would get down and judge the merits
of this thing-
Mr. MacDonald: Let me add something.
Hon. Mr. Frost: —and leave out all these
personal references, he would do a lot better.
Mr. MacDonald: That is very good coming
from the hon. Prime Minister. It is a very
strange comment, for this is the kind of thing
that he has been indulging in for years-
personal attacks on me rather than dealing
in a substantive way with arguments I have
raised.
An hon. member: Let us get down to
business.
Mr. MacDonald: For example, the hon.
Prime Minister brings in a straight case of
misrepresentation and nonsense when he
argues that if we have a compulsory plan
then we would either have to insure every-
body including those with a disability, or not
insure them all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Could the hon. member
do it any other way?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, of course, we
would do it, Mr. Speaker, in precisely the
way we now do it. If a person is disabled to
a point that he cannot drive a car, he just
cannot get his driver's licence and therefore
he does not need insurance. The proposition
that everybody who is not able to drive a car
would automatically have to be insured, I
repeat, is nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would hate to be the
commissioner who would try to differentiate.
Mr. MacDonald: For example, consider
the arguments of the hon. member for High
Park. I shall let the hon. Prime Minister's
blood pressure subside a little. I hate to see
him get disturbed so. Let me come to the
hon. member for High Park. This is the
second time he has repeated these arguments
in the House.
Mr. Cowling: There is no high blood pres-
sure here, my hon. friend.
Mr. MacDonald: Again, with uncanny
accuracy, the very arguments he was using
against hospital insurance last year, and in
his heart of hearts, he has not changed his
mind. He is now repeating them against car
insurance.
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, what does the
hon. member mean by "in his heart of
hearts"? Was not that the term?
What had I not in my heart of hearts?
That sounds like a title for a song.
Mr. MacDonald: I suggest that in his heart
of hearts the hon. member is still not in
favour of hospital insurance because, and I
do not say this in a—
Mr. Cowling: I can only say in my heart
of hearts I am.
1324
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: He is?
Mr. Cowling: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me say this to the
hon. member. He told us frankly this after-
noon: "Last year I was wrong. I admit it."
I tell him that two or three years from now
when this government is forced by events to
implement compulsory car insurance, he will
have to get up and say the arguments he is
now using against car insurance were wrong.
Mr. Cowling: All right, sure, I can still be.
That is one of the nice things about my hon.
friend. He is never wrong.
Mr. MacDonald: All I am suggesting, Mr.
Speaker, is that if the hon. member examined
the reasons why he changed his mind with
regard to hospital insurance, they apply
equally to car insurance.
Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. MacDonald: Surely.
Mr. Yaremko: I was very much concerned
about this judgment of $125,000 which was
rendered for this young chap in Hamilton.
Would he have recovered the $125,000 under
the Saskatchewan scheme? If not, how much
would he have recovered?
Mr. MacDonald: Just let me spell out the
Saskatchewan scheme in a moment and I
will come around to that.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): $4,000. Why
does the hon. member not answer him? Tell
the truth for a change.
Mr. MacDonald: There are two or three
points that I originally wanted to make fol-
lowing these introductory remarks in com-
menting on the debate thus far. First, Mr.
Speaker, we have to recognize that the
unsatisfied judgment fund is not a satisfactory
solution to this problem.
More and more people are saying so. I
know the government is stuck with the fund
and is trying to improve it with this extra
$5. But it is not a satisfactory solution.
As the hon. member for Bruce said a
moment ago— why, when a car owner has
bought insurance, should he have to spend
an extra $2 to protect himself against the
fellow who is not buying insurance? It
seems to me that this is not a fair kind of
approach. The fund is well named— it is
not satisfying anybody, as somebody has
quipped quite a while ago. As a matter
of fact I would like to refer in passing, Mr.
Speaker, to an earlier speech in this House,
by the hon. member for York West (Mr.
Rowntree), who is not in his seat.
After a lot of research, which apparently
involved The Department of Highways and
The Department of Transport, he provided
us with some interesting information on the
unsatisfied judgment fund from which he
drew his conclusion.
His conclusion was that he was not in
favour of compulsory insurance, and wanted
to continue with the present plan.
But I just want to remind the House of
the incredible information that he gave us.
If the hon. Attorney-General ( Mr. Roberts )
wants to follow it he will find it on page
No. 459.
The hon. member said that there was
a residue of unsettled claims in the depart-
ment totalling something like 400. He inves-
tigated these 400 claims and what did he
discover? He discovered that, with regard
to 116 of the claims, the lawyers replied,
when queried by the department, that they
had received payment privately. Now, I
suppose the reasons why payment finally was
made privately may vary in each one of the
instances, but I suspect that one of the
reasons is that when faced with a threat
of prosecution, and payment from the un-
satisfied judgment fund, the uninsured driver
loses his licence until he pays the fund back.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
So uncle paid it— or auntie.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly. Here is a
quarter of the cases of this unresolved
group where the fund had been used merely
as a threat for a certain time and then the
uninsured driver settled out of court, pri-
vately.
Secondly, there was another group of 100
whose reply was almost beyond compre-
hension, Mr. Speaker. These were lawyers
who presumably would read the Act on
behalf of their client so that they would
know the details of the law. Yet there were
100 of them who wrote back after the
inquiry went out from the department, ex-
pressing thanks for reminding them of their
deficiency, and stating that they would
proceed at once with the finalization of the
matter. They were just tardy in doing their
job. But if that was bad, the next group
was even worse.
As a member of the legal profession, the
hon. member expressed his distaste in re-
vealing to the House that the remaining
group— almost 50 per cent, of the total, close
MARCH 26, 1958
1325
to 200 of the 400-replied to the depart-
ment, asking what to do next. These lawyers
in effect said, "Where do I go from here?
How do I resolve this claim? I have gone
so far, but I do not know the next step."
Now I repeat, these are practicing lawyers
who presumably had read the Act in order
to serve their clients. It is obvious the clients
were not being served very well.
The point I want to make is that here
is another glimpse of the workings of the
unsatisfied judgment fund, and obviously it
is highly unsatisfactory, even from the point
of view of the lawyers who were not doing
a job on behalf of their client.
Let me make one other comment with
regard to the unsatisfied judgment fund in
relation to what the hon. Prime Minister and
others have said.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: As my hon. friend prob-
ably knows, Mr. Speaker, the new arrange-
ment which will go into effect, I expect
shortly, will short cut the procedure after
judgment to a point where a type of holding
back by reason of fatigue to take the proper
steps would, I think, be reduced to an almost
irreducible minimum. To that extent the
amendments that have been authorized by
this House should bring quicker and better
relief.
Mr. MacDonald: The point I wanted to
make when the hon. Attorney-General inter-
jected was that it was suggested that even
if we had compulsory insurance there would
still be need for an unsatisfied judgment fund
to cope with hit-and-run drivers and out-of-
jurisdiction drivers.
This is not necessary. It does not exist in
the province of Saskatchewan. In the case of
a hit-and-run driver, the person who is in-
sured in the province of Saskatchewan is
paid whatever the Act stipulates. If they can
find the hit-and-run driver, then the fund
can sue the man, whether he is inside or
outside the province.
Hon. Mr. Allan: How can one sue a hit-
and-run driver?
Mr. MacDonald: I say if one finds—
Hon. Mr. Allan: If they find him, he is
not a hit-and-run driver.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I agree. If he is
caught, then he is not a hit-and-run driver.
I do not want to get into an argument on
this, because I think this a factual point
that cannot be disputed.
When a person is hit by a hit-and-run
driver he becomes eligible for certain pay-
ments under the Act, and he gets those
automatically without having to go through
any process of law.
Mr. R. Macaulay (Riverdale): But only
if he is insured himself.
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe I am getting
ahead of the point that I wanted to make
about the Saskatchewan plan, but just let
me interject that everybody in the province
of Saskatchewan is insured whether he is
a driver, a pedestrian or a passenger. It is
an overall social security plan that covers
everybody, for every conceivable liability or
loss arising from a car accident.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Will the hon. member
answer me one question? Is the hon. mem-
ber not trying to say that the difference
between Saskatchewan and Ontario is that
when you buy your insurance in Saskatche-
wan a certain amount of that is used to
finance an unsatisfied judgment fund?
Instead of paying it on your driver's licence
you pay it in your insurance.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree with the hon.
Minister that it becomes part of one's pay-
ment, and therefore it is all covered. But
the point is the minimum payments range
from about $10 up to $30, and this gives
them the basic coverage plus the protection
given by our unsatisfied judgment fund. Then
why have this confused and complicated fund
besides the basic insurance coverage? It can
all be incorporated in compulsory insurance
coverage.
The other point I wanted to make, Mr.
Speaker, is about out-of-state or out-of-prov-
ince drivers. If an out-of-province driver
hits somebody who is insured in the province,
then the victim gets his payments. He gets
them automatically without any court action.
If this out-of-province driver has no insur-
ance, the government insurance fund can
take the necessary steps to reclaim from him
at least what they have paid out to the resi-
dent in the province.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I wonder if my hon.
friend would inform the House fully on his
explanation of the Saskatchewan plan— if he
would inform us of the amounts of the com-
pensation that are paid.
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps now I can pro-
ceed and we can cover some of the points
that the hon. member for Riverdale is raising,
too.
1326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Before I spell this out, let me say this.
I agree with the hon. Minister completely
that it is not possible to compare Ontario
with Saskatchewan. But by the same token
it is not possible to compare the coverage
the Saskatchewan plan gives with the private
insurance coverage here, because the Saskat-
chewan plan gives coverage of a kind and
to a degree that no private insurance com-
pany would touch at all.
As the hon. members of the House know,
the basic plan in Saskatchewan is like our
hospital insurance— it gives a minimum cover-
age the equivalent of standard ward. If one
wishes, he can buy a package policy to
increase this basic coverage to $100,000 and
$200,000. The total cost for the package
policy and the basic coverage is approximately
$50.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I am not interrupting
with the idea of upsetting the hon. member's
argument. I think we are all trying to get
somewhere on this particular motion. But the
hon. member has mentioned that there is
a coverage under the Saskatchewan plan
that has to do with hospitalization.
Now here in this province we are on the
threshold of going-
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: That is what I under-
stood the hon. member to say. Well, may I
just say this. We are now on the threshold
of taking on a very comprehensive medical
plan. Now certainly when it comes to the
individuals being injured, that is very definite-
ly something that is going to play quite a
part in his particular situation.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not need to remind
the hon. Attorney-General that in the prov-
ince of Saskatchewan they started the auto-
mobile insurance plan 14 years ago, at the
some time as the hospital insurance plan.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Maybe so. But I am just
saying if one wants to get the real coverage,
which is what we are talking about, we must
surely take into account this new hospital
plan.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a separate item for
which the payments are separate. Let us not
drag that in to confuse the issue.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I do not think it does
confuse the issue
Mr. MacDonald: What they have in the
province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, is a
plan that seeks to give everybody complete
coverage for every kind of liability or dis-
ability that might come through an accident,
and it does not matter whether he is a driver,
or a pedestrian, or a person who happened to
be picked up along the road.
For example, there are death benefits up to
$10,000 in any one accident, there are dis-
memberment benefits from $500 to $4,000.
To answer the earlier question, I think I am
correct— though I would not be absolutely
certain— in the case of this Ontario lad who
had the $125,000 judgment, I would judge
that the maximum he could have received
was $4,000 under the basic coverage.
Mr. Child: Which is less than he would have
gotten here in Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: If the person had bought
the package policy in addition to his basic
coverage, he could receive up to $200,000
public liability.
Mr. Child: What is the cost for that?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the total cost is $50
for the basic, plus the other package policy—
in the region of $50.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: A further benefit is the
supplementary allowance. This is one that
has been added in the last two or three years
because of surpluses in the fund. Notwith-
standing what the hon. Prime Minister or
others have said earlier, that in Saskatchewan
the fund is subsidized from the general
revenues, this is simply not the case. I think—
Mr. Cowling: I said that.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it was the hon. mem-
ber. That is simply not the case. The fund
stands on its own feet.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Payments are made to it
in addition to the original premium.
Mr. MacDonald: No, no. I do not know
what I can do to persuade him in this. I do
not know if I can persuade the hon. member
for High Park, but the fund in Saskatchewan
is a fund which is separated from the con-
solidated fund, and into which no revenue is
put in from the consolidated revenue fund.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is not what I am
suggesting. I am suggesting that the fund
does receive payments. For instance, a man
who might be convicted of careless driving,
when his licence is renewed, makes a pay-
ment into that fund and the fund is—
MARCH 26, 1958
1327
Mr. MacDonald: By the same token, if
someone is criminally negligent and the fund
takes him to court and secures a judgment, it
will go into the fund. But what proportion
that represents of their revenue I do not
know. I imagine it is not a large proportion.
The Saskatchewan plan is, in effect, a
province-wide co-operative, if one wants to
describe it as such. The funds are paid out to
meet the needs; if there is a deficit, next year
they have to raise their rates; if they have a
surplus they can do one of two things: they
can either cut their rate or they can extend
their benefits. In the 10 or 12 years of the
plan's existence, they have done both— in
some instances the rates have gone up and
in some other cases they have gone down.
Mr. Child: They increased them in 1955.
Mr. Macaulay: Could I ask my hon friend
what the deductible is and what is the aver-
age provincial-
Mr. MacDonald: Would the hon. member
let me finish this? I am coming to it.
Mr. Macaulay: Well, he is so painfully
slow getting there, that is all.
Mr. MacDonald: I have been asked so
many questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary allow-
ance up to $1,000 is now payable for medical
and nursing expenses, and this is an increase
of $400 over last year's supplementary allow-
ance. This is a new benefit that has emerged
in recent years.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Is not that right in line
with the hospitalization plan?
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly how that co-
ordinates with the hospitalization plan— I will
be frank with the hon. Minister— I do not
know. This is, as I say, a development that
has taken place in the last year or two— a
new benefit that was put in.
A fourth benefit is the out-of-work benefits.
For example, in Saskatchewan if a person
gets hurt in an accident, and is incapacitated
for a time, he is paid $25 a week for a maxi-
mum of 104 weeks— that is for two years, and
this comes out of the fund. It is part of the
insurance coverage.
Mr. Child: How many people received
benefit?
Mr. MacDonald: I cannot tell the hon.
member that. I do not have the figure, but
the benefit is there. If a person is hurt in an
accident he is entitled to this. This is the
reason why I say to the hon. Minister one
cannot compare the Saskatchewan coverage
with that provided in Ontario by any private
insurance.
Then, of course, there is comprehensive
coverage for collision, fire, theft, and other
miscellaneous coverages, providing for re-
covery of actual cash value, less a deductible
of $200— to answer the question of the hon.
member for Riverdale.
There is public liability coverage up to
$10,000 per injury or death for one person,
with a maximum liability insurance up to
$20,000 for more than one person injured or
killed in any one accident. Finally every
Saskatchewan motorist is protected against
property damage to a limit, not of $2,000 but
of $5,000. I think earlier the hon. Minister
mentioned the figure of $2,000. In any one
accident a deductible of $200 applies in
Saskatchewan only.
Mr. Child: $5,000.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, the extremely im-
portant point here, Mr. Speaker, is that since
one cannot compare one jurisdiction with
another, or one policy with another, seems
to me the important consideration is what
proportion of the premium dollar is going
back for the purpose it was paid?
When we were in the health insurance
committee, a year ago, the hon. member for
High Park will remember that there was
really quite an explosion one morning when
it was pointed out that in the instance of
the 4 major companies providing hospital
coverage, the total amount of the premium
dollar paid back to policyholders was in one
instance 61 cents; in another, as I recall,
about 56 cents; *in another instance about 46
cents; and a low of 39 cents.
Mr. A. Grossman ( St. Andrew ) : Major
companies?
Mr. MacDonald: I have forgotten the
names of them but the 4 top health and
accident companies.
Mr. Grossman: That were exclusively in
that business?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, they were exclusively
in that business.
The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that no
matter what the scheme, when we get to the
stage where it is made compulsory— and I
would say the overwhelming majority of
people have now come to that conclusion
—then it seems to me that we, as legislators,
1328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are duty-bound to make certain our people
get this insurance at the lowest price possible.
To provide this lowest price possible— as
we have done now in hospital insurance— it is
necessary to eliminate all of these excessive,
uneconomic administrative costs. As the hon.
member for Oshawa pointed out— my hon.
friend for Woodbine said he did not know
where we got the figures— they are from the
Financial Post every year-
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
member permit a question?
Mr. MacDonald: Just let me finish a sen-
tence. The Financial Post shows the amounts
paid out by the regular companies range
from between 52 cents and 57 cents, so that
very little more than half of the premium
dollar is paid back.
Was there a question related to that?
Mr. Cowling: Yes, the hon. member men-
tioned that there is an uneconomic charge, or
something there?
Mr. MacDonald: I was saying that there is
an economic waste in getting only about
54 cents coverage from the premium dollar.
Mr. Cowling: Well, that was what I was
getting at. In other words, he says that the
amount of commission earned by the agent
through his service, and what not, is economic
waste. Would the hon. member like to say
that?
Mr. MacDonald: That is right.
Mr. Cowling: The hon. member would say
that, I would say he is all wet.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I recognize that
from his insurance company point of view,
the hon. member would not agree. But my
point is this—
Mr. Cowling: Agree to disagree.
Mr. MacDonald: When we get to the point
where insurance is becoming an intolerable
financial burden, and along with that we have
the whole problem of uninsured persons in-
volved in highway accidents, then we in the
CCF say it must be compulsory. If we want
to reduce the costs, if we want to avoid the
kind of thing that is happening in some
jurisdictions like Massachusetts, the only way
we can reduce those costs is to make certain
that every possible cent of the premium dollar
goes back to the people for coverage. In
the instance of the private insurance com-
panies, it is only from 52 cents to 57 cents.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber would just inform the House— I understand
this is correct and I think he would confirm
it— if it is that the fund naturally is admini-
stered by a department of government?
Mr. MacDonald: It is a department of gov-
ernment like, say, the workmen's compensa-
tion board, and it comes under a Minister.
Hon. Mr. Allan: It is done by civil servants.
Mr. MacDonald: The Department of Insur-
ance comes under the Provincial Treasurer
in the province of Saskatchewan and it
includes car insurance coverage.
The final point, Mr. Speaker, that I want
to make is that very often the argument is
used— and I hope that as we get closer to
a decision on compulsory insurance this
ideological smear will be dropped— that a
government car insurance plan is socialism
and therefore bad. Now I say to the hon.
member for St. Andrew and others that if this
is socialism, then our workmen's compensation
board is socialism.
Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member want
to make everything socialistic?
Mr. MacDonald: In the United States of
America the workmen's compensation is
handled by private insurance companies.
Mr. Child: In some states.
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed, in some states.
The rates are much higher than ours. I
think here in the province of Ontario we are
proud of the workmen's compensation board
and the protection it provides. In fact, almost
every day the board has visitors from all
across the world who are coming to study the
kind of workmen's compensation that we set
up.
All we are pleading for is the same kind
of approach for car insurance. The hon. Prime
Minister is correct: a board would render
judgment in accordance with the Act. It
removes the necessity of court action which
dissipates a good proportion of the claim
finally received. If this is socialism, I would
say that we need more socialism, more of
a kind that on other occasions Conservatives
are very proud of.
All it is doing is providing the people
with the coverage at cost, and reducing to
a minimum the economic waste involved in
the present situations where 30 cents of
the premium dollar paid out in car insurance
goes to maintain this uneconomic competi-
tion between insurance companies.
MARCH 26, 1958
1329
Mr. Child: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few
words? This is a question that I have been
very interested in, particularly since the
young lad in my riding who was awarded
the $125,000 ended up with some $5,000.
I do not think any hon. member received
more telephone calls on a particular subject
than I did, after it received all of the publi-
city in the local papers.
I think that was one of the reasons I sent
out a few thousand letters to my constituents,
asking for an opinion on various subjects
and, particularly this one.
The answers that came back either by
telephone or letter would indicate that they
were not too happy with the unsatisfied
judgment fund as it was in 1957. On talk-
ing to many of the people that called me,
I find that they were under a misapprehen-
sion which the hon. Prime Minister has men-
tioned today. All of them were of the opinion,
had there been compulsory insurance— and
there were literally dozens and dozens of
people who called or wrote to me— the
$125,000 would have been paid to the lad,
which, of course, is not the case. It has been
pointed out that in Saskatchewan he would
have received $4,000 less than he received
in the province of Ontario.
The people supporting the CCF party seem
to hang their hat on Saskatchewan and the
rates they pay. Well, when this subject
came up in Hamilton, I managed to do a
little research and I came up with some
figures. I am sorry the hon. member was
not in the House the other night, because
I quoted some of them. I would like to
say this, that the $200 deductible obviously
has a great deal to do with the local rate
in the province of Saskatchewan, but other
factors enter into it, and when one looks
farther than just on the surface he will find
that in Saskatchewan the rates are even
more expensive, when he takes in all the
factors, than they are at the present time
in the province of Ontario with private enter-
prise.
Mr. MacDonald: Look at all the extra
coverage they have, though.
Mr. Child: I would be very happy to go
into these for the hon. gentleman.
Saskatchewan with its predominance of
straight gravel roads— and these are some
of the factors— has an accident rate of 7.6
per 100 vehicles, and Ontario has an acci-
dent rate of 11.6. Now Saskatchewan always
has had the lowest percentage of accidents
in Canada due to geographical and popula-
tion factors, Saskatchewan with its smaller
and older cars and, by the way there is
another factor— they do not have quite as
modern cars as we do here, that is the
socialist government. However, they do not
enjoy the same benefits as we do as far as
more luxury driving is concerned.
An hon. member: No Cadillacs.
Mr. Child: That is true. With the older
model cars and therefore less costly repairs,
the average cost per accident was $131.
Ontario had an average cost of $200. For
every 100 cars insured in Saskatchewan,
therefore it would cost 7.6 times $131, or
$995.60 to pay accident claims; for every
100 cars insured in Ontario it costs 11.6
times $200, or $2,320 to pay accident claims,
almost 2.5 times as much per car no matter
who sells the insurance. The charge in On-
tario is 2.5 times as much as in Saskatchewan.
The present rates in Ontario are less— in most
cases substantially less— than the 2.5 times
rate in Saskatchewan. In other words, On-
tario rates right now are less under private
enterprise than most drivers would have to
pay if they were in the Saskatchewan scheme.
Here are some more factors for the hon.
member. Here is an example that he might
like to have. Take the insurance on a 1953-
1955 Plymouth, Ford or Chevrolet, $100,000
bodily injury, $5,000 property damage col-
lision, and plate glass, $50 deductible, com-
prehensive, and that is a pleasure car not
being driven by a driver under 25 years of
age. The husband and wife would be the
drivers.
In Saskatchewan this insurance costs $51;
in Toronto the insurance costs $81; in Wind-
sor it costs $102; in London and Ottawa it
costs $94.36.
Now the Ontario rates vary by area be-
cause of the different accident rates in that
particular locality.
In northeastern Ontario it costs $136.88;
in northwestern Ontario it costs $83. If the
Saskatchewan rate were applied to the On-
tario situation it would cost $127 in every
case, so it is quite obvious that even under
private enterprise we are doing much better
than one can under a socialist government like
they have in Saskatchewan.
Mr. MacDonald: Let us wipe out the
hospital insurance plan.
Mr. Child: This comparison is for cars
which do not qualify for no-accident dis-
counts. In Saskatchewan the discount would
1330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be $4.40; in Ontario the discount ranges from
$15 to $26 on this classification of vehicle.
Now here is another one. The rates in
Saskatchewan, both compulsory and package
policy, which my hon. friend was mentioning
—this package policy in many cases is only
the starting rate.
Minor traffic violations, such as failing to
stop at a stop sign. There is a $10 insurance
surcharge in addition to normal fines. For
two such offences the surcharge is $25. If
a car has two drivers, and if each has two
violations in the year, the insurance cost in
Saskatchewan becomes $101 instead of $51,
the hon. member forgot to tell us that. Using
the 2.5 times comparison, the indicated On-
tario cost in such a case would be $252.
Mr. MacDonald: That is how they are
keeping their existing rates so low.
Mr. Child: That is true, but they are not
doing so well. Their rates are substantially
higher than ours by comparison.
The Saskatchewan rate provides no rebate
for winter storage despite the fact that 40
per cent, to 50 per cent, of the Saskatchewan
cars are laid up for 6 months each year. The
hon. member did not tell us that either.
In a great many cases, therefore, the Sask-
atchewan cost of insurance is the cost for
half the year only. Insurance companies give
a rebate up to 45 per cent, of the premium
for winter storage.
Similarly, the Saskatchewan rate gives no
consideration to a person who buys a car in
the summer or fall, because all Saskatchewan
insurance runs from April 1 to March 31.
A new purchaser buying insurance in Nov-
ember pays for a year's protection, but gets
only 4 months' protection— from December 1
to March 31. There is a 50 per cent, reduc-
tion.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Where did the hon.
member get his figures?
Mr. Child: A little research. The hon.
member should do some of it. And it did
not come from socialists. The Saskatchewan
system makes no recognition of the different
exposures to accident in different cases. The
only difference in rates are in the compul-
sory insurance where a standard length car
pays $25 and a short English car pays $20
and the Chrysler or Cadillac pays $30. Ap-
parently they must have Cadillacs there too.
Aside from that there is no accident dis-
count on the package policy at all. Drivers
pay the same, except for traffic violations
and surcharges. Outlined in point 3, the
farmer who drives his car one week on a
gravel road in summer and puts it in storage
for the winter pays for the accident of the
city business cars.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other
articles here that could be expounded as far
as the insurance is concerned, but I think
it all boils down to this:
In spite of what all the criticism we have
had I find this, that if one takes the time,
or if he could take the time, to spend an
hour or so with each of his constituents or
a group of them, it is not too difficult to
convince them what we have in the province
of Ontario is a pretty good coverage.
I am not suggesting for a minute that it
is perfect. As a matter of fact, I would like
to mention one case to the hon. Minister. It
concerns an accident which also happened
just outside of Hamilton. I do not know
whether one would call it a hit-and-run acci-
dent. I know the car did not run, but the
man who hit the car did run.
In that particular case we find that the
owner of the damaged passenger car did not
get any compensation at all, and cannot get
any unless the driver is found within a year.
I suggest there is a loophole there that we
might consider closing.
In other words, up until the time of the
accident, the driver of the damaged car,
whom I know personally, was under the
opinion that he could claim for such a loss
under the unsatisfied judgment fund.
Now we find that, because the person at
fault was driving a stolen car, this cannot be
done. The driver of the stolen car jumped
over the high level bridge at Hamilton and
ran away, and therefore they were unable to
lay a charge. Therefore, we find out that this
particular owner of the damaged car is uncom-
pensated at the present time, and he had to
buy himself a new car because his original
car was completely demolished.
There may be deficiencies in the unsatis-
fied judgment fund and I do not think any-
body at the present time has suggested that
the fund situation is Utopian. That is why
we have amendments, and that is why we
have brought it up to $10,000 and $20,000
as we have this time, and I would say that
this controversy that took place in Hamilton
occurred last year prior to the 10 and 20
addition which came into effect in 1958.
MARCH 26, 1958
1331
I would also say that a large portion of
publicity in the case of the injured Hamilton
lad was undue and unnecessary, and if the
lawyers had used the half-ounce brains they
were born with, why would they have gone
after $125,000 when they knew in the first
place they could get only $5,000 under the
fund? They knew, in the second place, that
the people involved could not possibly have
paid it out anyway, because of their circum-
stances. This was unnecessary—
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is the trouble with
lawyers, they do those sort of things.
Mr. Child: I am afraid it is. I have come
to the conclusion that just because one hap-
pens to be a lawyer does not necessarily mean
that he is somebody brilliant. It was an error,
and it was unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, although I realize it is clos-
ing time, I would like to say this in conclusion:
I am very much in favour of the present
plan that we have. I think it can be improved
and I think possibly improvements will be
made.
But in the meantime, I certainly subscribe
to those who spoke before me that considera-
tion and further study might be made on the
compulsory insurance plan.
If at some time we can prove that we can
do a better job with compulsory insurance
than we have with the unsatisfied judgment
fund, then, and only then, should we con-
sider introducing it into the province.
Mr. Speaker: It being 6.00 of the clock,
p.m., I do now leave the chair.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There is another resolu-
tion here by the hon. member for Bruce
(Mr. Whicher), which is not in the same terms,
but is somewhat similar. Are there others
who wish to speak on that motion of the
hon. member for Oshawa?
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): There
are just one or two suggestions I wanted
to make.
Hon. Mr. Frost: It might be that the hon.
member could adjourn the debate, and go
on with the hon. member for Brace's motion
after we adjourn the debate.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker I move
the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Prime Minister
wishes to put the question now, it is all
right with me.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I did not intend to
put the question, quite frankly.
Mr. Speaker, following the adjournment
I would call motion No. 3— the motion stand-
ing in the name of the hon. member for
Bruce.
It being 6.00 of the clock, p.m.
took recess.
the House
No. 49
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Mate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Wednesday, March 26, 1958
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per Session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 26, 1958
Resumption of the debate on compulsory automobile insurance,
Mr. Whicher, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Allan, Mr. Root, Mr. Grossman 1335
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Thomas, withdrawn 1349
Fair Accommodation Practices Act, 1954, bill to amend, Mr. Gisborn
held for further debate 1349
Resolution re General Welfare Assistance Act, 1958, concurred in 1350
Resolution re Motor Vehicles Fuel Tax Act, 1956, concurred in 1351
Township of Eastview, bill respecting, reported 1351
Public Service Act, bill to amend, reported 1354
Registry Act, bill to amend, reported 1354
Ontario anti-discrimination commission, bill to establish, reported 1354
County Judges Act, bill to amend, reported 1354
Extension of municipal franchise, bill to provide for, reported 1354
Liquor Control Act, bill to amend, reported 1362
Raising of money under the credit of the consolidated revenue fund,
bill to authorize, reported 1364
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 1364
Public Hospitals Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 1364
Hospital Services Commission Act, 1957, bill to amend, reported 1364
Trench Excavators Protection Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 1364
Charging of tolls on certain bridges, bill to provide for, reported 1364
General welfare assistance to persons, bill to provide, reported 1364
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, bill to amend, reported 1365
Ontario Fuel Roard Act, 1954, bill to amend, reported 1365
Upper Canada College Act, bill to amend, reported 1365
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 1365
Ontario Municipal Roard Act, bill to amend, reported 1365
Pipe Lines Act, 1958, bill intituled, reported 1365
Travelling Shows Act, bill to repeal, reported 1365
Motor Vehicles Fuel Tax Act, 1956, bill to amend, reported 1365
Housing Development Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1366
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Frost, agreed to 1366
1335
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, March 26, 1958
8 o'clock p.m.
The House resumed.
Clerk of the House: Notice of Motion No.
3 standing in the name of Mr. R. Whicher.
Resolution—
That, in the opinion of this House,
each and every automobile owner in the
province of Ontario should be required
annually to obtain public liability and
property insurance before a licence is
issued.
Mr. R. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to speak on this resolution in my name,
may I say that I believe a great deal of it has
been covered this afternoon. It is not my
desire or wish to take too much time with it,
but on the other hand I tried to keep myself
in check this afternoon because I have two or
three ideas that I assure you are given
sincerely.
I really do believe that every automobile
owner in the province of Ontario should be
required to be insured and I give the follow-
ing reasons:
I believe that now, after January 1, 1959,
it will be the only place where a man can
have a financial catastrophe in his life that
is not his own fault. For example, if my
house should burn down, or any of the homes
of the hon. members in this House, and we
have no insurance on it, it is to a large extent
our own fault, because the only reason we
have this great loss is because we did not take
the time and pay the small premium that it
takes to buy insurance on that house.
On January 1, 1959, we are going to be
protected not only if we are in the hospital
for a week or 2 weeks, but on the other
hand, if we are there for 5 or 10 years. A
catastrophic calamity that in other days could
have happened to any of us can no longer
occur. If I should drive down the street in
my car and I should run over some unfortun-
ate individual through an accident and I
should be sued for a considerable sum of
money, it is my own fault if I have no auto-
mobile insurance.
There is one place, in my sincere belief,
where a catastrophe can still strike at a per-
son in this province, and that is this. What
happens to the wife of a young doctor, 24 or
25 years of age, who has 3 children, when he
walks down the street one night and some-
body kills him, and the driver has no insur-
ance?
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the
House most humbly, that this is something
that was overlooked this afternoon because
the rates, the $10,000, $20,000, and $5,000
coverages that we were talking about, are
simply not enough. I suggest that if it is
within the realm of reason that these rates
could be increased, they definitely should be.
Last year they were increased from 5 and
10, and this year they are 10 and 20, and
there is no reason in the world, in my opinion,
why they cannot be increased still further.
In furthering my argument, why I believe
that compulsory insurance is necessary in
this province, may I say firstly to our hon.
friends on the other side of the House, that
our small group here agree most heartily
with them. We should not have compulsory
insurance through the government, for this
reason:
It may work in Saskatchewan. I do not
know anything about it there, but I do know
that in the province of Ontario, if we had
state automobile insurance, as one hon. mem-
ber mentioned this afternoon, if somebody
got into difficulty they would be after the
hon. member of that particular riding, trying
to put every form of pressure on that hon.
member to get their licence back again, so
that they could keep on driving.
We do not want anything like that at all.
I think that all of us, as legislators, quite con-
scientiously will say that there is a certain
amount of red tape in government. Anybody
in government or in the Opposition have
many things that are hard to get around,
because people are more demanding every
day.
If we had government automobile insur-
ance in this province, it would be the same
in that line of business as it would be in
others. The pressures would be put on us,
and we do not want any pressures like that
at all.
On the other hand, I say to the hon. mem-
bers quite sincerely that we should have
compulsory automobile insurance by people
1336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who are qualified to sell insurance and who
understand the insurance business. I refer to
the automobile insurance companies of this
province.
I say that it should be handled through
automobile insurance companies for several
reasons. Firstly, they are in the business
and, as such, are qualified to sell and to judge
to whom they should sell any policy for any
given amount.
Let us not be foolish about it. They are
in the business to make money, and they
will sell to anybody in the province of Ontario
who is a worthy risk. If he is not a worthy
risk, they will not sell to him. It is just as
simple as that.
With the number of insurance companies
that we have in this province, anybody who
is worthy of having a policy is bound to
be sold, and those people to whom the insur-
ance companies will not sell have no right
to be on the road whatsoever.
I believe that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Frost) in his very sincere attempt to allow all
hon. members in this House to speak on this
subject that is on the lips of many people
in this province, overlooked the fact that
it is not at all necessary that everybody
who wants to drive a car in this province
should have the opportunity to do so. After
all, an automobile on the highways of Ontario,
or any other province today, in the hands
of a man who is not a fit and capable driver,
is a murderous weapon. It has just a mur-
derous a potential as a man who walks into
a bank with a gun.
It is true that an unfit driver may not kill
somebody today, but if he is not a fit and
capable driver, sooner or later he is either
going to kill somebody on a busy thorough-
fare like the Queen Elizabeth Way, or he
is going to cause some type of property
damage.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to
the hon. members of this House, that the
people who are qualified to keep the poor
drivers off the highways of this province
are the insurance companies.
Hon. members and I cannot keep them off
as legislators in this House, that is certain,
because if somebody were denied a licence,
he would immediately run to me, or particu-
larly to hon. members on the government side
of the House, and would exert all sorts of
pressure in an attempt to get that licence.
Let us look at these insurance companies,
who firstly are qualified to know who is a fit
and proper driver. Remember, they are in
the business to make money, and want to sell
as many policies as they can.
I suggest that they will sell a policy to any-
one who is a good driver. The very, very
poor driver will not get the insurance policy,
and consequently, would not get the licence,
and I suggest particularly to hon. gentlemen
like the hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Roberts)
who is very sincerely interested in highway
safety, that those are the people we want off
the highways in this province.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Is
the hon. member suggesting that insurance
people are the best to handle the matter?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is what he said.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): That is
what we would have to do. That is the prob-
lem of that situation.
Mr. Whicher: Yes, I agree and I am sug-
gesting that insurance people, through their
wealth of information, are the ones to do it.
I think they would sell practically everybody
the insurance to start with, and then, giving
the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Allan)
all the credit due to him, in the point system
that he has suggested to this House during
this session, that if a man has so many points
against him through careless driving or speed-
ing too many times, then obviously the insur-
ance companies would know about this.
When there were so many points, when it
got up to the maximum number of bad marks,
whether it be, say, 10 or 25, the insurance
companies would then have the privilege and
the responsibility of cancelling that insurance
policy and then the licence would be
revoked.
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I ask the hon. mem-
ber this. On that point, and I acknowledge
my hon. friend's sincerity in bringing it up,
can we delegate to insurance companies
the right to bar a citizen from using the
roads? Now that is what the effect of that
is.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, it is not the
right to bar a citizen off the road, it is their
right to bar an irresponsible driver from driv-
ing on the road. They will not bar that
man until he has a certain number of bad
points which this government has put
through, and to which we agree. If they will
not bar that man until he has a certain num-
ber of black points against him, under the
hon. Minister of Highway's count, because he
is brought in, why then, they are not going
to bar anybody.
MARCH 26, 1958
1337
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out this to
my hon. friend. After all, where we get to a
point where there are automatic penalties,
these are very dangerous things. For instance
that is one of the arguments against the
death penalty, an automatic penalty that is
imposed whether or no.
There are many arguments against that,
and I doubt very much that we could extend
an automatic disqualification. There are con-
ditions that may alter that.
Mr. Whicher: I agree very much with the
hon. Prime Minister, but I suggest that
people who are in the business will know if,
for example, a fellow has had an accident.
There are a great number of accidents that
are really accidents. They are really not any-
body's fault. They just seem to happen, and
I suggest to the hon. Prime Minister that the
insurance companies of this province are in
the position to judge whether it is an
accident, or whether it was the result of care-
less driving, or whether several accidents
occurred as a result of careless driving.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: What the hon. mem-
ber is really saying is this, that the insurance
company has the right to refuse to insure
a person whom they consider unworthy of
insurance, and that it follows therefore, logic-
ally, that without insurance one cannot drive,
is that what he means?
Mr. Whicher: Yes, but the hon. Attorney-
General has put one word in my mouth.
I did not say that any one insurance com-
pany could cancel the insurance. I say that
if there are 150 or whatever number— 200
plus the hon. member tells me— if there are
200 plus companies engaged in the auto-
mobile insurance business in the province
of Ontario, just because one cancels the
policy or says that the driver is a poor risk,
this is by no means final. These people
are in a very competitive business and if a
man really deserves the opportunity to drive
and the other 199 say that he—
An hon. member: It does not work that
way.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No.
Mr. Whicher: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Frost: No company will take
the bad risk, the hon. member understands.
Once a driver is blacklisted in one place,
he would be through.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime
Minister hit the nail right on the head.
We do not want a bad risk on the highways.
What I am suggesting is that if he has
just made a little error, he is really a good
risk, and if he is a good risk, some com-
pany is going to take it. The bad risks on
the highways of this province must be elim-
inated. It is the only way we are going to
cut down on the accident rate of this
province.
Let us look at the present situation— the
way it is now. Is it fair that the many
people who have automobile insurance in
this province, who pay maybe $50, $60 or
$75 a year, to cover themselves completely,
should then be forced to put another $2
in the pot themselves, which would make
it, if it was a $50 policy, $52, when the
other fellow who has no insurance puts only
$5 in the pot? It just does not add up at all.
With the $5 that has been put in, why,
they really do not have any insurance. Many
of the 20 per cent, of the drivers, who got
their licence this year by depositing an extra
$5 in the treasury of Ontario, feel that they
are insured but they are not.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There is no reason for
them to feel that way. It is perfectly plain
that they are not.
Mr. Whicher: I agree. I am only stating
a fact. They feel that they are insured, but
in reality they are not covered at all, and if
they go out and have an accident and the
charge against them is $10,000, they have to
make arrangements to pay that $10,000 back.
They are really not insured at all.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right. They are
not. They are not supposed to be.
Mr. Whicher: To carry on my argument
about the insurance companies, this is the
way I believe it should be worked. I believe
it should be definitely put through private
enterprise, that before a man can get a
licence he should present a policy to the
licence bureau, covering him for some period,
whatever it might be, 3 or 4 months or a
year—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Would the hon. mem-
ber let me ask a question? What provision
would he make to prevent the insurance com-
pany cancelling the licence the day after it
was issued?
Mr. Whicher: I would say to the hon.
Attorney-General that I have put a lot of
thought into this. This is what I see. When
the insurance runs out, which is the same
thing as a cancellation, presuming it ran out
on July 1 and our licences, of course, come
1338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
due, say on the first of January, that every
day, supposing it was on July 15 and that
policy has not been renewed — a large
company might have 100 policies in a day
that were not renewed— they would send
a list immediately into The Department of
Transport. This list would state that this
policy had not been renewed, and immedi-
ately The Department of Transport would
take action and the licence would be can-
celled. Now it is just as simple as that.
Banks do exactly the same thing. These
insurance companies are big and efficient
organizations, and are quite capable of
looking after such things as the hon. mem-
ber has mentioned. When a policy is not
renewed or has been cancelled, they must act
immediately— not tomorrow or the next day
or next week. When it is cancelled on July
15, the report must go in at the end of the
business on July 15, with the number of
policies that have been cancelled, and immedi-
ately The Department of Transport could send
out registered letters saying such-and-such
a permit has been cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, I feel honestly and most sin-
cerely that this is what is wanted by the
people of the province of Ontario. It may be
true that the government is a little bit afraid
of this. I do not say that disparagingly, I
assure hon. members. I am not trying to
throw a challenge to them. I know that it
is a serious thing. But if a young man, who
is maybe a young lawyer, who may earn a
lot of money over the next 15 or 20 years, is
killed, it is not fair to his wife that all she
could possibly get would be the sum of
$10,000.
I want to talk for a minute about the rates—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Might I ask the hon. mem-
ber a question? What limits would he have
in the coverage in a policy? The premium
depends upon that.
Mr. Whicher: Right now, I am going to
talk about limits. Now the hon. Prime Mini-
ster this afternoon, and many of the other
hon. members too, said that we could not
increase these limits because the cost would
immediately stretch, and would go away up.
I ask any hon. member in this House, what
has been his experience? I remember 10
years ago when on my own car I used to
have 5, 10 and 1. That is what it was. $5,000
for any individual accident; $10,000 for any
number of people, and $1,000 property
damage.
Today I do not know exactly what I carry,
but I suggest that it will be something the
same that hon. members carry— practically
unlimited coverage. It would be at least
$100,000 for any individual accident,
$200,000 for any group of people, and $5,000
at least for property damage, and the cost is
very, very little.
Hon. Mr. Frost: All right, supposing we do
that. Supposing everybody is compelled to
carry insurance of that sort, then how do we
settle the claims?
Mr. Whicher: I know that is a big deal.
In answering that question, I want to ask
this-
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. member says
it is very little, but he stops there. I know
what I pay for my premium. I would not call
it very little.
Mr. Whicher: Just a minute now. I did not
say that we pay very little. I said that the
difference between a 10, 20, 5 coverage, and
100, 200 and 5 coverage is very little. I
would suggest that it would be less than
$6 or $7. Would I be right to-
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): $10,
roughly.
Mr. Whicher: All right, this is from an
insurance man. $10, roughly, between a 10,
20, 5 coverage, and 100, 200, 5 coverage. So,
in other words, the cost is—
Hon. Mr. Frost: May I point out to my
hon. friend that New York state has a com-
pulsory coverage of 10 and 20. Now that is
exactly the same as our unsatisfied judgment
fund. Actually speaking, if we impose 10 and
20 on our people, no citizen would receive
any more protection than he is getting now
on his $1 on the 10 and 20 coverage in our
unsatisfied judgment fund.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, we are not
talking about the dollar coverage at the
present time. We are talking about a fellow
with a family and a future ahead of him,
and of the fellow's wife if he gets killed.
That is what I am talking about. What is
going to happen to the wife? That is what
I want to know.
An hon. member, who is in the insurance
business, has said that the difference in
coverage between $10,000 for an individual
person, $20,000 for any group, and $5,000
property damage— the difference between that
policy and $100,000 for one person, $200,000
for any number, and $5,000 for property
damage— will be less than $10 added to the
premium.
MARCH 26, 1958
1339
Hon. Mr. Frost: Subject to this, remem-
ber, that insurance companies now, to get
coverage of that sort, pick and choose the
very best risks.
Now if we imposed that across the board,
what is the rate going to be? It is going to
be unbelievable.
Mr. Whicher: I am sorry, I disagree en-
tirely, because I suggest just taking this
group of hon. members present, there prob-
ably is not one who could not get that
coverage. They will sell the coverage to
anybody in the province who is a good risk
and who is a good driver. If one is not a
good driver, he should not be on the high-
ways. It is just as simple as that.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I had better mention
one point. I am sure my hon. friend could
not put those figures in for all classes. I
could just say this, that I pay $120 or $125
for my premium which has something the
same as the hon. member describes. Also it
does allow my two older sons, both of whom
have taken proper lessons and so forth, to
drive occasionally. Now it costs me $125
for that.
Mr. Whicher: Well, it costs the same thing
all over the place. If we have the normal—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: He says it does not
cost very much. I say that is a fair amount
of money
Mr. Cowling: Just to support what the
hon. Attorney-General said, remember, I said
it was about roughly on a select first-class
risk, between $20,000 and $100,000. That
is about what it is.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well, I have had no
accidents whatever— touch wood— in all the
time I have been driving since I have been
covered there. It is costing me $125 a year.
If the hon. member thinks that is very little,
perhaps it is.
Mr. Whicher: I do not think that what
the hon. Attorney-General pays now has any-
thing to do with whatsoever. We are talk-
ing about the possibility of making every-
one have an insurance policy before he can
get a licence or permit in this province. What
one pays now has nothing whatsoever to do
with it.
I suggest this, that if, through having com-
pulsory insurance, we knock the very poor
drivers off the road— well, they should not be
on it anyway. We have to be brutal about
this thing. If we knock those poor drivers
off the road, then the rates, if anything,
should be less, not more, because the only
people on the road will be those fully quali-
fied to drive.
By having a rate such as I suggest, and I
could come down a little bit, my proposition
is this. We should have rates of $50,000,
$100,000 and $5,000. The hon. Prime Minister
is asking what happens when there is an
accident? Is the judge going to be prejudiced?
He will know that everybody is covered for
at least $50,000.
Now, my question to the hon. Attorney-
General is this. Supposing that he had a
terrible accident, which I hope never happens
to him or myself. We have a bad accident and
he and I go up before a judge right today.
Does he not think that the judge or the jury
will give the people, whom we unfortunately
had the accident with, every single dollar that
they are entitled to?
I suggest they would, and that the hon.
Attorney-General and I would have to pay just
as much now as we would if we had compul-
sory insurance, because the truth of it is this:
For people who have automobile insurance
today in Ontario, the rates of coverage have
been going up and up, and there are far
more policies in Ontario today that are
$50,000 and $100,000 than there were 5 to 10
years ago.
People are insurance - conscious today.
Inasmuch as the difference in cost is so very,
very little between the low coverage and the
high coverage, a lot of people already take
the high coverage. Is that correct? There-
fore—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If my hon. friend does
not mind me interrupting—
Mr. Whicher: No. I do not mind.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The Speaker permits
me to, in this type of debate, but I quite
agree with the general idea that is being sug-
gested there, that one should obtain the
widest and the highest coverage possible. I
am afraid that any experience that I have
had on the cost makes me feel that we could
not impose that on the 2 million people here
without finding that the cost was too great.
Now, if it were possible to do it, I would
think it would be a good thing to do. But
there are different classifications. I would
like to say this. I have said this publicly on
a number of occasions.
Taking the rates as I find them in this
metropolitan area, and the general proper
coverage that I think everybody should have
—not just the coverage on the automobile but
the type of coverage protecting oneself
1340
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
against the other person in case he does not
have enough coverage, that type, the hos-
pitalization and the rest of it— the cost would
be high.
I think that really, if we want to face this
situation realistically and be sure that nobody
is going to get hurt, one ought to be spend-
ing practically 50 cents a day per person
on that type of protection. Fifty cents a day
to get the complete coverage that we are
talking about.
I wish it could be done. I think it would
be wonderful if it could be done. But does
the hon. member think we could impose any
such figure as that for complete coverage?
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I think honestly
that the hon. Attorney-General is going a
little too far in this cost.
I suggest this. He has said that it costs
him $125 a year for the coverage that he
now carries. If there were compulsory auto-
mobile insurance in this province, and the
people who are not fit to drive on these
highways were put off the highways, which
they should be in the first place, then the
insurance costs, if anything, would be a little
lower than they now are.
What keeps our insurance so high is the fact
that there are people who go out and have
accidents, who perhaps are drinking drivers
and that sort of thing, and who go down the
road at 100 miles an hour. They should not
be on the roads at all. By having a compulsory
insurance scheme such as I am suggesting,
and leaving it in the hands of the insurance
companies, the bad drivers would be elim-
inated. The insurance companies were in
the business first. They want to sell insur-
ance to every citizen in the province of
Ontario who is fit to drive. But secondly,
they will not sell to anybody who is not fit
to drive.
Therefore, firstly, we are going to have
good drivers on the road, and in the second
place, the poor drivers are going to be put
back in their homes where they deserve to
be. That is the thing that we most certainly
need. When the hon. Attorney-General sug-
gests that the cost might double or some-
thing like that, he is strictly tossing a kite
in the air. If anything, when we get the
poor drivers off the road, the cost will be
even less.
The hon. Prime Minister this afternoon said
that if everyone who had a car were insured,
for example, at the rate of $50,000, there
would be a tendency on the part of the
jury to be very, very lenient with the family
of the person who happened to be killed or
maimed, or something like that I say this
most sincerely—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Big damages. The cost
would go up.
Mr. Whicher: I say, Mr. Speaker, that
there would be no more tendency on the
part of the jury to be lenient with the person
who has had the accident, than there is at
the present time, because the jury knows
full well if any hon. member in this House
happens to be involved in an accident, that
we are insured for at least $50,000. There
is no doubt about it at all.
If we took a caucus of all the hon. members
in this House, I would say that everybody had
that much insurance, and a great percentage
of the people who carry insurance in this
province have at least that much. Therefore
what is the difference? Let us make it com-
pulsory. Let us protect the poor mother with
her 2 or 3 children if her husband happens to
be killed.
Let us protect the person who becomes
blind for the rest of his life, and let us
put it through the system of private enter-
prise, which this government and I believe in,
even though some of our good hon. friends,
in their sincerity, believe in a socialistic
form of government to a large extent. The
hon. government members and I do not
believe in it.
Let us put compulsory insurance in the spot
where it belongs, with the insurance com-
panies of the province of Ontario. If we do
that, then we will eliminate the only financial
catastrophe that can happen to any individual
in this province through no fault of his own.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: May I just ask the hon.
member this question, too, on that? Has he
given any consideration, in his preparation
of this proposal, to what he thinks, on an
average, would be the maximum premium or
cost per person taking out a policy? If he
has, then perhaps he could get some insurance
companies to do a real test, to see what sort
of coverage they could give for that.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I suggest this to the
hon. Attorney-General. He used the figure of
$125 a year. I would suggest that the cost
should certainly not be any more.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: People in this province
with $125 a year premiums? I think that—
Mr. Whicher: I do not have to pay $125
a year premium.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Where does the
hon. member buy his?
MARCH 26, 1958
1341
Mr. Whicher: I buy it in the same place as
the hon. member for Perth. He buys it in a
rural area, and I buy mine in a rural area, and
I am not exactly sure what my insurance
costs me. But I am well covered, I hope.
I think it costs me about $58 a year, and that
includes collision, so there is no reason why
my policy or his will go up.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Let us take $60 then.
Does he feel that the motoring public, the two
million or so, will take that much coverage
and pay that much? Does he think that is
a feasible thing? I say it is not. I am just
asking the hon. member's opinion on it.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. At-
torney-General is suggesting that everybody
should pay $60. I do not pay $60. As a
matter of fact I probably pay about $30 or
$35 for the coverage I am suggesting.
Hon. W. Griesinger (Minister of Public
Works): How much does he pay?
Mr. Whicher: I am including collision in
the $60.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: How much does the
hon. member pay?
Mr. Whicher: Well, I would pay approxi-
mately $35 a year, for $100,000 worth of
coverage and $200,000 for a big accident.
Hon. Mr. Griesinger: Does he know if that
is right?
Mr. Whicher: Yes, I would say that within
a few dollars I am correct in that.
An hon. member: That is for rural rates.
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): I might
say, Mr. Speaker, I pay about $90 for $100,-
000, $200,000 and $100,000, and that covers
hospitalization also, and collision. It covers
everything.
Mr. Whicher: Well, I am not suggesting in
my remarks this evening that we should force
an individual in a car to cover hospitaliza-
tion or collision, because that is one's own
business. If a person drives his car into a
telephone pole and destroys the car, it is his
own fault if he does not have the insurance.
It is like the house burning down. If one
does not have insurance on his house, it
is his own fault.
The point is this, that it is not the widow's
fault when her husband is killed by some-
body who does not have a nickel's worth
of insurance, and she has to practically beg
to collect $10,000 through the unsatisfied
judgment fund.
I want to mention the unsatisfied judg-
ment fund. I agree wholeheartedly with
the hon. Minister of Highways that it is
absolutely necessary, besides having com-
pulsory automobile insurance, to have an
unsatisfied judgment fund. The hon. Min-
ister of Highways was not quite fair this
afternoon when he said that in New York
they did not have an unsatisfied judgment
fund. That is true, but they are going to
have one right away.
We must have an unsatisfied judgment
fund besides compulsory automobile insur-
ance, because, as he mentioned, there are
hit-and-run drivers. Of course we have to
have an unsatisfied judgment fund and that
is not going to cost a lot of money, because
really, there are not a lot of hit-and-run
drivers who are not caught, and secondly,
who get away with killing people without
finally having to pay up some way, shape
or form. I suggest that an unsatisfied judg-
ment fund would look after the tourists
who come into this province, who are not
insured.
Firstly, a lot of our tourists come from
New York state. They are all covered.
Secondly, 80 per cent, of all the people in
the United States are covered before they
arrive here. The only unsatisfied judgment
that we would have to have, would be to
look after the 20 per cent, of American
tourists, or 20 per cent, of the people from
outside provinces, other than our own, and
the hit-and-run drivers of this province. I
would suggest that the amount of money,
which we would have to put in this fund,
would be very limited indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want you to think
that I am just trying to put a barb at the
government. I am not. I sincerely believe that
in view of the financial catastrophe that a
man can have in the province of Ontario
today, that is not his own fault, the only fair
thing is to insist that we have compulsory
automobile insurance.
Let us take these people— we can be brutal
and call them murderers— who drive around
this province and who are not good drivers
and are not qualified, and put them off the
highways. Let us give the people, who are
walking on our highways, some financial pro-
tection against them, so that if anything hap-
pens to any of us, our widows are going to
be looked after.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member for
Bruce a seconder for his motion?
Mr. Whicher: Yes, the hon. leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Oliver).
1342
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Mr. R. Whicher moves,
seconded by Mr. F. R. Oliver,
That, in the opinion of this House, each
and every automobile owner in the prov-
ince of Ontario should be required annually
to obtain public liability and property
damage insurance before a licence is issued.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very greatly the
remarks of the hon. member for Bruce. May
I say at first, that it is surprising how easily
all these problems can be solved by those
who have not had the difficulty of endeavour-
ing to solve them.
My experience in The Department of High-
ways and in The Department of Transport
brings so many things to my attention which
influence the matter of compulsory insurance,
and the actions of insurance companies, that
I find it to be one of the most difficult prob-
lems that I have ever undertaken to come up
with a plan that can be generally satisfactory.
It is for that reason, as I stated this after-
noon, that we feel it is absolutely necessary
to have the experience that we will have
this year as a result of our new plan which
will enable us to know how many persons are
insured and how many persons are not
insured.
Mr. Whicher: Did the hon. Minister say
that there are approximately 80 per cent, now
who are covered?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Whicher: Well, if he did not say that,
it was some other expert over there who
did. The hon. Minister knows perfectly well
how many are insured and how many are not.
Hon. Mr. Allan: I do not. That is absolutely
incorrect.
Mr. Whicher: Well, then he can find out
from the insurance companies.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We will find out, but no
one knows what percentage of the people in
the province of Ontario are insured at the
present time.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Minister should get
another department over there and find out.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We will.
Mr. Whicher: If he does not know that after
all these years, then he does not know very
much.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Let the hon. member not
be silly. We will know that at the end of
this year. That is a silly statement.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The hon. member should
not be foolish.
Mr. Whicher: Well, let the hon. Minister
ask the hon. member down there. He may not
tell us, but he knows.
Hon. Mr. Allan: He does not know. This
is a statement of fact.
Mr. A. J. Child (Wentworth): How many
does the hon. member think there are?
Mr. Whicher: I would say 80 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, of course, if he is an
expert without having looked at any figures,
or having made any study, we should have
asked him instead of making the study.
Mr. Whicher: I am not an expert. Mr.
Speaker, I am only quoting hon. members on
the government side of the House who spoke
this afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I want to
deal with some of the statements made by
the hon. member for Bruce. May I say at
first that his suggestion, that we should have
compulsory insurance with much greater
limits of liability, would create a condition
just the reverse of what he would hope.
It has been our effort over the last few
years to endeavour to get as many persons
insured as possible.
I note the hon. member's remarks when
he said the competition between insurance
companies would insure that everyone who
was fit to drive would have insurance. I
could bring to the attention of the hon.
member the various policies of different insur-
ance companies. Certain insurance companies
are anxious to insure only the cream of the
crop. The rates are not all the same.
Some insurance companies have a rate that
is less than other insurance companies, and
they hope to make that good business by
selecting very carefully those who may be
insured.
Mr. Nixon: Non-drinkers.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, we have one of
those in my riding, I am not sure if any of
the rest of the hon. members have any of
those companies in their ridings. The hon.
member can see that the natural thing for
the insurance company is to pick those per-
sons to insure who will be the least risk.
There are over 2.2 million drivers in the
province of Ontario, and we are anxious to
have those 2.2 million drivers insured. I
think the hon. member—
MARCH 26, 1958
1343
Hon. Mr. Frost: We are all insured now,
counting the unsatisfied judgment fund.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That is right.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. Prime Minister
admitted a few minutes ago every driver is
not insured under the fund, and that if
such a driver hits somebody, he has to put
every dollar up himself.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh no, I say that they
are all insured. They are not insured for
protection for themselves, but they are all
insured for protection for damages up to a
limit that may cost anybody-
Mr. Whicher: When one buys insurance he
buys it to protect himself too, and under the
fund he is not insured.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I know, but they can go
and buy that, but they do not.
Mr. Whicher: I know, but they are not
insured.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Our experience, and this
is based definitely upon our experience with
the insurance companies, is this. Our great
task has been to endeavour to get the insur-
ance companies to insure more drivers. It is
very easy to rise in this House and to say
that only those persons who are good drivers
should be on the road. Every hon. member
of this House reads the papers. He notices
the number of persons who are charged for
various violations who have no licence. Some
who have been charged 3 times. I think I
have noticed them charged 5 times for driv-
ing without a licence, and naturally these
people are without insurance.
If we were to raise the liability limits to
a high rate, we are going to make it just so
much more difficult for a great many of the
drivers today to obtain insurance.
Mr. Whicher: If they have the money and
are good drivers they will get the policy.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No. I think the reasonable
hon. members will agree with me that, if they
place themselves in the position of the insur-
ance company, they would insure some-
one with limits of 10, 20 and 5, whom they
would not insure for 100, 200 and 50.
Now that is found by our department to be
a fact learned through our experience.
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Minister
if he was ever turned down?
Hon. Mr. Allan: No.
Mr. Whicher: I was not either, and I sug-
gest that nobody has been.
Hon. Mr. Frost: What does that have to
do with the problem?
Hon. Mr. Allan: If the hon. member had
been sitting in the seat that I have been
sitting in, and had seen the number of per-
sons who have had some difficulty and must
get insurance, he would appreciate the
problem. Actually, a great many persons are
required under The Highway Traffic Act to
have insurance before we will issue them
licences. If the hon. member had seen the
great difficulty that those men have in obtain-
ing a minimum policy of 10, 20 and 5, he
would then realize that if we are going to get
the people in this province insured, we cannot
start at 50 and 100 and 50 property damage or
something like that
Mr. Whicher: May I ask the hon. Minister
why they have that trouble in getting the
coverage of 5, 10 and 1, 10, 20 and 5 or
whatever it is? Why do they have that
trouble?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, they may be 70 years
of age or they may have some physical defect.
There are 101 reasons.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Many people must have
insurance before they are permitted to have
a driver's licence. They may have had some
convictions for careless driving. They may
have had an accident as an uninsured driver,
and have not paid their claims, and be driving
because of the instalments they are paying
to the unsatisfied judgment fund. There are
many, many reasons.
One of the hon. members in the House
came to me yesterday on behalf of a profes-
sional truck driver who is having difficulty
getting insurance for 10, 20 and 5, and is
required very often to go to the assigned risk.
The hon. member knows what the assigned
risk is. Because of the various policies of
selectivity of the different companies, a man
may be left high and dry. Some company
that is particularly selective may have de-
clined to issue a policy. That person is
forced to go to the assigned risk plan, and
the premium in the assigned risk plan may
be $100 for 5, 10 and 20.
Mr. Whicher: It should be, too.
Hon. Mr. Allan: How much would it be for
50, 100 and 50?
Mr. Whicher: The rate of increase is very
little, as the hon. member said.
1344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Allan: Oh no, they would not
write it. After all, we cannot expect every
person who has insurance to be in the pre-
ferred risk class. Of 2.2 million people, there
are going to be some who are ordinary risks,
and certainly there are a great many to whom
the insurance companies prefer not to sell
insurance.
The hon. member must remember that,
as we raise the limits, we increase the dif-
ficulty of that particular person to obtain
insurance. It goes without saying, and com-
parable jurisdictions have given this some
thought.
We hear about compulsory insurance in
Massachusetts. The limits that are required
are only 5 and 10, with nothing for property
damage. It might be interesting for the
hon. members to know that, in that state,
they have a speed limit of 40 mph. They
have had compulsory insurance for 27 years.
Their accident rate is almost double ours.
The coupling of compulsory insurance with
greater highway safety is unwise. The
experience of those who have had compul-
sory insurance certainly does not indicate
that it increases the safety on our highways.
Mr. Whicher: Why does not the state of
Massachusetts get rid of it, if it is no good?
Incidentally, I just had a note passed to
me from behind the Speaker's gallery. A
person in Toronto who has $50,000; $100,000
and $10,000 property damage coverage, pays
an annual premium of $35.20.
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is a preferred risk.
Mr. Whicher: That is a preferred risk and
it is still only $35.20.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes, but to quote in-
dividual instances does not prove anything.
I could bring an instance of a man who was
paying perhaps $125 for 5, 10 and 5, so
that the province must have a policy that
will serve the entire number of drivers of
motor vehicles within the province.
Mr. Whicher: What about serving the
fellow who gets hit? That is what we are
talking about.
Hon. Mr. Frost: The man who gets hit is
now covered by the unsatisfied judgment
fund.
Mr. Whicher: Only for $10,000.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I know, but that is all
right. That is twice as much as in the state
of Massachusetts.
Hon. Mr. Allan: In the hon. member's
remarks, he held up the state of New York
as an example. The state of New York has
limits there exactly the same as our unsatis-
fied judgment fund.
Mr. Whicher: They have 3 times as many
cars on the road, too.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That does not make any
difference to the limits.
Mr. Whicher: Half as many roads.
Hon. Mr. Allan: That makes no difference
to the limits.
I only want to repeat, about the unsatisfied
judgment fund, what I said this afternoon,
that it has been a wonderful asset to this
province. Since its inception we have paid
out some $13 million in claims. Our pay-
ments each year— and they will be greater
this year of course— during the last few years
has approximated about $2 million.
We have looked at the possibility of im-
proving that fund and we have not given
up the hope of improving it. We are think-
ing of arranging, in some way, to dispense
with certain procedures. Following our ex-
perience this year with the plan we have
now, the matter will be considered again,
but it may be possible to dispense with
some present procedures. As it is now, it is
an unsatisfied judgment fund, and there has
to be a judgment, and although we have
almost cut that in half this year, with the
hope of speeding up settlements, if enough
money could be in that fund so that we
could settle without that judgment, then it
would be really a very fine thing for the
motorists of this province, and we will give
consideration to that policy.
I would like to say again, Mr. Speaker,
that the matter of solving this problem of
automobile insurance is a very much greater
one than is recognized by the average per-
son. Our problem is to—
Mr. Whicher: Is the hon. Minister the
average one, or am I?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes, I am average, but
I recognize, I think, some of the problems in
connection with it. I should, after having
administered the unsatisfied judgment fund
and the motor vehicles branch and now The
Department of Transport for 3 years. I
want to say, in the hope that it will be fully
understood, that it is the ambition of The
Department of Transport to have every driver
of a motor vehicle insured.
Mr. Whicher: He knows how to do it.
MARCH 26, 1958
1345
Hon. Mr. Allan: It is our hope to accom-
plish that in such a way that it is not going
to be unfair in the treatment of those drivers.
That is why I mentioned this afternoon that
it is our opinion, at the present time, that
The Department of Transport— and not the
insurance companies— are the ones who should
say whether or not a driver is entitled to
insurance.
Mr. Whicher: Then it will have to go into
the insurance business.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Oh no, we will not, be-
cause it is not realistic to state that the
insurance companies want to sell insurance
to everyone.
Mr. Whicher: To everyone who is worthy
of buying it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Who is going to say that?
Who is doing to determine that?
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
The brother-in-law would always get the
insurance policy The brother-in-law of the
agent, or the brother. That is where it would
enter in.
Hon. Mr. Allan: It is only reasonable to
recognize that the insurance companies, if
the matter is left entirely to them, are going
to pick their risks, and a great many persons
—remember— depend upon a driver's licence
for their living. We want to be sure that
everyone who is entitled to a driver's licence
has one, and that when that person needs
insurance, he is going to be able to get it.
That is the thinking back of our policy.
I still maintain that it is sound.
I recognize, as has been stated by many
—very sincerely I believe— this afternoon, that
everything is not perfect. We feel that there
has been a great improvement, that there
will be further improvements and we are, in
The Department of Transport, putting into
practice everything that we can learn.
I might tell the hon. member, just as a
matter of interest, that in connection with
our point system, two of our men sat in with
a committee in New York last week end,
endeavouring to decide— as a result of a
study conducted by one of the universities
in the United States, a very extensive study-
as to what value should be put on these
different points. When this point system is
introduced, we want to have it reasonable so
that it will serve the driver in the best pos-
sible manner and accomplish, naturally, good
results, as a result of having been introduced.
Mr. J. Root ( Wellington-Duff erin): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with considerable
interest to the hon. member for Bruce and
the hon. Minister of Highways, and to the
discussion this afternoon. There are just
one or two observations that I would like to
make, and suggestions that I would like to
leave with the hon. Minister.
First, let me say to the hon. member for
Bruce that he should not be under the illu-
sion that insurance rates will not go up if
we operate under compulsory insurance. For
the past 25 years, or almost that length of
time, I have operated a truck under compul-
sory insurance, and I know the rates that
we have to pay are higher than for the same
truck if it were not for the compulsory
feature.
I am not going to discuss that phase now—
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Does the hon. member charge any
more for hogs?
Mr. Whicher: Does he get any more under
the table?
An hon. member: Where does he get it?
Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member
is willing to make a charge that he thinks
he can substantiate, I will answer the charge.
If it is just a smear and an innuendo, I will
take it for what it is worth.
Mr. Whicher: I was only kidding.
Mr. Root: There has been a little too
much of that kind of thing in Ontario. Mr.
Speaker, what I wanted to say is that I
appreciate the fact that the department is
confronted with problems on this matter of
insurance, and I think it is the desire of
every hon. member to see to it that we
develop in our people a sense of responsibility.
If that can be accomplished by changes in
our unsatisfied judgment fund, I am all in
favour of it, because I am basically opposed
to compulsion, and I think we should use
compulsion only as a last resort.
I did want to suggest, to the hon. Minister,
one or two problems that have been brought
to my attention during the past year, that
arise out of the policy that is in effect in
Ontario at the present time.
As I said before, there is one group in
Ontario which is forced to file proof of finan-
cial responsibility, and that is the PCV opera-
tors.
Twice in the last year, I have had it
brought to my attention that constituents of
mine who are filing proof, under this com-
1346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pulsory requirement, have found to their
sorrow that they have been in collision with
someone who had no insurance. They were
not responsible for the accident. Since they
had insurance on their vehicle, they were
able to have it repaired through the collision
premium. Because they were involved in an
accident, their premium rate went up for
collision.
There does seem to be a bit of an injustice
there, that people who have filed proof find
that later on someone who has not taken
the bother to protect the other fellow does
not pay the penalty, or at least not at that
particular time.
Now in their studies, I would like the
people of the department to look into the
possibility of putting everybody on the same
basis. We can handle this question of finan-
cial responsibility through the unsatisfied
judgment fund. I am just wondering whether
they could take the group out of compulsory
insurance who are under it at the present
time, because I find this:
There are many small operators, with one
or two or perhaps three trucks, who are
forced to file proof, and at the same time,
there are many large operators of private
companies. I can think of a brewing in-
dustry if you like, the oil companies, some
of the great grocery chains and so on, that
have a fleet of long-distance heavy trucks,
and they are not required to file proof at
the present time.
I am just suggesting that, in these inves-
tigations, consideration be given to the pos-
sibility of putting everybody on the same
basis in the province. If we are going to
have proof of financial responsibility for one
group, let us have it for all groups. If we
are not going to have it for 80 per cent, or
90 per cent., let us not have it for any group.
As far as I am concerned, I would not
want to drive a truck without insurance on
it. I am just offering those two suggestions.
The other is this, that if, after the studies
are completed, the department may find
it necessary to demand some form of proof,
I would not suggest just insurance because
if we do that, we give a monopoly to the
insurance people. I would suggest that
several ways of filing proof be set up, if
such is found to be necessary. Insurance, yes.
Perhaps a bond that would be acceptable to
the department, and perhaps the department
might let the individual put up his own
money or credit that would be acceptable to
the department.
I am not in favour of creating monopolies,
and I think if we were to accept the sug-
gestion of the hon. member for Bruce, we
would create a monopoly for insurance com-
panies. I think we have to have some other
way of filing proof, if the department finds,
after it has completed the studies, that it is
necessary.
Let me say this. I think that the govern-
ment is doing the right thing by investigating
this whole problem, and moving slowly. If
we can develop a sense of responsibility in
our people without going to compulsion, I
am all for it.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): Mr.
Speaker, I will only be a few minutes, if
the hon. members do not mind hearing from
somebody who is in the insurance business.
In the first place, I think a lot of the mis-
conception about this compulsory insurance
is that everyone seems to relate the matter
of coverage for legal liability to the accident
rate. There is no relationship to it at all.
The hon. member for Bruce, as a matter
of fact, seemed to be giving the impression
that if we compel people to carry insurance
which they would otherwise not carry, that
somehow or other that would reduce the
accident rate.
Mr. Whicher: Will it make them more
accident-prone? Will there be more acci-
dents?
Mr. Grossman: I am merely stating, Mr.
Speaker, that many people who are talking
about compulsory insurance today, in their
minds are relating it to the matter of reduc-
ing the accident rate. It does not have a
thing to do with it.
Now, I do not mean only hon. members
in this House because, in the arguments
advanced, that seemed to be a thread of the
argument running through the whole premise.
Aside from that, the public generally, when
we talk to them about compulsory insurance,
say something about putting all those bad
drivers off the road, and that we must do
something about it.
Somehow or other, they seem to think that
enacting compulsory insurance is going to
accomplish that. I do not think it is going to
accomplish that at all.
The hon. member for Bruce also talked
very, very easily, very blithely about cancel-
ling all these people's permits if their insur-
ance is cancelled. I do not think the hon.
member really realizes the implications in
that. We know there are many people, Mr.
Speaker, who once during their lifetime have
MARCH 26, 1958
1347
an accident, through just one very, very
thoughtless momentary act. Now I think
we could all be accused of those moments,
at least once in our lifetime. Through that
accident, an insurance company will quite
often refuse to carry insurance.
Mr. Whicher: The hon. member is with
the wrong company.
Mr. Grossman: Now, if the hon. member
for Bruce knew anything about the insurance
business, and I say this quite kindly, he would
know that there is no insurance broker or
agent who is with one company. He generally
handles a line with many companies.
Mr. Whicher: He is with the wrong set of
companies.
Mr. Grossman: Well, they are generally
operated on the same basis, and surely the
hon. member is not going to suggest— surely
not— that the insurance company or agent
should be the judge as to whether or not a
person is going to drive a car. Now, surely,
in this democratic state, would he not sug-
gest that.
Mr. Whicher: Surely the hon. member for
St. Andrew is not going to suggest that
because of—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Whicher: I would like to ask a ques-
tion.
Mr. Grossman: Go right ahead.
Mr. Whicher: Is he going to suggest that
the many decent insurance companies that
we have in the province of Ontario are going
to cancel a person's policy because he has
one momentary lapse, or one accident in
other words? They do not do it, and the
hon. member knows it.
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the insurance
company looks at the claim, and looks at the
nature of the accident, and looks at their own
history for that particular year— their actuarial
tables— and they just say, "We have to make
some changes here, because we have had
too many people with accidents."
So they send the word out to the agents,
"You have just got to be a little more care-
ful, gentlemen."
As the applications come in, they will say,
"We are sorry, but we just have to be a
little more careful this year. We have had
a bad experience in the last year and—"
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member has
made the best case against them tonight.
Mr. Grossman: That may be. I am going
to get to the socialistic aspect, if I am
permitted by the Speaker. As a matter of
fact, that is precisely what I was going to
lead up to. This sort of cross-fire is just
the sort of thing that the hon. member for
York South and his party love, because it
points out weaknesses in our free enter-
prise system. We all know there are many
weaknesses in it, and if we keep on with
this sort of a hassle, socialists will step in
and give us socialized insurance. That is
what is going to happen.
There are many people for example, Mr.
Speaker, and I imagine among this group
are many farmers, who do not use their cars
very often. Compulsory insurance is going
to inflict upon them a much higher premium
merely to carry the cost of not only poor
drivers, but also the cost of those who are
driving their cars constantly.
Mr. MacDonald: The farmers drive all the
year.
Mr. Grossman: I suggested, Mr. Speaker,
that in my view, apparently many farmers
did not use their cars so often. I have heard
this view expressed and I could be wrong.
I do not know everything. I just know some
things.
There is another thing I think should be
considered, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member
for Bruce asked about the poor widow and
the children who are left as a result of a
fatal accident. The same question could be
asked about the survivors of a person who is
killed in a public building of some kind—
a restaurant, theatre, a public building.
I mean, no one here seems to be raising
the question that there should be compulsory
insurance on those places, and these people
cater to the public. We just take it for
granted that if we are going into a public
place, generally speaking, the owner will
make sure that he has what is required for a
good business operation, and has insurance.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, some of the
hon. members of this House might be sur-
prised if they knew how many of these places
they go into that cannot get insurance either.
As an insurance agent, I am not too sure
whether or not the insurance company should
have the right to say who shall drive a car
and who shall not drive a car. I repeat that
compulsory insurance definitely will increase
rates. There is not the slightest doubt about
it. If the hon. member talks to any insurance
man, within two minutes of thought, he
immediately knows that if we take every-
body into the pool, the poor drivers as well
1348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as the good drivers, and who are insured
today, that the rates must go up. They abso-
lutely must.
In referring to the question as to whether
the government should run the insurance or
not, of course it is always easy, Mr. Speaker,
to try to nationalize the other fellow's busi-
ness. I want to make some comment on one
aspect of what the hon. member for York
South said in this respect, that one of the
main reasons for a higher premium rate here,
as against Saskatchewan, for example, was
the middle man— the cost of the agent and
some of the overhead.
Well now, with car insurance, as a matter
of fact, the cost of the middle man, as far
as the agent is concerned, is very, very little.
It is an added cost, but of course, Mr.
Speaker, that argument could be followed in
every aspect of our business today.
I wonder whether the hon. member and
his party would suggest that we eliminate the
middle man such as the milkman who de-
livers milk, because quite easily we could
go to the corner grocery store and buy our
milk. The same thing with the bread sales-
man.
I wonder whether he would care to sug-
gest that this is an unnecessary expense,
because the consumer could get his mer-
chandise cheaper if he did without this so-
called middle man. The middle man gives
the service. He delivers it to your door.
In the same way the insurance man gives
a service.
Also I do not think the hon. members
should forget, in comparing rates with the
government insurance of Saskatchewan, that
there are many hidden costs to the tax payer
and to the insured in Saskatchewan. For
example, in the premium rates here is in-
cluded a portion of the corporation tax which
an insurance company must pay, and which
they do not pay in Saskatchewan. Inci-
dentally, in that respect, it means that the
premium payer in Ontario is to some extent
subsidizing the insured in Saskatchewan,
because when I pay a premium here, in-
cluded in that premium is a portion of the
tax which the company must pay.
That is fairly obvious, and to the extent
that I have to contribute to the federal cof-
fers in my insurance premium, and the Sas-
katchewan insurance holder does not, I am
subsidizing his insurance premium.
In addition to that, there is the tax on
the individual tax payer, the man who
makes a commission on selling the insurance,
and all of those people who are associated
with the so-called middle man in the insur-
ance business.
There is another factor, of course, which
has not been mentioned by the hon. member
for York South relating to the difference in
premiums between here and Saskatchewan,
if there is such a difference.
That is, rates naturally are quite higher
where there are many thousands more cars
in a smaller, more congested area. All the
hon. members will admit that, because the
exposure is greater, not only from the stand-
point of the risk, but when there is an
accident in an area like Ontario and I think
one of the hon. members mentioned that,
probably the proportion of new cars is much
greater. Any insurance claim adjuster will
tell us that the average car that has to be
repaired costs more in Ontario, not only
because there is a larger proportion of newer
cars, but probably because those who repair
cars are getting paid more money for it.
It also is reflected in the tax rate.
I am going to say something that might not
be very popular, Mr. Speaker. I think this
problem is highly exaggerated. If we do not
confuse the accident rate with this sort of
proposed compulsory coverage, what per-
centage of our people who are driving cars
are ever involved in an accident in which
there are uncollected damages? Very, very
few, Mr. Speaker.
Why build up any huge bureaucratic de-
partment for the purpose of handling some-
thing which is being handled fairly well? I
say that as a concession, Mr. Speaker, to the
Opposition, because we, in this province, do
things fairly well. We are not perfect in
every respect, but I do not think compulsory
insurance will pay, nor do I think that the
insured automobile driver nor the public
generally would be better off. In fact, I
think they would be worse off if we put this
sort of compulsion into effect.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can ex-
press our view on this resolution in about
one minute. I agree with the hon. member
for Bruce that compulsory insurance is neces-
sary. I agree with the hon. Minister of
Highways that the proposition that the insur-
ance company should be the agency for
screening who will drive on our highways is
wholly unrealistic. I suspect that the hon.
Attorney-General is correct— I think experi-
ence backs him up— that the proposal pre-
sented by the hon. member for Bruce is going
to raise rates and, in the end, the only way
that they can do something to cut those rates
MARCH 26, 1958
1349
down is to squeeze out the 30 per cent, that
is not necessary. That is the 30 per cent,
between what the private insurance com-
panies today— the 54 per cent, roughly— are
paying out in insurance premiums. This can
be done by government insurance, which
gives about 84 per cent, repayment. Sooner
or later the department will have to save that
30 per cent, to be able to make compulsory
insurance tolerable to people. When they
have to buy it, the government will have to
give it to them at cost.
Mr. Root: Why do they not do that in
Saskatchewan?
Mr. MacDonald: They are.
Mr. Root: They are not.
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Motion agreed to.
Mr. Oliver: No, it is not. We want to vote
on it. We want to divide the House on it.
Mr. Speaker: All right. Call in the hon.
members.
The vote is on the motion to adjourn the
debate.
Will all the hon. members who are in
favour of the motion, please rise.
As many as are opposed to the motion,
please rise.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Why is the hon. mem-
ber for Essex North (Mr. Reaume) not here?
He has not been here for 6 years for a vote.
Mr. Speaker: The resolution has been
negatived on the following division:
51 ayes.
8 nays.
Motion for the adjournment of the debate
agreed to.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): The
hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Thomas) was
going to withdraw that anyway.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I think I can say that the principle,
or any variations of this that we are inter-
ested in, can be covered by another bill that
is on the order paper.
Bill No. 106 withdrawn.
THE FAIR ACCOMMODATION PRAC-
TICES ACT, 1954
Mr. R. Gisborn moves second reading of
Bill No. 68, "An Act to amend The Fair
Accommodation Practices Act, 1954."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in saying a word
about the principle of this bill, and I think
that just a word should suffice because I did
present this bill last year and I am sure that
most of the hon. members know what the
intent is.
The bill intends to make it an offence to
discriminate against persons because of creed,
colour, nationality or ancestry in obtaining
living accommodation in multiple dwellings.
Now there is great justification in the bill
being adopted, and the best indication is the
incident that took place in Toronto in 1956.
The case of Forbes vs. Shields.
Mr. Forbes, a negro, alleged that he was
denied accommodation in an apartment
building because of his colour, and on the
basis of his allegations, the case was brought
before the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Daley) who in turn submitted it to a com-
mission to investigate the complaint on racial
discrimination in renting of accommodation.
The commissioner, his Honour judge
Thomas, of Bracebridge, in his report to the
hon. Minister, concluded that there was
"logical and irresistible inference that the
complainant (Forbes) was denied accom-
modation because of his colour." However,
the case was dismissed because the present
provisions of the Act do not cover rented
accommodation, such as apartments.
Since the hon. Minister of Labour sub-
mitted the complaint to the commission, I am
certain that he felt that the provisions of The
Fair Accommodation Practices Act would look
after the allegations. I feel that the principle
should be supported, and I just want to make
one little comment to help support the prin-
ciple.
I want to read a clipping from a paper
in regard to the election of the present
Young Conservative president— Mr. Jung:
Jung's victory was assured when Mari-
time, Western and Quebec delegates sup-
ported his candidacy en bloc with only the
Ontario delegates, and not all of them,
voting for Hogan. Jung's Conservative
supporters emphasized the fact that elec-
tion of a Chinese to head the Young Pro-
gressive-Conservative Association would
have favourable reaction in non-white areas
of the world.
1350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
"It will demonstrate to the world that
Canada is a country where there is no
racial discrimination and where democracy
really means something," was the way one
delegate expressed it.
That, I say, is the truth, and I hope the
bill is supported.
Hon. C. Daley (Minister of Labour): In
reply to the hon. member, I would like to
draw to his attention, and to the attention
of the House, that we have already intro-
duced a bill which is coming up for House
in committee, probably tonight. In this Act
we are proposing, the Honourable the Lieu-
tenant-Governor is empowered to establish a
commission to deal with the question of dis-
crimination. It also empowers this commis-
sion to establish a system and an educational
programme.
I would say, sir, throughout the years this
government has consistently endeavoured
from the early days— I am not too sure of
the date— to prohibit the establishment of
discriminatory restrictions in a will, or in
a deed, on down through. We have per-
mitted no discrimination in employment, no
discrimination in public accommodation. All
this has indicated, I think, throughout the
years, that this government has endeavoured,
to the extent that it is possible, to eliminate
discrimination in this province.
I would say we have met with a great
deal of success. It is my particular job in
The Department of Labour to administer
these Acts pertaining to discriminatory prac-
tices. I can say that because of the public
reception of the intent of these Acts— to per-
mit no discrimination because of race, creed,
colour or place of origin— the type of people
we have in Ontario should be complimented
highly, because they have accepted this. For
that reason, the number of cases of discrim-
ination which are brought to the attention
of the authorities in my department is very
limited. There is very little of it, and we
have, throughout the years, developed a sys-
tem of dealing with these cases that are
brought to our attention.
If someone alleges discrimination, even at
distant points such as Port Arthur, Fort
Frances, Ottawa, Windsor or any place, we
will have somebody investigating that job
as early as the next day after it has been
reported to us, endeavouring to conciliate it.
I can say that almost without exception we
have been successful, because it has been
proved that when there is a case of discrim-
ination, it is usually because the person
accused of discrimination is unaware that he
is doing anything contrary to the law, and it
is very easy to fix these things up.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the
educational programme which we will have,
when this bill before the House is finally ap-
proved, will in my opinion almost completely
eliminate discrimination in this province at
least. I think the moves that this government
has made along this line are being followed
by other provinces.
The federal government carries on quite
a programme of education, and it is our in-
tention to utilize that where we can, and to
develop our own system of acquainting the
people with the desirability of not discrimin-
ating against anyone.
I think in view of the fact that our bill
is before the House, which will not maybe
accomplish everything overnight that the hon.
member might expect, that we are taking one
more step forward in this programme of
eliminating discrimination. I think that what
we are doing will meet with the approval of
the people in this province who, I am happy
to say, have accepted the law of the province
that discrimination shall not be in effect in
this province.
I do not know anything more I could say
other than this, that I believe that under
the leadership of the hon. Prime Minister
the Acts which have already been put in
the statute books have accomplished a great
deal. This further Act that we have tonight
will be, as I have already said, just another
step forward to eliminate this evil of dis-
crimination.
Hon. Mr. Daley moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into the committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole.
Clerk of the House: There are two notices
of motions.
The first is by hon. L. P. Cecile, Resolved,
That the provincial costs of assistance
or relief,
(a) under an agreement for the Crown
in the right of Canada or any agency
MARCH 26, 1958
1351
thereof authorized by section 9 of The
General Welfare Assistance Act, 1958,
or
(b) paid under The General Welfare
Assistance Act, 1958, to a recipient of
direct relief or an allowance under The
Unemployment Relief Act,
and the expenses of administration of The
General Welfare Assistance Act, 1958, be
paid out of the consolidated revenue fund
until March 31, 1959, as provided by Bill
No. 176, An Act to provide general wel-
fare assistance to persons.
The second is by hon. J. N. Allan,
Resolved that—
(a) every purchaser within the meaning
of The Motor Vehicles Fuel Tax Act, 1956,
shall pay to the treasurer at the rate of
18.5 cents per imperial gallon on all fuel
received by them and not excluded by
regulations;
(b) every registrant within the meaning
of The Motor Vehicles Fuel Tax Act, 1956,
will pay to the treasurer a tax at the rate
of 18.5 cents per imperial gallon on all
fuel used by him to generate power for
the propulsion of a motor vehicle,
as provided for by Bill No. 185, An Act
to amend The Motor Vehicles Fuel Tax
Act, 1956.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to inform the House
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor ( Mr.
MacKay) having been informed of the sub-
ject matter of the proposed resolutions, recom-
mends them for the consideration of the
House.
Resolutions concurred in.
TOWN OF EASTVIEW
Hquse in committee on Bill No. 42, An
Act respecting the town of Eastview.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, last night I had a few more com-
ments I wanted to make in light of some of
the observations, but on second reading there
was no possibility of dealing with them
because the rules of the House do not permit
this.
They fall into two general categories;
first, comments on the procedure with which
this bill has been handled, and second, the
basic principle raised by the municipal board
report which, upon further investigation
today, I am convinced is not being protected
sufficiently, notwithstanding representations
made last night by the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Warrender).
Dealing first with the procedure of how
this has been handled, Mr. Chairman, the
sole intervention last night in the debate
by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. La-
vergne) was that I had been responsible
for the newspaper stories which revealed the
contents of the municipal board report on
this bill. Now Mr. Chairman, had I been
responsible for doing that, I submit that I
would have performed a real service; but
in spite of the unintentional compliment of
the hon. member, I can assure him that the
newspaper men did not need any assistance
from me in digging out that report when it
had not been read either to this House or
to the standing committee.
It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that
under the circumstances it would have been
the part of wisdom for the hon. member
for Russell to have maintained a discreet
silence. After all, one of the most disturbing
features of this bill is that it was designed
to cope with the situation created by serious
municipal mismanagement. Yet the very
sponsor of the bill was the chief architect
of that mismanagement. In describing it as
such, I am only describing what the muni-
cipal board has reported.
Further, in the first draft of the bill, the
municipal board report indicated that this
House was given completely false informa-
tion. If some hon. members of the Opposi-
tion—and perhaps notably myself— had been
guilty of submitting anything to this House
which so misrepresented the facts of a serious
situation, I am certain that we would have
been delivered a lecture on Victorian ethics
by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Frost) in
tones of righteous indignation that would
have made some of the lectures of the past
sound almost like a song of praise.
Yet the fact of the matter is that the hon.
Prime Minister's only contribution to the de-
bate last night was to point to the fact that
the Ottawa Citizen had carried a story sug-
gesting that everybody back in Eastview
seemed quite happy with the situation.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): That
is for the people of Eastview to deal with
themselves, I mean I do not know what we
have —
Mr. MacDonald: Well, just let me proceed
now, because if the people of Eastview are
really happy as the one story indicated, I
1352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
want to suggest to the hon. Prime Minister
that it is because they have not yet learned
the true facts. I do not know how anybody
who read the municipal board's report sub-
mitted to this House could not be profoundly
disturbed with the kind of situation that it
revealed.
Hon. Mr. Frost: If that is so, what does
the hon. member propose to do with it?
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now, just
a minute. My second comment on the pro-
cedure has been that the handling of this
bill, particularly at the committee stage, was
an elaborate effort to try to have the bill
slipped through without the facts getting
to the public.
I am not going to assess the motives if
there were any motives that need to be
criticized— but the hon. Prime Minister cannot
deny the fact that when the Ontario muni-
cipal board report came before the House in
accordance with rule No. 75, it was he who
asked that it be held over so that it could be
read in committee. He also cannot deny, nor
can anybody—
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say to my hon.
friend, there is no use talking about "cannot
deny," implying that I am denying anything.
The fact of the matter is that I asked that
the report that was brought forward in the
House be read to the committee, and I think
it would have been far better if the report
had been read to the committe with the hon.
Minister's letter. Now, who is denying any-
thing?
Mr. MacDonald: The fact of the matter
is that it was not—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, all right, I had it
read here yesterday.
Mr. MacDonald: All I am saying is that
there was an elaborate effort to get this bill
through without—
Hon. Mr. Frost: There was not any elab-
orate effort-
Mr. MacDonald: Because of the fact that
the newspaper reporters got hold of the
report, and published its contents, so that
the facts were out, the whole matter had to
be brought up on top of the table. Since
then, of course, it has been read here into
the records of the House.
The other point that I wanted to raise, Mr.
Chairman, is with regard to the basic prin-
ciple involved in this.
The Ontario municipal board, in its first
recommendation, urged that this bill should
not be passed. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have
today taken steps to satisfy myself that, in
spite of the various interpretations that may
be put on the words of that report, this was
precisely what .the authors of the municipal
board report intended.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why did they go on to
offer an alternative then?
Mr. MacDonald: Their first recommenda-
tion was that the bill should not be passed.
Then the report went on to suggest that it
should not be passed, so that initiative for
solution of this financial situation in Eastview
should be placed in the lap of the council
that was responsible for creating it. Left to
deal with their own plight, the people of
Eastview could find out exactly how bad is
the situation with regard to their finances.
This was a specific recommendation.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General): Did
not my hon. friend say all this last night?
Hon. Mr. Frost: I think my hon. friend
is out of order. However, in view of the
fact that he complains about the procedure in
the committee, I think we should go ahead
and let him say it, I do not think he is
adding anything to anything, but let him go
ahead, I have no objection. I would ask
indulgence to let him go ahead. After all,
there is no gag rule around here.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs last night said that the
reason why the fourth recommendation made
in the Ontario municipal board had not been
accepted was that an amendment had been
made this year to one section of The Ontario
Municipal Board Act, which makes it possible
to go in any municipality to make a study
of their finances.
I want to suggest that that has no particular
relevance to the situation that we are dealing
with in Eastview at the present time. There
have always been such powers in The Muni-
cipal Board Act— in fact, the municipal board
report was written in full knowledge of those
powers.
Furthermore, it was in light of those powers
that the municipal board's suggestion was
made that, if this bill were going to be passed,
one of the amendments that should be made
was, in effect, that the affairs of Eastview, as
long as these debentures were outstanding,
should be placed under the control of The
Department of Municipal Affairs.
The hon. Minister's effort to bring in this
other amendment is irrelevant. It is a political
MARCH 26, 1958
1353
smoke screen that has nothing to do with this
particular issue, because the necessary powers
were in existence in section 332— powers to go
in and make an investigation if the situation
demanded it.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Quite wrong.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. Minister knows that section 332 gives him
the power to go in and make an investigation.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: That is a different sec-
tion altogether. It has to do with an inquiry,
not this.
The hon. member can go ahead, and then I
will set him right when he has finished.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, Mr. Chair-
man, the government has taken a very lenient
approach here instead of taking what, in light
of the circumstances, should have been a very
strong approach to make certain that this
kind of situation is going to be cleared up and
will not recur again.
The hon. Minister himself told the House
last night— and it seems to me that this is
a very relevant piece of information— that two
years ago he had intimated to the council of
Eastview that the situation was so bad that
something should be done about it.
What happened in the intervening two
years? Was this warning, was this advice,
taken? No, the situation went from bad to
worse.
Now, in light of that, for the protection of
the citizens of Eastview, how can the govern-
ment take this easy way out? The govern-
ment's attitude has all the suggestion of
being a politically easy way out.
My final point is this. One of the changes
of the last 20 years, as compared with the
kind of problem and the kind of experience
we had in the depression when the munici-
palities got into economic difficulties, is that
by amended powers it is now possible for
The Department of Municipal Affairs to take
over control of a municipality.
This gives the creditors and the bond-
holders of the municipality the assurance that
their interests are going to be protected.
I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that
the government's action in this case is of
wider significance than Eastview. If the
bondholders and creditors of municipalities
all across this province get the idea that the
government is not willing to exercise this
supervisory power which, in their wisdom
after the experience of the 1930's, govern-
ments assumed unto themselves, if they are
not willing to exercise that power, then they
are going to raise legitimate apprehensions.
It was this fear that, I think, was in the
minds of the authors of the municipal board
report when they suggested to the govern-
ment that it should act now.
My final word is with regard to a com-
msnt which the hon. Prime Minister made
last night. He said that if the affairs of East-
view were taken under control of the depart-
ment by statute, then the only way that such
control could be relinquished is by another
statute. I submit to the hon. Prime Minister
that that is not the case. The municipal
board's recommendation stated specifically
that this control would be for only as long
as the particular issue of bonds is outstand-
ing. Just as quickly as this particular issue
of bonds was paid off, then, automatically,
this control would end.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Supposing they issued
debentures for, say, 10 years, supposing that
happened, would the hon. member keep
them under supervision for 10 years?
Mr. MacDonald: That is precisely what the
municipal board suggested.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I do not agree.
Mr. MacDonald: Therefore, I am even
more convinced of the wisdom of the thought
back of the municipal board report. I submit
to the government that the board's first
preference should be heeded, namely that
the bill should not pass, and that the task of
solving Eastview's financial difficulties should
be left with the council which was
responsible for them in the first instance.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. 42 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost: In connection with this
bill, I think I should say that the Clerk of
the House advised me that the day the
report was referred to in the committee— I
am not sure whether it was in the committee
or here in the House-when the report came
up in the House and was referred to in
the House, the press gallery asked for the
report and the Clerk of the House sent it
to them in the ordinary course. Now, that
is how they got the report, so I might as
well make that plain, so there will be no
misunderstanding.
Mr. MacDonald: I am glad to hear that.
I trust the hon. member for Eastview, who
said it was I who was responsible for getting
it for the press, will take note.
1354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: After all, I want to be
fair about it, the press did not have to ferret
it out. I am telling the truth, and the press
had every right to get the report.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 129, An
Act to amend The Public Service Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 129 reported.
THE REGISTRY ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 135, An
Act to amend The Registry Act.
On section 1 :
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Attorney-General):
Mr. Chairman, I move that subsection 7 of
the new section 52 be amended by adding
to it the following clause:
( d ) To a deed covenant mortgage assign-
ment of mortgage release or quit claim
made by an executor or administrator or
trustee under a will or by a public trustee
or any other person dealing with lands in
an official capacity.
That amendment simply adds one further
provision under subsection 7 on page 2 of
the bill, in addition to those already set out
there as noted.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 135, as amended, reported.
ONTARIO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
COMMISSION
House in committee on Bill No. 155, An
Act to establish the Ontario anti-discrimina-
tion commission.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 155 reported.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 158, An
Act to amend The Public Service Act.
On section 1:
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
On section 1, subsection 5, I want to place
in there, after 4, that this section does not
apply to any employee who was more than
50 years of age when his continuous service
commenced. That is, no civil servant will
be entitled to this if he is appointed after
he is 50 years of age.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3, agreed to.
Bill No. 158 reported.
THE COUNTY JUDGES ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 156, An
Act to amend The County Judges Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: On section 2, I move
that "judges" mentioned in section 1 be
inserted after the word "be" in the first line
of subsection 1 of the new section 3 that
"judges or" be inserted after "more" in the
second line of that subsection, and that
"judge or" be inserted after (a) in the first
line of subsection 2, so that section 3 will
read as follows:
1. In addition to the judges mentioned
in subsection 1, and the junior judges
mentioned in section 2/1, or more judges
or junior judges not exceeding 6 in num-
ber, may be appointed to
(a) The county or district court of any
county or district of the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor-in-Council may designate, or
(b) the county and district courts of
the county and districts of Ontario.
2. The junior judge appointed for the
county and district courts of the county
and districts of Ontario shall reside in the
county or district courts district that is
designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-
Council.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 156, as amended, reported.
EXTENSION
OF MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE
House in committee on Bill No. 160, An
Act to provide for the extension of municipal
franchise.
On section 1:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, I understand that a
MARCH 26, 1958
1355
number of municipalities— perhaps 3. in num-
ber—have already voted on this question.
Would they be required, under this bill, to
have another referendum before they could
operate under its provisions?
Did the committee sit twice on this thing,
did they pass in the first instance? I was
not at the committee meeting, but there was
some suggestion that the first report of the
committee indicated that these 3 municipali-
ties would not have to vote again.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): I was not at the first meeting,
but it did come to my attention, at the
first meeting of the committee, that 3 names
were left in the record— the names of those
cities which had an affirmative vote. Then
the next day, when I was present, the matter
was reopened by one of the hon. members.
I was to decide on reconsideration of the
section that those 3 names should be stricken
from the record, having the effect that all
municipalities must now vote on the question,
and in the affirmative, before it would become
effective.
Mr. Oliver: Did this bill receive considera-
tion on two successive days in committee?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: It was held over from one day
to the next.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: I do not know what
happened from the one day to the next, but
1 do know-
Mr. Oliver: I thought they reported to the
House it had passed.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: No, the first day I
understand it was not reported, but when
the subject matter was opened up again the
Clerk of the House sent upstairs for the bill,
and it was brought down and reconsidered
the second day. At that time, as I say, that
amendment took place.
Mr. R. Whicher: (Bruce): Unfortunately, I
could not be at the second meeting, but I
would like to ask why they would make
Toronto, as an example, vote again, when
certain officials from the city of Toronto said
at the first day of the meeting that it had
passed 4 to 1 in favour. Or was it 2 to 1?
Hon. Mr. Warrender: It does not matter,
the principle is there anyway.
The answer to that is this, Mr. Chairman,
that a question such as worded here in section
2 of the bill was posed to the citizens of
Toronto, London and Port Arthur, and there
was an affirmative vote for the principle.
It was the feeling of the committee that,
even though that was the case, the ratepayers,
owners and tenants would be asked to vote
again, because there are certain principles
now attached to the bill which could not be,
and were not even, suggested when the ab-
stract question was asked in the first place.
That was the committee's view, so they
reported that these 3 municipalities named
should be deleted, so that now they must
vote in the affirmative. As I say, no one
ever thought it might be necessary to have
it enumerated to protect the rights of those
to whom the privilege of voting is to be
extended. They would not know just what
was involved in the general procedure. They
could not know that there might be this cost
involved in the enumeration, in order to com-
plete the list.
For those and various other reasons it was
thought advisable, even though 3 had voted
in the affirmative, that they be asked to vote
again in the interest of the citizens them-
selves, particularly the homeowners who, if
there is another vote, would have to pay the
cost of that enumeration and all the other
election expenses involved in it.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I just want
to make one remark about it. I remember
distinctly the official who was representing
the city of Toronto said that it was going to
cost the city $125,000 for the enumeration.
He had it worked out in detail, and I sug-
gest that the city certainly does know how
much it is going to cost. They were quite in
favour. Even the people who were there
representing the homeowners' or ratepayers'
association, while they had been against the
bill to start with, they are for it now. There
was not one person from the city of Toronto
against it, as I recollect.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: It was pointed out,
Mr. Chairman, to members of the board of
control that there would be some cost
involved in this. I heard no murmurs at that
time.
As a matter of fact, I quoted some figures
from the 1955 general provincial election
which was the only thing we had to go by,
because it was the same general class
involved. In 1955 it cost about $114,600, so
I am not surprised that they now come up
with a figure of $125,000.
That was all explained to them, and, as I
say, I heard nothing more about it from them.
Mr. MacDonald: I attended all the meet-
ings in which this bill was considered. It was
considered at 3 meetings. At the first meet-
ing it was discussed in considerable detail.
1356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Representations were made from the city of
Toronto and London, from the association of
women electors. It was held over because
the department officials wanted to let a
few more days elapse so that they might be
able to get reports from the municipalities as
to which copies of the bill had been sent out.
It was held over until the following Monday.
On the following Monday we made an
amendment to what was section 2, sub-
section 2, of the first draft of the bill— includ-
ing Port Arthur, along with Toronto and
London, because of the fact that Port Arthur
had wired and indicated they had held a
vote and they would like to be included with
these other two cities.
It was discussed thoroughly; in fact the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Child)
indicated that he thought that all munici-
palities should be put on an even basis— that
we should, in effect, strike out section 2.
This was debated at considerable length
in the presence of the people who were
interested. The bill was then adopted.
Then we came back to another meeting,
the following Monday, when the interested
persons had no idea that this bill was going
to be considered at all. The hon. member
for Renfrew South (Mr. Maloney) raised
the issue, claiming that he had been talking
to some of his constituents the night before,
and as a result of talking to them, he felt
that we should not give Toronto and London
and Port Arthur the right to enact this by
a by-law without having another vote.
Mr. Chairman, I find it rather strange—
in fact, incredible— that the constituents of
Renfrew South are disturbed about whether
or not Toronto can move on this without
having another vote. But this was the pre-
text upon which it was raised again. It
seemed rather apparent that the bill had
been discussed by Conservative hon. mem-
bers of the committee in the intervening
period and this section was deleted.
I would like to add further to what the
hon. leader of the Opposition has said, and
tell the House of something of which the
hon. Prime Minister is aware.
In the first place, in the city of Toronto
the board of control met this morning. They
discussed this and they asked the mayor
of Toronto to get in touch with the hon.
Prime Minister because they were disturbed
by our action. They cannot understand why,
after all of the interested persons and organi-
zations had made representations, and pre-
sumably this was settled, then on this rather
flimsy pretext that the people of Renfrew
South were disturbed, the whole matter
should be raised again.
I understand that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's explanation was that it would upset
something in the Metro arrangement— what
exactly, I do not know. Some people in their
representations at the second meeting in-
dicated that, because of people moving from
one section of Metro to another, there would
be difficulty in making up lists. It all seemed
to me to fall into the category of exaggerating
the mechanical difficulties as a means of de-
feating the basic principle, because even if
we do go ahead and delete this section and
the city of Toronto decides to have a vote
and they pass it, once again they could
proceed, and by so doing, presumably they
would upset Metro.
Well, are they going to upset Metro under
those circumstances any more than if they
were given permission now?
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, extremely
presumptious that this Legislature and its
committee particularly— led by people who
have no particular interest in these 3 areas
and after representatives from these areas
have come and gone home— should suddenly
decree that these 3 municipalities must have
another vote.
Let me draw to the attention of the House
that one of the bodies represented at the
first two meetings of the committee, when
presumably the bill was accepted, was the
association of women electors.
In fact, the association of women electors,
along with the professional women's associa-
tion and the board of trade, was among the
bodies that considered the whole question in
Toronto before it was voted on by the people.
The question had much more discussion than
some of the comments of the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs would suggest.
As a result of what happened at the com-
mittee meeting, and the deleting of section
2, the association of women electors have
written a letter to the hon. Prime Minister,
a copy of which has been sent, I believe, both
to the hon. leader of the Opposition and
myself. I want to read two or three para-
graphs of it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: They did not bother send-
ing one to me.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is addressed to
the hon. Leslie Frost and it is dated March
25.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well then, I must admit
I have not seen it.
MARCH 26, 1958
1357
I will be very glad to hear it. Let the
hon. member go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: I am starting at the sec-
ond paragraph:
If there had been any new evidence
presented today, we could have understood
the reversal in view of the short time left
in this Legislative session.
But the only new consideration reported
in the press was derisory. Mr. Maloney
is reported to have said that his con-
stituents in Renfrew were troubled by
some matters in the bill. But the constitu-
ents of Renfrew are not affected one way
or the other by the change made in the
bill today.
That is, the deletion of the 3 cities that
have held votes.
Hon. Mr. Allan and hon. Mr. Warrender
are reported to have said that when the
citizens of Toronto voted for the franchise
extension in the referendum in 1956, they
did not realize how complicated and ex-
pensive the new franchise would be to
operate, and that they had voted for the
principle in the abstract without being
aware of some of the difficulties of putting
it into effect.
It is difficult to take these alleged state-
ments seriously as arguments for changing
the legislation so as to require the voters
of Toronto, London and Port Arthur to
vote on it all over again. What should
they vote on except the principle? Does the
Ontario government expect, either of the
provincial voters or of municipal voters,
the technical knowledge to pronounce on a
particular detailed scheme.
If there are difficulties in the scheme pro-
vided in Bill 160, which was hon. Mr.
Warrender's bill, why does he suddenly
discover that the day after the scheme is
approved by the committee.
We believe there is a clear issue of prin-
ciple in the procedure. If your government
were operating on the principle that Mini-
sters should decide without public hearings,
we could understand the decision today.
But if so, why was a false appearance
of democratic consultation given by hold-
ing hearings, coming to a committee deci-
sion on the basis of the hearings, and
then, when the bodies concerned are no
longer present, reversing that decision?
It becomes difficult for public-spirited
bodies to contribute to the democratic pro-
cess if their informed and careful participa-
tion in that process is to be treated in
this cursory way.
That, I repeat, is a letter from the associa-
tion ot women electors addressed to the hon.
Prime Minister.
Mr. Cowling: Who signed that?
Mr. MacDonald: It is signed by Mrs. C. B.
MacPherson who is president of the associa-
tion of women electors, and dated March
25, 1958.
When we get to section 2— in light of these
representations which strike me as being very
vand because they are precisely the kind of
representations I made as a minority of one
in the committee when this sudden reversal
was made at the third meeting, after the
bodies had gone away— I propose in section
2 to move an amendment.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I might mention that I
have not received that letter. I may say this
morning I did have a conversation with his
worship the mayor of Toronto. His worship
said there was no resolution of council or
the board of control as I understand it; in
any event there was no resolution presented
to me.
The conversation my hon. friend referred
to did not have to do with the mechanics of
voting at all. As a matter ot tact, 1 have not
paid any attention to the matter of the com-
mittee nor do I know what took place or the
course ot things in the committee, but I
point out that this matter has come to me
and this was the course of my conversation
with the mayor.
It referred to Metropolitan Toronto. In
Metropolitan Toronto there are 24 elected
members in the council, 12 of them come
from the city of Toronto and 12 of them
come from the other 12 municipalities of the
Toronto metropolitan area.
I found this, that there was a difference of
opinion within Metropolitan Toronto, and I
suppose it has been expressed to the hon.
members here from Metropolitan Toronto
that, it this Act came into eltect as of January
1, 1959, in Toronto, the city of Toronto
itself which elects 12 members to the council
would have a different type of electorate than
the other 12 members from municipalities in
Metropolitan Toronto.
It was pointed out that these other muni-
cipalities would not have the right to adopt
this type of voting until they had a vote,
which would mean that they would not be
able to elect their reeve or their representative
to the metropolitan council on this same
basis, until 1961.
1358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In other words, Metropolitan Toronto
would have a different body or electorate
than would have the other 12 municipalities.
I discussed this at the time with the mayor.
I did not discuss this with others, but I gave
some consideration myself to the question of
bringing all of Metropolitan Toronto into the
ambit of this Act, and allowing them to do
this without a vote, which means that we
would have 12 municipalities brought in
without any vote effective January 1, 1959.
One of the objections of that was this, and
it came from the township of North York,
whose council wrote us, and were very
strongly opposed to both the bill and the
principle of the bill.
In any event, North York, I think, is in
the hon. member's own constituency. Well,
North York township very strongly opposed
this bill, both the principle and everything
else.
The point was this: First of all, either
make it available to everyone without a vote
in Metropolitan Toronto, with the largest
partner in Metropolitan Toronto coming in
without a vote, or else have them all take
a vote. I would, in looking this thing over,
think that the second alternative of having
them all take a vote is the proper procedure.
In other words, I do not think in Metro-
politan Toronto there is a very considerable
argument against having a different electorate
in the city of Toronto than there is in the
other municipalities.
On the other hand there is this, and I
think this answers my hon. friend's question.
Suppose in 1961 the city of Toronto votes
favourably and in 1961 they have an elec-
tion, and they elect on this new voters' list,
but the others do not. Nevertheless the other
municipalities have had the opportunity of
doing it and then it is a free matter for
them.
It might be that, in the township of North
York for instance, either the council would not
submit it to the people or it might be sub-
mitted to the people and the people might
vote against it, but still they would have the
right, and it would be putting them all
on an even keel.
I would say I have not had any strong
feelings about this particular matter at all,
but it would seem to me that those arguments
would be far more desirable in Metropolitan
Toronto, if for no other reason than to have
them all on an even basis, and they have the
opportunity this January of voting for or
against the position if their councils want to
submit it.
In 1960-
Mr. Oliver: How are they going to arrange
a metropolitan vote?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, there is not a
metropolitan vote, but all the municipalities
have the opportunity of submitting it to the
people. If they do not do it, that is their
business and they cannot complain. But at
the present time I can say this, that it is very
obvious that there are going to be some very
serious complaints about it.
I think we had better leave it the way it
is.
Mr. MacDonald: Suppose they did not
want to have a vote and some of the other
areas, 2, 3, or 4 of them, along with Toronto
decided to have a vote, and voted favourably?
Then we are right back where we started.
Hon. Mr. Frost: No, no, that is their busi-
ness. They all have the opportunity.
Mr. MacDonald: Their business is that
they did not want to have a vote because
they are opposed to it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, that is up to them.
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, but whether or not
they hold a vote, a neighbouring municipality
in Metropolitan Toronto holds the vote, and
votes "yes", so that we have this discrepancy,
which I suppose the hon. Prime Minister is
exaggerating—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Why does the hon. mem-
ber not talk it over with his own township?
Mr. MacDonald: —in the fact that the
electorate is somewhat different in Toronto
than it is in a neighbouring riding.
Mr. A. Grossman (St. Andrew): I do not
know how much importance he places on
it, but I think the hon. member should know
there is a difference. They are, in effect,
electing members to a council some of whom
are elected from one class and another from
another class; those people are going to be
setting a metro level which all of the people
in all of the 13 municipalities are going to
have to meet.
Mr. MacDonald: I grant that. Let me ask
the hon. Prime Minister another question. All
the arguments he has advanced are with
regard to Metropolitan Toronto. Let us
forget Metropolitan Toronto for a moment.
Is he, in effect, going to say to London and
to Port Arthur: "We impose our will on you.
You must hold another vote, even though
your representatives were here, including
MARCH 26, 1958
1359
hon. members of the government side of the
House, who were sponsoring the people and
voting for it"? In fact, government hon.
members from the interested areas were not
at the other meeting when the reversal was
made— the hon. members from London, for
example.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Could the hon. member
omit, for instance, the city of Toronto on the
grounds we have mentioned, and then turn
around and include the city of Port Arthur?
I think myself, when we look at it, that is
far better to start them all from scratch and
let them vote for it, and then everybody will
be satisfied. It is, at least, democratic.
Mr. C. E. Janes (Lambton East): I was on
that committee, and there was a thorough
discussion given to this matter, and they all
voted unanimously except, I think, our hon.
friend here—
Mr. MacDonald: It was the third meeting
though.
Mr. Janes: That is all right, but they dis-
cussed it very thoroughly, and thought they
were doing the right thing, and I think they
were.
Mr. MacDonald: After they sent the others
home.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): I think the
hon. leader of the Opposition has a question
in mind, and I think I can answer it.
An hon. member: What is the answer?
Mr. Cowling: Here is the answer, and I
think I know what his question would be.
The 13 municipalities included in Metropoli-
tan Toronto all vote on the same day, and
it is the first Monday in December.
He was asking the question, "Would they
all have to vote maybe on different days?"
They all vote on the same day every time.
Mr. Oliver: No, just a minute. This bill
refers to the city of Toronto, that is, the city
of Toronto proper, as I understand it.
The hon. Prime Minister says that maybe
we had better just have them all vote all over
again. Well now, if they start voting all over
again what will happen? The city of Toronto
will vote again, and supposing they carry it
in the affirmative once more, as they have
done in the past, then how different is their
position then than it is now?
Hon. Mr. Frost: They all have an equal
opportunity.
Mr. Oliver: What does the hon. Prime
Minister mean, "they all have an equal op-
portunity"?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, they all have the
opportunity now of submitting to the elec-
torate at the next election. If they do not
do that, then they cannot complain. But at
the present time there are bound to be some
complaints.
Mr. Oliver: I think the hon. Prime Minis-
ter is missing the point completely.
If he says that Toronto, by this bill:
"Even though you have voted and carried,
you are going to have to vote again," and
supposing they carry it this time— as they
probably will, as this has become a matter
that has won pretty wide approval this last
number of years— then the city of Toronto
will again be the island as it is now. We
would be in precisely the same position as
we are in at the moment, so what better
off are we going to be insofar as the other
component parts of Metropolitan Toronto are
concerned?
It may be, as my hon. friend says, that
they all vote on the one day, but they all
may not get the notion to vote on this par-
ticular question.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Surely that is their busi-
ness.
Mr. Oliver: I know it is their business, but
1 mean, why is this government going to
deny the city of Toronto what they have
asked for? They can get it, if they vote
again, and the situation will be exactly the
same in relation to the other component parts
of Metropolitan Toronto. It will not be
changed one bit.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me draw to the hon.
Prime Minister's attention that he received a
letter from York township which is opposed
to it in the principle. That being the case,
are they going to submit it to the vote?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Probably not, but they
have the opportunity.
Mr. MacDonald: How can he say they have
the opportunity when they did not even have
a vote at all?
An hon. member: They had the opportun-
ity in the past, too.
Mr. MacDonald: I want to move, seconded
by Mr. R. Gisborn, that section 2, subsection
2 of Bill 160, as contained in the original bill
1360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and as amended in the standing committee,
be restored, so that it will read as follows:
The council of the corporation of the
city of Toronto, the council of the corpor-
ation of the city of London, and the coun-
cil of the corporation of the city of Port
Arthur, may pass a by-law under section
1 without submitting for the consent of
the municipal electors the question referred
to in subsection 1.
Mr. MacDonald: A moment or so ago, on
behalf of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr.
Thomas) who could not be in the House
tonight, I withdrew a resolution which dealt
with essentially the same principle as this.
There is only one variation, as pointed out
by some other responsible bodies who have
looked into this question, such as the citizens'
research committee which has circulated hon.
members of this House with a study of this
Toronto bill and the extension of the muni-
cipal franchise.
If this government is going to extend the
municipal franchise on voting for members
of council, why should they deprive people
for voting for members of the school board
or public utilities?
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, how can they tell
who is a public or separate school supporter,
how do they do that?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, there are various
ways of doing that. I do not want to go
into details now.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, there is not any
way in which that can be done.
Mr. MacDonald: This is exactly the same
argument as the hon. Minister has put for-
ward earlier— that the problems of enumera-
tion are great. I submit again, Mr. Chair-
man, what is happening here is all manner
of mechanical detail and procedures have
been raised for the purpose of defeating the
principle.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: Oh, that is what the
hon. member says.
Mr. MacDonald: The principle that I want
to inject into this bill which was contained
in the resolution of the hon. member for
Oshawa, is this,
That section 2, subsection 1 of Bill No.
160 be amended by adding the word
"school board trustees and public utilities
after election by members of council—
Hon. Mr. Frost: Oh, dear.
Mr. MacDonald: —so that the question to
be submitted to the electors will read as
follows :
Are you in favour of extending the right
to vote at the municipal elections for
members of council, school board trustees
and public utilities to all persons of the
full age of 21 years who are British sub-
jects, and who will have resided in the
municipality for at least one year in ac-
cordance with The Municipal Franchise
Extension Act of 1958?
I draw to the hon. Prime Minister's atten-
tion, if he is really genuinely disturbed, that
this is in essence the question that was voted
on in each of the cities where the vote has
already been held.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, that may be, but I
do not think it is constitutional. May I point
out to my hon. friend, supposing they have
an enumeration in some place, and public
school supporters are put on the separate
school panel, as a matter of fact they might
overwhelm the separate school supporters by
their vote, and they might conversely work
where they have a small public school and
a large separate school.
I would say furthermore, I doubt that it
is constitutional, and that was the advice we
received, I do not think it is constitutional.
How can they put a person on a separate
school or on a public school panel by enumer-
ation? As a matter of fact, the law says that
it follows the payment of taxes, and if there
is no payment of taxes, then how could they
meet that situation?
Mr. MacDonald: Again I do not want to
go into the details on some of those, but
some—
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member might
as well say something sensible.
Mr. MacDonald: —of those who submitted
representation to the committee, and who
were in favour of this, pointed out that there
would be no more difficulty here— and I am
addressing myself at the moment to the
constitutional issue— than experienced in west-
ern provinces which have separate schools
and an extended franchise.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, I would say it was
discussed here.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I am sorry, I am
reminded the Deputy Minister did raise it
in the committee. It slipped my mind.
MARCH 26, 1958
1361
The point is this, it was felt that in the
enumeration they can do it by assessors, as
some people want it, or ask the person if
he is a separate school supporter when
enumerating. There are some people who
are Roman Catholics who designate them-
selves as public school supporters on the
municipal rolls today.
Now is that unconstitutional?
Mr. Collings: They pay taxes.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree.
Mr. Grossman: The same thing would not
apply to a 21-year-old necessarily, my hon.
friend must know that, because there is no
financial responsibility attached to his declara-
tion, whereas as it exists now there is a
financial responsibility as to where that per-
son's taxes go when he declares himself as
either a separate school or a public school
supporter.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. member's
argument were basically valid, then we start
from the premise that anybody who is not
paying taxes should not be in this picture.
Mr. Grossman: That is a different thing
altogether.
Mr. MacDonald: We go back to some-
where before 1832, when only people with
property could vote.
Mr. Grossman: Has the hon. member read
the bulletin he refers to?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Mr. Grossman: Can he make any head or
tail about their argument with respect-
Mr. MacDonald: You bet I can.
Mr. Grossman: Well, could the hon. mem-
ber explain it to us? I would like to know.
Mr. MacDonald: I will not take time now.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: This demonstrates
one thing to me, and that is the hon. mem-
ber is supposed to have made a great study
of this matter, and it is quite obvious that
he does not know what he is talking about.
If he does not know what he is talking
about after having allegedly made this study,
how could some of the ordinary citizens
around town, who are going to be guided
by such persons as he, be guided to vote at
election time?
How can a person be either a public school
supporter or a separate school supporter when
they are not supporting anything? It has
been ruled by the legislative people that it
would be unconstitutional, and probably
would upset the whole school system in the
province of Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: If they are not support-
ing anything, Mr. Chairman, then they are
public school supporters. A person who is
not a separate school supporter and so desig-
nates himself— this is correct, and now let
hon. members not wave their hands at me
as though they can dismiss me out of exist-
ence—a person today who is not a separate
school supporter automatically becomes a
public school supporter.
I just draw to the hon. Minister's attention,
when he gets it down to the personal level,
that I have made no pretence of an exhaus-
tive look into this. But I draw to his atten-
tion that the votes that have been taken were
taken on the supposition that the vote would
be extended for this purpose, as well as for
electing council.
I also draw to his attention that here is
a body that has done a very thorough study.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: They did not under-
stand what they were talking about.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. gentleman used
to be an alderman in the city of Toronto,
and he knows that this body has been put-
ting out bulletins dealing with public issues
and municipal affairs for years. They are not
an irresponsible body that is going to throw
this out without—
Mr. Grossman: No, but that does not mean
that they have given the proper thought and
study to this, so as to satisfy those people
who have to stand up and vote for it, and
to satisfy me.
I have asked the hon. member, Mr. Chair-
man, to read this and try to explain to the
hon. members of this House, just exactly
what sense there is in the argument they
employ here.
The one line that they use for this new
group of voters, "no question of school sup-
port would arise, and allegiance for election
purposes is the only point concerned."
Perhaps the hon. member can explain that,
I cannot.
Mr. Whicher: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to make one remark about
this. I agree very much that the schools
should not be included in this vote, and I
was very much impressed by the Deputy
Minister when he explained to the committee
the other day that the legal advice that the
1362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
department had obtained was to the effect
that it was unconstitutional.
As far as I am concerned, that is quite a
satisfactory explanation.
However, I would like to ask the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs, if he has the
information, why we could not include the
public utilities commission? There is no ques-
tion of legality as far as public utilities com-
missions are concerned, and it seems to me
that inasmuch as they fit very much in with
council work, certainly in most municipalities
of this province, we could very well have
included them in this bill.
Hon. Mr. Warrender: We are going quite
far enough just mentioning voting for mem-
bers of council.
Clerk of the House: I have heard the
amendment moved by Mr. MacDonald,
seconded by Mr. Gisborn.
All in favour say aye.
Those opposed say nay.
In my opinion the nays have it.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I would say in passing
that it shows something of the complications
in this matter. While in the first instance
perhaps it was all right to have this thing go
through for Toronto and London, I had not
heard of Port Arthur. But really, when I see
and hear the complications, I think it far
better to let the people vote on this once
they get the bill before them. It has con-
vinced me.
Sections 3 to 11, inclusive agreed to.
Bill No. 160 reported.
THE LIQUOR CONTROL ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 161, An
Act to amend The Liquor Control Act.
On section 1:
Mr. A. Wren (Kenora): With regard to sec-
tion 1 of this bill, I would again appeal to
the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Dunbar)
to set out in section 1, subsection 4, some
clear definition as to what residence implies
in construction camps and in mining camps,
and so on across the north. Last night or
yesterday the hon. member for Beaches (Mr.
Collings) and I had quite a discussion out in
the hall about this. He suggested to me that
there was nothing wrong at all with a man
living in a room in a mining bunk house or
his lumber camp bunk house which had a
room in which the door could be locked,
or had a room which was shared with another
man which could be locked, in having liquor
in his possession in those rooms.
That is still not clearly defined under the
Act, and convictions have been obtained,
and I said the other night when I was speak-
ing about this subject that I would be glad
to sit down and discuss this.
Convictions have been obtained when men
have had, in their possession, liquor in rooms
which could be locked, where two men were
sharing a room. Charges were laid under
The Liquor Control Act because the mining
companies concerned had said that this was
not their private residence, that this was
the mining company's property.
Evidence was introduced into court to sug-
gest that the men were in that bunk house
simply because they were employees of the
mine and not because they were residing in
a private residence.
I would suggest again that, out of all due
consideration to the men who are at least
human beings, some amendment should be
made to the Act to make it clear.
It may be the intent of the administration
that what has happened should not be so,
and that these men should be permitted to
have liquor in rooms which can be locked,
and in rooms which are to all intents private
domiciles. But the Act does not clearly
imply that, and I would suggest to the hon.
Minister that amendments be made to make
that abundantly clear that where men have
liquor in their possession in rooms which can
be locked, or quarters which are private to
all intents and purposes to them, are free
from conviction under The Liquor Control
Act.
This is a difficult argument under which
one could not be convicted, because under
The Liquor Control Act of Ontario, the
moment a person opens his window, actually
he is guilty of an offence. I think it should
be made clear that these men are not guilty
of an offence if they take liquor into premises
which are to them private, and for which
they are paying substantial amounts of money
for room and board to occupy those premises.
Hon. Mr. Frost: There are some elements
of reason and perhaps fairness in what my
hon. friend says. But I would point out this,
that from a standpoint of definition, from
a standpoint of enforcement, it is just clearly
impossible. We could not accept it.
Mr. Wren: The whole Act is impossible.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Well, that may be. But
if the people want it, they can vote for it,
and if they do not, they can vote against it.
MARCH 26, 1958
1363
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: We have mentioned
apartment. We have not mentioned all these
things.
There is no doubt about it that the com-
pany must have had some good reason, they
must have been overstepping their privileges
with that mining company and creating a
disturbance, just the same as in the case of
a hotel.
If a person creates a disturbance in a
hotel, they could stop him from having
liquor, or he could not have it in the hallway
in the hotel. He must have it in the room.
We could not open the words "bunk house"
because, as the hon. member knows, I have
lived in the north country just the same as
he has, and I know bunk houses and have
owned them, and they are not all with private
rooms or semi-private rooms, or with locks on
them. Some of them have 40 men sleeping
in them in the mining camps. The hon.
member may call them bunk houses, but as
he knows, the proper name for them is—
Mr. Wren: Oh, the hon. Provincial Secre-
tary has not been around lately.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: The proper name for
them is "caboose."
Hon. Mr. Frost: Camboos.
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Caboose, that is what
they call them in the northwest. With
the threshing gangs, the men sleep in the
caboose and just what a lot of these are
throughout the north country I know some-
thing about, because I have lived there and
built a town there.
Mr. Wren: What about the man who has
a private room in a mining camp?
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: To a private room, there
is no objection.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Residence means a build-
ing, or part of a building, that is bona fide
and actually occupied and used by the owner,
lessee or tenant solely as a private dwelling,
together with the lands and buildings per-
tinent thereto which are, in fact, normally and
reasonably used as part of living accommoda-
tions.
This Act provides that these things are a
question of fact. We have not attempted to
define these things as rigidly as they were in
the old OTA and in the original Liquor Con-
trol Act. It is left, as a matter of fact, for
the magistrate to judge. The definition of
residence is clarified and extended. The
chief purpose is to enable the person to have
and consume legally acquired liquor in his
home or on his lands pertinent thereto.
In case of prosecution, the magistrate will
determine the matter as a question of fact.
I would say it is left to the common sense
of the magistrate to handle that.
It is an impossible situation to define, to
get down to a definition, and I would not
attempt to do it.
As a matter of fact, we have attempted in
this Act to remove some of the restrictions
that were in the old Act, and leave it to a
matter of common sense of adjudication on
the part of the magistrate as to what residence
is, having regard to the general definition.
I would not go further than that, and as
far as I am concerned, I would not be pre-
pared to accept any amendment that is a
matter of a great deal of difficulty-
Mr. Wren: Well, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Frost: The hon. member can
argue all he likes, he can talk from morning
till night-
Mr. Wren: Well, all right, I appreciate
what the hon. Prime Minister said about this.
But let him not forget some magistrates— and
I could name some— who are appointed under
the influence of mine managers, and I want
to say this—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Well now, just a minute.
Mr. MacDonald: Under the influence of
defeated Tory candidates.
Mr. Wren: I want to tell the hon. Attorney-
General— and he is a man for whom I have a
great deal of respect— that I do not want to
get into personalities about this. But the man
who is president of the Conservative associa-
tion in my riding is a mine manager, and he
has a great deal of influence around there
as to who is appointed to what, and what
instructions are issued to whom.
The point I am making is this—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would just like to get
the record clear on that. There was no
suggestion of the appointment of any magis-
trate by the mine manager or the candidate
in that riding that has been followed by any
appointment-
Mr. Wren: Well, all right, we will let that
go for the moment. The point I am trying
to make, Mr. Chairman, is that in this par-
ticular section of the Act, the government
goes to a great deal of pains to set out the
definition as to when a building or part of
building, as the hon. Prime Minister has
1364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pointed out, as occupied, becomes a private
dwelling and so on. They go on, in sub-
section 1, and set out that a private guest
room in a hotel or motel, that is bona fide
and actually occupied as such by the guest
of the hotel or motel, and then they go a
little bit further in 3 and include a trailer,
tent, or vessel that is a bona fide and actually
used by the owner, lessee, tenant as a private
dwelling. Now, why cannot they go one
step further and include occupied private
quarters in a mining camp or in a lumber
camp, under doors which are locked if you
wish, and clearly set out the facts—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would just like to get
the record clear.
Mr. Wren: All right, I can see the hon.
Attorney-General does not want to do this—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: No, we do not want to
do it.
We would not want it like the Yukon, we
would not want the town open wide-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, no. Now, do not—
Mr. Wren: Well, I can point out hotels
right in this city of Toronto that are wide
open—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: How did the hon. mem-
ber ever find them?
Mr. Wren: Well, let the hon. Provincial
Secretary just take out his cheque book and
come out with me tonight, and I will show
him—
Hon. Mr. Dunbar: Oh, I do not look for
that kind of stuff.
Mr. Wren: It is far more disgraceful than
he will find even in lumber camps.
An. hon. member: Why does the hon.
member not report it?
Mr. Wren: What would be the good of
reporting it?
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 161 reported.
CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND
House in committee on Bill No. 165, An
Act to authorize the raising of money under
the credit of the consolidated revenue fund.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 165 reported.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT, 1957
House in committee on Bill No. 167, An
Act to amend The Ontario Water Resources
Commission Act, 1957.
Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 167 reported.
THE PUBLIC HOSPITALS ACT, 1957
House in committee on Bill No. 168, An
Act to amend The Public Hospitals Act, 1957.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 168 reported.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES COMMISSION
ACT, 1957
House in committee on Bill No. 169, An
Act to amend The Hospital Services Commis-
sion Act, 1957.
Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 169 reported.
THE TRENCH EXCAVATORS
PROTECTION ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 170, An
Act to amend The Trench Excavators Pro-
tection Act, 1954.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 170 reported.
TOLLS ON CERTAIN BRIDGES
House in committee on Bill No. 175, An
Act to provide for the charging of tolls on
certain bridges.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 175 reported.
GENERAL WELFARE ASSISTANCE TO
PERSONS
House in committee on Bill No. 176, An
Act to provide general welfare assistance to
persons.
Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 176 reported.
MARCH 26, 1958
1365
THE LOAN AND TRUST CORPORA-
TIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 177, An
Act to amend The Loan and Trust Corpora-
tions Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill No. 177 reported.
THE ONTARIO FUEL BOARD ACT, 1954
House in committee on Bill No. 178, An
Act to amend The Ontario Fuel Board Act,
1954.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 178 reported.
THE UPPER CANADA COLLEGE ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 179, An
Act to amend The Upper Canada College
Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 179 reported.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 180, An
Act to amend The Municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto Act, 1953.
Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 180 reported.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 181, An
Act to amend The Ontario Municipal Board
Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 181 reported.
THE PIPE LINES ACT, 1958
House in committee on Bill No. 182, The
Pipe Lines Act, 1958.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Chairman, I move that the words
"including the King's highway" be struck out
of the third and fourth lines of subsection 1,
and out of the fourth line of subsection 3 of
the bill.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I move an amendment
to section 8. I move that the word "along"
in the second line be struck out and the words
"to gain access to" be substituted.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. W. A. Stewart (Middlesex North):
Before section 12 is carried, I would like to
know just what the hon. Minister has to say
about the explanation, about 25 miles in
length, in there. It has been explained, but
I would just like to have it in the record,
and his explanation as to what that means.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, it is
the intention of the department— and naturally
the advice of the fuel board would be con-
sidered—that the hon. Minister will give
recommendations to the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is be-
cause there will be times when emergencies
might arise, when it would be impossible
for the companies to abide by the require-
ments of the Act. We can foresee a situation
arising where an emergency has to be handled
because of the necessity to add an additional
supply of gas, of natural gas, to an area
using gas. I would assure the hon. members
that they can feel quite certain that this
authority will be used very sparingly.
I might further qualify the section of the
bill by saying that this section is the same
as the federal Act in that respect.
Sections 12 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 182 reported.
THE TRAVELLING SHOWS ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 183, An
Act to repeal The Travelling Shows Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 183 reported.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX
ACT, 1956
House in committee on Bill No. 185, An
Act to amend The Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
Act, 1956.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 185 reported.
1366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move
the committee of the whole do rise and report
certain bills with, and certain bills without,
amendments and two resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of the
whole begs to report two resolutions and
certain bills with amendments, and certain
bills without amendments, and begs leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 184, "An Act to amend The
Housing Development Act."
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move, seconded by
hon. Mr. Dunbar, that notwithstanding the
previous order, when this House adjourns
the present sitting thereof it stands adjourned
until 10.30 of the clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, the business
for tomorrow is on the order papers. I move
the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.10 of the
clock, p.m.
'
No. 50
ONTARIO
^Legislature of Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT— DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fifth Legislature
Thursday, March 27, 1958
Speaker: Honourable The Rev. A. W. Downer
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1958
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 27, 1958
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953, bill to amend, reported 1370
Housing Development Act, bill to amend, reported 1370
Final third readings 1370
Estimates, Provincial Secretary's Department, continued 1372
Granting certain sums of money to Her Majesty for public service,
first, second, third readings, Mr. Frost 1372
Prorogation speech, the Lieutenant-Governor 1376
Prorogation 1378
1369
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
10.30 o'clock p.m.
The House having met.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
Hon. W. K. Warrender (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Before the orders of the day,
I have a little statement that I should like
to make concerning two areas in this prov-
ince, namely London and Sudbury. We feel
they should have special study given to them
in order to help them solve their municipal
problems.
Pardon me, I have been running, I am a
little out of breath.
As a result of the rapid expansion of rapid
population in a number of areas in the
province, inter-municipal problems have de-
veloped which may now be best solved by
the traditional expedient of annexation or
amalgamation. Two of these areas, which
have recently come forcibly to the attention
of the government, are the London area and
the Sudbury area.
I should go in, perhaps, for this kind of
thing, to provide a means whereby these area
problems may be studied by an impartial
party and the best solution arrived at. Legis-
lation has been introduced at this session to
authorize the municipal board on the request
of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to
inquire into and report on the establishment
organization, re-organization and method of
operation of any two or more municipalities
in any designated area.
This, it should be noted, is quite a different
approach from that where the board deals
with a very specific application of a munici-
pality.
Legislation has also been introduced to
make available to the board any expert assist-
ance the board may desire, through the pro-
vision of the appointment, as acting members
of the board, of persons who, in the opinion
Thursday, March 27, 1958
of the chairman, are specially qualified to
assist the board and are recommended by
him.
It is proposed he designate forthwith, as
areas for such special study by the board,
the London area and the Sudbury area. The
government anticipates that, as a result of the
studies of the problem in these cases on an
area basis, the best result will be obtained
in the interest of all concerned.
It is also expected that the experience
gained in these two cases will commend the
expansion of such studies to other areas which
have inter-municipal growth problems.
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
should like to make a third reference to our
very distinguished press gallery. I may say as
I have said before, sir, that I think we have
the finest press gallery in Canada. I am able
to say that I am an honorary member now,
but I am always very glad to boast of the
prowess and accomplishments of our press
gallery.
I have already referred to members who
have received distinguished honours. Today,
I want to refer to Mr. Bob Hanley who is,
by the way, the vice-president of the press
gallery this year, who has received the west-
ern Ontario award for the best sports story
in 1957.
Now that, sir, arises from a human interest
story centred on the fact that for two days
he lived, as it were, in the dressing rooms of
the great team from the city of Hamilton,
the Tiger Cats— the two days before their
great football battle of last fall.
The fact that Mr. Hanley was able to live
for two days in that atmosphere, very greatly
assisted him in living for the last 8 weeks in
the atmosphere that he has lived in here.
I understand, sir, that he is to receive
another award next month, arising out of
this. The Dow Award will be given by the
Kitchener- Waterloo press club. I am sure we
congratulate him and we congratulate our
own press gallery.
Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now
leave the chair, and the House resolve itself
into the committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
the whole.
1370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLI-
TAN TORONTO ACT, 1953
House in committee on Bill No. 174, An
Act to amend The Municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto Act, 1953.
Sections 1 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 174 reported.
THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACT
House in committee on Bill No. 184, An
Act to amend The Housing Development
Act.
On section 1:
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): May I ask the hon. Minister if he has
had any request for the powers conferred in
this bill from any municipality?
Hon. W. M. Nickle (Minister of Planning
and Development): Yes, the application came
in connection with this Act mainly from
the metropolitan council of Toronto, who
were desirous of having the metropolitan
authority vested with sufficient rights to
investigate low rental housing areas in the
metropolitan area.
It is from them this application comes,
but the result of this Act will apply across
the board.
Mr. Oliver: What would the scope of the
investigation of the hon. Minister's depart-
ment be in this matter?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: Well, supposing the
metropolitan council in their wisdom decide
that they would like, in some part of the
municipality, to establish a low rental housing
area. Any corporation, say Scarborough,
Toronto, or Etobicoke, could apply to the
metropolitan council to have the area inves-
tigated to establish a low rental housing area.
At the present time they have not such auth-
ority and they want it.
The metropolitan housing area collects cer-
tain rents from certain housing projects, but
the demands are getting greater in relation
to low rental houses, as my hon. friend
knows, and just where these areas should be
established, the construction of the building,
the rent to be charged are open questions,
and they want the authority to set up a com-
mittee to make this report to the metropolitan
council so they can formulate their own pro-
gramme. At the moment there is no such
authority.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): May
I ask the hon. Minister how he reconciles
this statement, that the demand for low
rental housing is getting greater, with the
statement of a number of hon. members— in-
cluding, I think, the hon. Prime Minister-
that they now believe that the older homes
are becoming available, and replacing the
need for low rental housing as people move
out into new homes?
Hon. Mr. Frost: That is right; that is not
inconsistent.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not?
Hon. Mr. Nickle: No.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill No. 184 reported.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move the committee do
rise and report two bills without amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report two
bills without amendment.
Report agreed to.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motions:
Bill No. 29, An Act respecting the estate
of Melville Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen
Isobel Drope trust, and the Charlotte Ross
Grant trust.
Bill No. 61, An Act to amend The Mort-
gages Act.
Bill No. 65, An Act to amend The Land
Titles Act.
Bill No. 110, An Act to amend The Power
Commission Act.
Bill No. Ill, An Act to amend The Ad-
ministration of Justice Expenses Act.
Bill No. 114, The Libel and Slander Act,
1958.
Bill No. 124, An Act to amend The Mining
Act.
Bill No. 125, An Act to amend The Milk
Industry Act, 1957.
Bill No. 126, An Act to amend The Farm
Products Marketing Act.
Bill No. 127, An Act to regulate the stor-
age of farm produce in grain elevators.
Bill No. 128, An Act to amend The High-
way Traffic Act.
MARCH 27, 1958
1371
Bill No. 130, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Act.
Bill No. 131, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs Act.
Bill No. 134, An Act to amend The Real
Estate and Business Brokers Act.
Bill No. 137, An Act to repeal The Lost
Stamps Act.
Bill No. 139, An Act to amend The Succes-
sion Duty Act.
Bill No. 141, An Act to amend The Lake of
the Woods Control Board Act, 1922.
Bill No. 142, An Act to amend The Assess-
ment Act.
Bill No. 143, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipal Act.
Bill No. 144, The Manitoba-Ontario Lake
St. Joseph Diversion Agreement Authoriza-
tion Act, 1958.
Bill No. 145, An Act to amend The Univer-
sity of Toronto Act, 1947.
Bill No. 146, The Veterinarians Act,
1958.
Bill No. 147, An Act to amend The Charit-
able Institutions Act, 1956.
Bill No. 148, An Act to provide for the
services of homemakers and nurses.
Bill No. 149, An Act to amend The Public
Commercial Vehicles Act.
Bill No. 150, An Act to amend The Public
Vehicles Act.
Bill No. 151, An Act to amend The Ontario
Highway Transport Board Act, 1955.
Bill No. 152, An Act to provide for the
control of air pollution.
Bill No. 153, An Act to amend The
Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act.
Bill No. 154, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Education Act, 1954.
Bill No. 157, An Act to amend The Female
Refuges Act, 1958.
Bill No. 159, An Act to amend The Vital
Statistics Act.
Bill No. 162, An Act to amend The Cor-
porations Act, 1953.
Bill No. 163, An Act to amend The
Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act.
Bill No. 164, An Act to amend The Finan-
cial Administration Act, 1954.
Bill No. 166, An Act to amend The Homes
for the Aged Act, 1955.
Bill No. 171, An Act to amend The
Rehabilitation Services Act, 1953.
Bill No. 172, An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act.
Bill No. 173, An Act to amend The Sum-
mary Convictions Act.
Bill No. 42, An Act respecting the town
of Eastview.
Bill No. 129, An Act to amend The Public-
Service Act.
Bill No. 135, An Act to amsnd The Regis-
try Act.
Bill No. 155, An Act to establish the
Ontario anti-discrimination commission.
Bill No. 156, An Act to amend The County
Judges Act.
Bill No. 158, An Act to amend The Public
Service Act.
Bill No. 160, An Act to provide for the
extension of the municipal franchise.
Bill No. 161, An Act to amend The Liquor
Control Act.
Bill No. 165, An Act to authorize the rais-
ing of money on the credit of the consoli-
dated revenue fund.
Bill No. 167, An Act to amend The
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act,
1957.
Bill No. 168, An Act to amend The Public
Hospitals Act, 1957.
Bill No. 169, An Act to amend The Hos-
pital Services Commission Act, 1957.
Bill No. 170, An Act to amend The Trench
Excavators Protection Act, 1954.
Bill No. 175, An Act to provide for the
charging of tolls on certain bridges.
Bill No. 176, An Act to provide general
welfare assistance to persons.
Bill No. 177, An Act to amend The Loan
and Trust Corporations Act.
Bill No. 178, An Act to amend The Ontario
Fuel Board Act, 1954.
Bill No. 179, An Act to amend The Upper
Canada College Act.
Bill No. 180, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953.
Bill No. 181, An Act to amend The Ontario
Municipal Board Act.
Bill No. 182, The Pipe Lines Act, 1958.
Bill No. 183, An Act to repeal The Travel-
ling Shows Act.
Bill No. 185, An Act to amend The Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, 1956.
Bill No. 174, An Act to amend The Muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953.
Bill No. 184, An Act to^amend The Hous-
ing Development Act.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bills do now
pass and be intituled as in the motions.
1372
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Frost moves that the Speaker do
now leave the chair, and the House resolve
itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to; House in committee of
supply.
ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARY'S
DEPARTMENT
(Continued)
Vote 1,608 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Frost: I move the committee do
rise and report certain resolutions.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of supply
begs to report the committee has risen and
begs to report a certain resolution.
Report agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. H. M. Allen (Middlesex
South) in the committee of supply, reports
the following resolution:
Resolved in supply that the following
supplementary amounts, to defray the
expenses of government departments
named, be granted to Her Majesty for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1958:
Hon. L. M. Frost (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, as has been customary, these resolu-
tions are all printed, and are on the hon.
members' desks. It has been the custom for
some years past to dispense with the reading
of them, and if the House would concur I
think we might do that this year, because
these resolutions have all been passed in com-
mittee and are, as I say, on every hon. mem-
ber's desk.
We might have the second part read.
Clerk of the House:
Resolved that supply in the following
amounts, and to defray the expenses of the
government departments named, be granted
to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1959:
Hon. Mr. Frost: I make the same comment,
sir, and suggest we dispense with the reading
of it.
I move that you do now leave the chair
and that the House resolve itself into the
committee on ways and means.
Motion agreed to; House in committee on
ways and means.
Clerk of the House:
Resolved that there be granted out of
the consolidated revenue fund of this
province a sum not exceeding $798,542,500
to meet the supply to that extent granted
to Her Majesty.
Resolution concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Frost: Mr. Chairman, I move the
committee do rise and report that it has come
to a certain resolution.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee on ways and
means begs to report it has come to a certain
resolution.
Report agreed to.
ACT GRANTING
CERTAIN SUMS OF MONEY
Hon. Mr. Frost moves first reading of
bill intituled, "An Act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service for the fiscal years ending March 31,
1958, and March 31, 1959."
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves second reading of
the bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Frost moves third reading of the
bill.
Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Resolved that the bill do now
pass and be intituled as in the motion.
Hon. Mr Frost: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
advise you and the House that the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor (Mr. Mackay)
awaits to give assent to certain bills and to
prorogue the session of the Legislature.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
entered the chamber of the legislative assem-
bly and took his seat upon the Throne.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province has,
at its present sittings thereof, passed several
bills to which, in the name and on behalf of
the said legislative assembly, I respectfully
request Your Honour's assent.
MARCH 27, 1958
1373
The Clerk Assistant: The following are the
titles of the bills to which Your Honour's
assent is prayed:
An Act respecting Windsor Jewish com-
munal projects.
An Act respecting the separate school
board of the town of Lindsay.
An Act respecting St. Peter's Church,
Brockville.
An Act respecting Huron college.
An Act respecting the Stratford Shakes-
pearean festival foundation of Canada.
An Act respecting the township of Gran-
tham.
An Act respecting the city of Waterloo.
An Act respecting the township of London.
An Act respecting the city of Chatham.
An Act to incorporate Sudbury Young
Women's Christian Association.
An Act respecting the village of Port
Perry.
An Act respecting the Royal Victoria hos-
pital of Barrie.
An Act respecting the village of West
Lome.
An Act respecting the township of Chin-
guacousy.
An Act respecting Canadian Pacific Rail-
way Company.
An Act respecting Waterloo College associ-
ate faculties.
An Act respecting Queen's University at
Kingston.
An Act respecting the town of Thorold.
An Act respecting the city of London.
An Act respecting The Ontario dietetic
association.
An Act respecting the township of Teck.
An Act respecting the city of Windsor.
An Act respecting the Lakeshore district
board of education.
An Act respecting the board of education
for the township of North York.
An Act respecting St. Michael's College.
An Act respecting the city of Toronto.
An Act respecting the Canadian National
Exhibition Association.
An Act to incorporate the chartered instit-
ute of secretaries of joint stock companies and
other public bodies in Ontario.
An Act respecting the estate of Melville
Ross Gooderham, the Kathleen Isabel Drope
trust and the Charlotte Ross Grant trust.
An Act to incorporate the society of direc-
tors of municipal recreation of Ontario.
An Act respecting the city of Belleville.
An Act respecting the board of education
for the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
An Act respecting the corporation of the
synod of Toronto and Kingston of the Pres-
byterian Church in Canada.
An Act respecting the town of Fort Frances.
An Act respecting the township of Sunni-
dale.
An Act respecting the town of Almonte.
An Act respecting the village of Long
Branch.
An Act respecting the city of Ottawa.
An Act respecting the city of Fort William.
An Act respecting the city of Hamilton.
An Act respecting the town of Eastview.
An Act respecting the city of Niagara Falls.
An Act respecting the city of Sault Ste.
Marie.
An Act respecting United Community Fund
of Greater Toronto.
An Act to amend The Schools Administra-
tion Act, 1954.
An Act to amend The Ontario School
Trustees' Council Act, 1953.
An Act to amend The Department of Edu-
cation Act, 1954.
An Act to amend The Anatomy Act.
An Act to repeal The Beaches and River
Beds Act.
An Act to amend The Conditional Sales
Act.
An Act to amend The County Courts Act.
An Act to amend The General Sessions
Act.
An Act to amend The Deserted Wives' and
Children's Maintenance Act.
An Act to amend The Interpretation Act.
An Act to amend The Judicature Act.
An Act to amend The Magistrates Act,
1952.
An Act to amend The County Judges Act.
An Act to amend The Surrogate Courts
Act.
An Act to amend The Mortgages Act.
An Act to amend The Public Trustee Act.
An Act to amend The Summary Convic-
tions Act.
An Act to amend The Mechanics' Lien Act.
An Act to amend The Land Titles Act.
An Act to provide for the certification of
titles of lands.
1374
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An Act respecting the road allowance
between lots 15 and 16 in concession 8 of
the township of Tay.
An Act to amend The Provincial Land Tax
Act.
An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act.
An Act to amend The Corporations Act,
1953.
An Act to amend The Corporations
Information Act, 1953.
An Act to amend The Teachers' Super-
annuation Act.
An Act to amend The Cancer Act, 1957.
An Act to amend The Cemeteries Act.
An Act to amend The Tourist Establish-
ments Act.
An Act to amend The Municipal Uncon-
ditional Grants Act, 1953.
An Act to amend The Statute Labour Act.
An Act to amend The Highway Improve-
ment Act, 1957.
An Act to amend The Secondary Schools
and Boards of Education Act, 1954.
An Act to amend The Public Schools Act.
An Act to amend The Separate Schools
Act.
An Act to amend The Ontario-St. Lawrence
Development Commission Act, 1955.
An Act to repeal The Town Sites Act.
An Act to amend The Public Lands Act.
An Act to amend The Investigation of
Titles Act.
An Act to amend The Insurance Act.
An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act,
1954.
An Act to amend The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act.
An Act to amend The Labour Relations
Act.
An Act to amend The Mining Act.
The Surveys Act, 1958.
An Act to amend The Division Courts
Act.
An Act to amend The Telephone Act, 1954.
An Act to amend The Stallions Act.
An Act to amend The Jails Act.
An Act to amend The Sanatoria for Con-
sumptives Act.
An Act to amend The Disabled Persons'
Allowances Act, 1955.
An Act to amend The Blind Persons' Al-
lowances Act, 1951.
An Act to amend The Old Age Assistance
Act, 1951.
An Act to amend The Mothers' and De-
pendent Children's Allowances Act, 1957.
An Act to amend The Indian Welfare
Services Act, 1955.
An Act to amend The Training Schools Act.
An Act to amend The Public Parks Act.
The Provincial Parks Act, 1958.
An Act to amend The Power Commission
Act.
An Act to amend The Administration of
Justice Expenses Act.
An Act to amend The Sheriffs Act.
An Act to amend The Fire Departments
Act.
The Libel and Slander Act, 1958.
The Private Investigators Act, 1958.
An Act to amend The Judicature Act.
An Act to amend The Game and Fisheries
Act.
An Act to amend The Tile Drainage Act.
An Act to amend The Public Utilities Act.
An Act to amend The Ontario Municipal
Board Act.
An Act to amend The Local Improvement
Act.
An Act to amend The Homes for the Aged
Act, 1955.
An Act to amend The Mining Tax Act.
An Act to amend The Mining Act.
An Act to amend The Milk Industry Act,
1957.
An Act to amend The Farm Products
Marketing Act.
An Act to regulate the storage of farm
produce in grain elevators.
An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act.
An Act to amend The Public Service Act.
An Act to amend The Municipal Act.
An Act to amend The Department of
Municipal Affairs Act.
An Act to amend The Coroners Act.
An Act to amend The Police Act.
An Act to amend The Real Estate and
Business Brokers Act.
An Act to amend The Registry Act.
The Time Act, 1958.
An Act to repeal The Law Stamps Act.
An Act to amend The Corporations Tax
Act, 1957.
An Act to amend The Succession Duty Act.
An Act to amend The Lake of the Woods
Control Board Act, 1922.
An Act to amend The Assessment Act.
MARCH 27, 1958
1375
An Act to amend The Municipal Act.
An Act to authorize the government of
Ontario and the Hydro-Electric Power Com-
mission of Ontario to enter into an agree-
ment with the government of Manitoba and
the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board respect-
ing the diversion of certain waters into the
Winnipeg river and the power generated from
such waters.
An Act to amend The University of Toronto
Act, 1947.
The Veterinarians Act, 1958.
An Act to amend The Charitable Institu-
tions Act, 1956,
An Act to provide for the services of
homemakers and nurses.
An Act to amend The Public Commercial
Vehicles Act.
An Act to amend The Public Vehicles Act.
An Act to amend The Ontario Highway
Transport Board Act, 1955.
An Act to provide for the control of air
pollution.
An Act to amend The Damage by Fumes
Arbitration Act.
An Act to amend The Department of
Education Act, 1954.
An Act to establish the Ontario anti-
discrimination commission.
An Act to amend The County Judges Act.
An Act to amend The Female Refuges
Act.
An Act to amend The Public Service Act.
An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act.
An Act to provide for the extension of the
municipal franchise.
An Act to amend The Liquor Control Act.
An Act to amend The Corporations Act,
1953.
An Act to amend The Embalmers and
Funeral Directors Act.
An Act to amend The Financial Admini-
stration Act, 1954.
An Act to authorize the raising of money
on the credit of the consolidated revenue
fund.
An Act to amend The Homes for the Aged
Act, 1955.
An Act to amend The Ontario Water
Resources Commission Act, 1957.
An Act to amend The Public Hospitals Act,
1957.
An Act to amend The Hospital Services
Commission Act, 1957.
An Act to amend The Trench Excavators
Protection Act, 1954.
An Act to amend The Rehabilitation Ser-
vices Act, 1955.
An Act to amend The Crown Attorneys
Act.
An Act to amend The Summary Convic-
tions Act.
An Act to amend The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953.
An Act to provide for the charging of tolls
on certain bridges.
An Act to provide general welfare assist-
ance to persons.
An Act to amend The Loan and Trust
Corporations Act.
An Act to amend The Ontario Fuel Board
Act, 1954.
An Act to amend The Upper Canada Col-
lege Act.
An Act to amend The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953.
An Act to amend The Ontario Municipal
Board Act.
The Pipe Lines Act, 1958.
An Act to repeal The Travelling Shows
Act.
An Act to amend The Housing Develop-
ment Act.
An Act to amend The Motor Vehicle Fuel
Tax Act, 1956.
To these Acts the Royal assent was an-
nounced by the clerk of the legislative
assembly in the following words:
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's
name, the Honourable the Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor doth assent to these bills.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faith-
ful subjects, the legislative assembly of the
province of Ontario, in session assembled, ap-
proach Your Honour with sentiments of
unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her
Majesty's person and government, and
humbly beg to present for Your Honour's
acceptance a bill intituled, "An Act for grant-
ing to Her Majesty certain sums of money
for the public service for the fiscal years
ending March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959."
To this Act the Royal assent was announced
by the clerk of the legislative assembly in
the following words:
Clerk of the House: The Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majes-
ty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their
benevolence, and assent to this bill in Her
Majesty's name.
1376
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was then pleased to deliver the following
gracious speech:
Hon. J. K. Mackay (Lieutenant-Governor):
Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the legis-
lative assembly:
Before proroguing this fourth session of
the twenty-fifth Parliament, I wish to com-
mend you for the thoughtful consideration
and unfailing attention you have given to
the affairs of this province. Rapid growth
and social and economic change have imposed
upon you heavy responsibilities.
During the session now closing, you have
studied and passed more than 180 bills, and
approved a many-sided programme to pro-
mote the economic and social well-being of
our people.
Although many matters have commanded
your attention, 10 stand out as being of
paramount importance.
First, you have adopted a well-conceived
and soundly-planned programme of capital
projects and works which will add to the
productive assets of our people and sustain
and create employment and income.
The magnitude of this programme is un-
precedented. It is estimated that in the
coming fiscal year, the province, together
with the municipalities and the various com-
missions and agencies, will spend on the con-
struction of new assets, and the repair of
existing facilities, a total of $955 million.
This expenditure will provide employment
for 235,000 on-site and off-site workers.
Second, you have authorized a record-
breaking increase in provincial assistance to
the municipalities and other local agencies.
You have provided more money, not only
for schools but for hospitals and roads, and
you have increased the appropriation for un-
conditional grants.
You have approved provincial payments to
the municipalities and local agencies totalling
$260 million, an increase of more than $45
million over the appropriation last year. That
is an increase without parallel in the annals
of the province. It will go a long way
towards stabilizing local tax rates and indeed,
in many instances, in effecting rate reductions
that will be translated into immediate benefits
to the local tax payer.
Various other steps have been taken to
improve the municipal position. A compre-
hensive programme of sewer and water works
financed by and carried out under the direc-
tion of the Ontario water resources commis-
sion has been approved. More than 150 muni-
cipalities have availed themselves of the
funds of the Ontario municipal improvement
corporation and this number will be sub-
stantially increased during the next fiscal year.
Legislation has been passed to reinforce
provincial and municipal welfare arrange-
ments. In many instances, the province has
assumed a greater proportion of these costs
and thereby relieved the municipality and
the home owner.
Amendments have been made to The
Assessment Act and a new Act— The Muni-
cipal Franchise Extension Act, 1958— has
been passed empowering municipalities to
extend the right to vote for council mem-
bers to all persons of the full age of 21
years, who are British subjects, and who have
resided in the municipality for at least one
year.
Additional funds have been provided for
mining, logging and community access roads
and for assisting mining municipalities.
Third, you have authorized a greatly
expanded programme of assistance for edu-
cation. The province's grants to local school
boards are being increased by 33 per cent,
and several other improvements are being
made to strengthen the educational fabric
of the province.
Coincidental with the increase in school
grants to $133 million, a new system of dis-
tribution has been adopted, which, being
based on equalized assessment factors, pro-
vides equality of opportunity for education
in all parts of Ontario as never before.
A growth-need factor has been built into
the new grants formula to meet the problems
of rapidly growing residential areas with a
large number of children.
Besides providing elementary and second-
ary school grants, you have authorized pay-
ments of over $23 million to the universities
for maintenance and capital purposes. Good
progress is being made on the construction
of facilities for the Ryerson Institute and for
new teachers' colleges. The bursary system
has been expanded and a new student loan
fund introduced.
In addition to the normal contribution of
$10.5 million that the province now makes
for teachers' superannuation, you have again
provided for a special payment into this fund
of $1 million. To implement these various
educational policies, you have authorized
appropriations totalling $177 million, an
increase in this one year alone of ovsr 26
per cent.
Fourth, a series ol measures that will con-
tribute materially to Ontario's health and
welfare services has been adopted.
MARCH 27, 1958
1377
Foremost among these is hospital insur-
ance. The first agreement between any prov-
ince and the federal government was signed
by Ontario last March 3. This agreement has
now become a model for the agreements
with the other provinces.
In conformity with this agreement and The
Federal Act, amendments have been made
to The Hospital Services Commission Act of
Ontario, enabling hospital insurance to
become a reality in Ontario next January 1.
Another notable advance has been the
province's doubling of its capital grants for
the construction of public general, con-
welfare services has been adopted.
You have approved the adoption of The
Homemakers' and Nurses' Services Act, 1958,
which provides for provincial-municipal shar-
ing of the cost of providing home care and
nursing services under certain conditions.
Other notable improvements have also
been made. The province will share with the
municipalities on an 80-20 basis, up to a
maximum of $100 per month per person, the
cost of maintaining needy persons in nursing
homes. Any municipality with a population
of more than 15,000 may now establish a
home for the aged, while an amendment to
The Charitable Institutions Act provides a
new basis for paying subsidies to institutions
operated as homes for the aged.
The Child Welfare Act has been revised
to strengthen and clarify the adoption process
and the status of the adopted child.
Amendments have also been made to The
Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, The Old
Age Assistance Act and The Mothers' and
Dependent Children's Allowances Act in
order to bring this legislation into line with
current administrative arrangements. Amend-
ments to The Indian Welfare Services Act
broaden the basis of payment of mothers'
allowances to Indian mothers with dependent
children, and enable agreements to be made
with the government of Canada with respect
to welfare assistance to Indians.
Measures have been adopted to improve the
machinery for providing direct relief to unem-
ployed workers, and also for creating certain
types of emergency employment. The prov-
ince has raised its share of direct relief assist-
ance to needy persons from 60 per cent, to
80 per cent., and has thereby reduced the
municipal proportion from 40 per cent, to
20 per cent.
In this way, we are meeting the essential
needs of workers who have either exhausted
their unemployment insurance benefits, or
who are not eligible to receive them.
The province has also introduced an emer-
gency works programme, under which it
undertakes to reimburse municipalities to the
extent of 70 per cent, of their direct labour
costs incurred between February 15 and May
31, 1958, on approved municipal projects or
works undertaken in the municipality. The
programme is designed to furnish employ-
ment to those who are eligible for direct
relief and who are capable of working.
The Air Pollution Control Act has been
passed to provide for the control of air con-
taminants, to facilitate air pollution research,
and to empower municipalities to pass and
enforce air pollution by-laws.
Fifth, plans for carrying out an expanded
resource conservation and development pro-
gramme have received your close attention.
Substantial increases in appropriations have
been made to enlarge the Ontario Agricultural
College and Veterinary College facilities, and
to promote research in agriculture and
forestry.
Amendments have been made to The Farm
Products Marketing Act and to The Milk
Industry Act. Under the latter, the milk
industry board may act as an arbitrator in
disputes. Loans are continuing to be made
under The Junior Farmer Establishment Act.
Sixth, progress has been made with the
federal government on tax-sharing arrange-
ments and other matters. The province's
revenue under its income tax rental agree-
ment has been enhanced by an amendment to
The Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act which—
for the year 1958— has increased the prov-
ince's share of the personal income tax field
from 10 per cent, to 13 per cent, of the
federal tax.
An agreement has been signed under which
the federal government contributes 50 per
cent, of the cost of direct relief. In connec-
tion with hospital insurance, the federal gov-
ernment has undertaken to remove the
restriction that would prevent it from con-
tributing until 6 provinces, having a majority
of the Canadian population, had plans in
operation.
Seventh, steps have been taken to deter
discrimination and fortify individual free-
dom. The Ontario Anti-Discrimination Com-
mission Act, 1958, establishes a commission
to secure the eliminaton of discriminatory
practices under the authority of the following
Acts: The Fair Employment Practices Act,
The Female Employees' Fair Remuneration
Act, and The Fair Accommodation Practices
Act.
Eighth, despite the huge capital works
programme upon which we have been en-
1378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
gaged, there are no new taxes or increases
in taxes. Indeed, we have reduced the diesel
fuel tax by 1.5 cents a gallon. Furthermore,
an amendment to The Corporations Tax Act,
passed at this session, allows an allocation of
corporation profits among provinces that
avoids the taxation of corporation profits by
one province that are taxable by another
province. It also brings the Ontario Act into
closer relationships with the provisions of
the federal Income Tax Act.
Ninth, two measures which will promote
the more efficient utilization and recruitment
of civil service personnel have been adopted.
Under one amendment to The Public Service
Act, pension rights may be vested and annui-
ties established for employees who have 10
or more years' service and contributions to the
public service superannuation fund. Another
amendment enables superannuated civil serv-
ants to be appointed in special capacities
without interfering with their pensions or
requiring them to make additional contribu-
tions to the superannuation fund.
Tenth, fewer services will have more
enduring benefits than the expansion of the
provincial parks system. At present the prov-
ince is seeking the acquisition of an additional
20 parks. To. implement this policy and also
to bring into reality the St. Lawrence parks
system from the Bay of Quinte to the Ontario-
Quebec boundary, nearly $6 million is being
provided for the year 1958-1959. Many other
Acts have been passed covering a variety of
subjects dealing with the welfare of our
people and the progress of our province.
To the various standing and select com-
mittees of the House, I wish to extend sincere
thanks for their conscientious devotion to the
requirements of this province. I wish to
thank the hon. members, too, for the financial
provisions that they have made. Despite the
heavy demands that are created by education
and many other provincial and municipal
services, the financial position of the province
is strong.
However, it can be kept that way only by
a most careful husbanding of our financial
resources.
Looking into the future, the economic out-
look is not trouble-free, yet it is one in which
we have confidence. With our growing
population, modern industry and our favour-
able resource-population ratio, our long-term
future cannot be other than bright.
The volume of construction in Ontario is
higher this year than even that of a year
ago, while overall capital investment inten-
tions approximate last year's exceedingly high
level. The province has taken steps to bolster
employment through public works. Credit
has been eased both in Canada and abroad,
and interest rates have been reduced. We
have before us opportunities unexcelled in
all our history.
Gratitude is expressed to the public ser-
vants of Ontario for the faithful discharge of
their duties and responsibilities.
I pray that Divine Providence may guide
and bless you, and promote the well-being of
this province and nation.
Hon. G. H. Dunbar (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the legis-
lative assembly: It is the will and pleasure
of the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
that this legislative assembly be prorogued,
and this legislative assembly is accordingly
prorogued.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was pleased to retire from the chamber.
The House prorogued at 12.16 of the clock,
p.m.
JOURNALS AND PROCEDURAL RESEARCH BRANCH
DIRECTION DES JOURNAUXETDESRBCBEE£3BDBSENPKDa2DnEB
ROOM 1640, WHITNEY BLOCK
QUEEN'S PARK, TORONTO, ON M7A 1A2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11